Thoughts on going to the NO
#91
(07-06-2009, 11:23 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 11:55 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(07-02-2009, 01:04 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I apologize if this sounds rude. Having read it over, I see how it could appear that way; but I assure you that is not my intention. Regarless, I think the point is made clear…

(06-14-2009, 05:23 PM)lumine Wrote: My thoughts on going to the Novus Ordo:
I like hearing the whole Mass in my native tongue.
I like hearing the whole Mass in the universal language of the Church.

Etc.

A lot of these things aren't really TLM vs. NOM issues, although they might seem that way....

For example:

-Latin is technically the normative language of the NO Mass, even if it isn't used 99.99% of the time. The Council of course called for the faithful to be instructed in the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin.

-Ad Orientem is "to the east", not "facing away from the congregation", or even "facing the tabernacle". Hence, even in pre-VII times, a priest wouldn't necessarily be facing away from the congregation if the church was built westward, a la St. Peter's Basilica. Technically, ad Orientem isn't related to the tabernacle because the rubrics of the old Mass do not require a tabernacle to be there in the sanctuary (although this was customary). It's my understanding that in cathedral churches before the Council, the tabernacle was usually located in its own shrine, apart from the high altar.

-It doesn't really matter whether one prefers receiving Christ via the species of bread or of wine, or both. Some NO Masses do not offer the Chalice. A TLM priest will most likely offer the Chalice to someone who's allergic to wheat, and it's possible that the Chalice will be offered generally in Communion in the context of the old rite once again, at some point in the future.

-Many TLM's have full congregational singing of the Ordinary, the responses to the priest, and hymns before or after Mass. This isn't a TLM vs. NO issue. I'm in a Gregorian schola, but I also like congregational singing. All of the Ordinary texts (Kyrie, Gloria, etc.) developed originally as hymns that all the faithful knew how to sing by heart, across the entire Church. The reason why the celebrant is directed to intone the Gloria and Credo is to encourage all the faithful to join in after him.

In fact, from a strictly liturgically correct perspective, it could be argued that the (lay) choir's primary function is to lead the congregation in singing the Ordinary. The choir of Levites, however (such as a schola in cassock and surplice) exists to sing the Propers. They are basically just like altar servers, but their role is to sing appointed chants rather than carry candles or books.

-There are occasionally lessons from the Old Testament in the old Missal, like on ember days, I believe. The Liber Usualis has instructions on the reciting tones for them. They are remnants of a time when it was standard to have two readings prior to the Gospel. Again, not something exclusive to the NO, and it is something which could be restored to the old Mass in the future.

-The most outstanding remnant of the Prayers of the Faithful in the old Mass is the Great Intercessions of Good Friday. It is kind of a mystery as to why they've disappeared outside of it. In the TLM, after the Credo, the priest faces the people and sings "Dominus vobiscum", but nothing follows. This is where the Intercessions used to be. I'm not sure exactly when it was removed.

-I like the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, too. I thought that after the NO was instituted, priests and their subordinate ministers were still supposed to pray them, but in the sacristy as opposed to in the sanctuary. This was how they were customarily prayed in most churches throughout Christendom prior to Pius V placing them at the foot of the altar in 1570. There were also other prayers that they were accustomed to praying.

-If I was pope, I'd probably restore the medieval practice of everyone kissing the pax board for the Sign of Peace. But as I said, it's not about what we like, one way or the other. It's about what the Church has appointed, of course.... in accordance with the spirit of tradition.

(07-06-2009, 10:19 AM)moneil Wrote: An excellent post HK (+1),

While the Eucharistic Sacrifice is an immemorial tradition of the Church (of which the Ordinary Form or Pauline Mass, the 1962 rubrics of John XIII, the Pius XII revisions in 1955, changes by Benedict XV in 1920, St. Pius X in 1911, Leo XIII in 1884, Urban VIII in 1634, Clement VIII in 1592, the consolodated uniform Mass of the Latin Rite issued by St. Pius V in 1570, following the Council of Trent, the various liturgies that existed before Trent, and Divine Liturgies offered by the Orthodox, when properly celebrated, are all valid Eucharistic Sacrifices), to say, as many seem to impute, that the bland, mumbled through Low Mass of the 50's and early 60's was THE "Immemorial Mass of Tradition" that we need to get back to, simply defies historical fact.

Being an exclusive attender of the Ordinary Form (if I had the option I most likely would attend an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, or an "Angican Use" liturgy such as HK's parish) I find the OF Mass generally bland and uninspiring.  That was also my opnion of the standard Low Mass I grew up with in the 50's and early 60's, and the two TLM's I have attended since the Missal of Paul VI was introduced, did not change that opnion.

We were promised a genuine liturgical renewal following the Council, and didn't get it, sadly.  I have a great trust that, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, our parishes, while they are indeed offering true and valid Eucharistic Sacrifices today, will someday also offer God, and His people, a truly beautiful and inspiring Liturgy, as it was done in day of old, with full participation of the congregation, sung, with incense, and all the appropriate ancient traditions of the Church (and that the Low Mass will be relegated back to what it was intended for - a priest's private Mass without congregation, until it was "abused" into general use over time, just as female altar servers and extraordinary Eucharistic ministers were abused into general use).

Well, I'm not disputing any of those points, so I think that I must have made the purpose of my post unclear.  The post to which I responded was founded upon personal preferences; I merely stated mine. My response wasn't meant to prove that one is "better" than the other; it was simply that aesthetics do not make a Mass valid or invalid, licit or illicit, and good or bad.

These unprovoked and defensive relies seem to be a common denominator among Catholic apologists and are a misinterpretation of the purpose of the post. Please, I mean this is the most charitable way possible, but I am not sure why you feel the need to defend the NOM when it is not under attack. I responded with "I like" as was the language of the post to which I responded. All I was saying is that this goes both ways: I could say the same for the TLM.

I'm not defending the NO, because it is the Mass and needs no defense, just as the TLM is the Mass and needs no defense.  You are right, Inpefess, I expressed my thoughts on going to the NO as the title of the thread suggests.  Thanks for your answer and your preferences.

Thanks to the Harlequin King and Moneil as well for your posts.
Reply
#92
(07-07-2009, 11:58 PM)nsper7 Wrote: I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree here. If there is a valid and licit TLM or NO Mass within reasonable distance, one is required to attend as per the Sunday obligation. Failure to attend without a valid reason is a grave matter and, thus, if done with full intent and knowledge is a MORTAL SIN. I believe the Church is quite clear that one is free to attend a TLM, NO or other valid/licit Rite (i.e. Eastern Rite, Anglican Use Rite, etc.) as they so desire and choose, but if their Rite of choice is not available, it does not free, I believe, them from their Sunday obligation. Correct me if I am wrong.

If there is no TLM available, then attend an NO Mass or whatever valid/licit Rite is available. Is it really worth staking your eternal Salvation because you prefer TLM over NO?
 
nsper7, I do understand what you are saying and yes, we all must fulfill our Sunday obligation as long as there is a Mass to attend.

I could go into a long detailed account of why I will not attend the NO, suffice to say that struggle to keep the faith during the revolution within the Church that immediately followed V2 has never ended and shows no signs of ending, so I will read my own Sunday Missal rather than attend the NO to fulfill my Sunday obligation when I cannot attend a TLM.

Quote:My understanding is that the Church views the SSPX services as being of questionable legality. One can be certain that if they attend a Church TLM or NO Mass, then it is both valid and licit. If they attend an SSPX Mass, it is questionable. Is it worth disobedience to the Church and, in terms of the Sunday obligation, one's eternal Salvation?

When it comes to valid / licit, consider what has happened to the Church. For a long time after the revolution, not only were you unsure if the bread and wine (pizza and juice?) was actually consecrated, you also couldn't depend that the NO priest was really a priest  thanks to the new ways and abuses that everything was/is(?) done. Even Pope JP2 addressed some of these abuses in one of his encyclicals (can't remember which one)
Nothing has changed for the better since the revolution so to question the validity of the NO is business as usual.
I'll risk disobedience and be sure I do what I can to keep the Roman Catholic faith that my parents handed down to me by staying away from the NO.

Quote:Not sure what you're getting at. At any valid/licit Church NO or TLM Mass, one receives Our Blessed Lord and, if you so choose, you can receive Him on the tongue (this is the way I receive the Host and I attend an NO Mass). Since an SSPX Mass is technically valid, you do receive Our Blessed Lord, but by disobeying the Church and possibly breaking the Sunday obligation, will you be receiving Him worthily? It's up to your conscience and, in the end, you don't have to answer to me, anyone else here or even the Pope himself on this issue, but we are all judged by Our Lord in the end.

In a nutshell, the entire Church was shook to it's foundation in the revolution. I witnessed much of it as it was happening and aside from our Holy Father B16 being our Pope, I have not seen any improvement, but I have seen it get worse.

You consider both the TLM and NO to be valid. I consider the TLM to be valid and I question the validity of the NO - including the priests ordained in it.


Reply
#93
(07-07-2009, 11:58 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
Stubborn Wrote:Thoughts on going to the NO?

Don't do it.

Being raised with the TLM, I've probably only been to the NO maybe 10 times in my whole life........the last time I went was about 10 years ago for a funeral service, after which the deceased was cremated.

Those times when there was no TLM available, we read our missal, took our spiritual communion and kept the faith.

I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree here. If there is a valid and licit TLM or NO Mass within reasonable distance, one is required to attend as per the Sunday obligation. Failure to attend without a valid reason is a grave matter and, thus, if done with full intent and knowledge is a MORTAL SIN. I believe the Church is quite clear that one is free to attend a TLM, NO or other valid/licit Rite (i.e. Eastern Rite, Anglican Use Rite, etc.) as they so desire and choose, but if their Rite of choice is not available, it does not free, I believe, them from their Sunday obligation. Correct me if I am wrong.

If there is no TLM available, then attend an NO Mass or whatever valid/licit Rite is available. Is it really worth staking your eternal Salvation because you prefer TLM over NO?

Quote:Licit? Approved? Depends who you ask.

My understanding is that the Church views the SSPX services as being of questionable legality. One can be certain that if they attend a Church TLM or NO Mass, then it is both valid and licit. If they attend an SSPX Mass, it is questionable. Is it worth disobedience to the Church and, in terms of the Sunday obligation, one's eternal Salvation?

Quote:Was it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and could you receive Our Blessed Lord on your tongue?  Yes.

Not sure what you're getting at. At any valid/licit Church NO or TLM Mass, one receives Our Blessed Lord and, if you so choose, you can receive Him on the tongue (this is the way I receive the Host and I attend an NO Mass). Since an SSPX Mass is technically valid, you do receive Our Blessed Lord, but by disobeying the Church and possibly breaking the Sunday obligation, will you be receiving Him worthily? It's up to your conscience and, in the end, you don't have to answer to me, anyone else here or even the Pope himself on this issue, but we are all judged by Our Lord in the end.

For me, it is not worth staking my eternal Salvation over by getting involved in things the Church says are of questionable legality and may break a key Catholic obligation: attending Mass ever Sunday unless one has a valid--according to the Church--reason.

Did the people demand this change? Not at all! At Vatican II, German-born Bishop William Duschak called for what he termed an “ecumenical Mass” emphasizing the Supper. When he was asked whether his people had requested such a new liturgy, Bishop Duschak candidly replied: “No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it.”

The modern churches speak of eucharist, true – but they do not mean the same thing. For them, eucharist is not the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, but rather a celebration of Jesus’ spiritual “real presence” in the community, or gathering of people. That is why they clap, sing, shake hands, dance, and make good “fellowship”. THAT to them is all eucharist. They are celebrating Christ in each other.

Many modernized Catholics are quite content with this new meaning of eucharist. Still others are unhappy that the idea of eucharist has been changed since Vatican II, but they say that the change is an abuse and not the intention of those who produced the new Mass. But is the change in the meaning of eucharist really just an abuse, or is it the whole point of the new liturgy? Where does the new Mass place the emphasis: on the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament OR on the spiritual presence of Christ in the so-called “people of God”?

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass? “The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’
(1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7)

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse – it is the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.” After much criticism, this definition was later extended to include a propitiatory nature, but the original statement did NOT make any reference to the true nature of the Sacrifice and the Real Presence. What then was the intention of the new liturgy?

While the new liturgy presents itself as a mere memorial service, the traditional Mass is clearly a sacrifice – in fact, THE sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. But what kind of sacrifice was that? The traditional Mass – like the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary – says it is offered in reparation for sin. But the new Mass calls itself only a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It recalls that Jesus once died for our sins, but the four modern Eucharistic Prayers never state that the new Mass is itself offered in reparation for sin. How then can it be the same sacrifice as Calvary?

In the traditional Mass, the very Body and Blood of Christ are offered in sacrifice. From the Ottaviani Intervention: “The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between God and man: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the bread of life; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a spiritual drink. …Here, bread and wine are only spiritually, not substantially, changed.”

The denial that the Mass was a sacrifice offered in reparation for sin was a tragic error of the heretics over four hundred years ago. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy at the great Council of Trent, which decreed: “If anyone should say that the Mass is just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory…anathema sit.”

About the time the new liturgy was published (1969), men who had been influential experts at Vatican II were busy publishing a series of books on the changes that were to take place in the Church. The series was appropriately entitled “Concilium” (The Council). Its volume on the liturgical reform featured an article by a Benedictine, Kilian McDonnell, entitled “Calvin’s Conception of the Liturgy and the Future of the Roman Catholic Liturgy”. After criticizing the ancient Latin liturgy of the Church and praising the liturgical inventions of the heretic John Calvin, the Benedictine priest makes this bold prediction about the Catholic Liturgy of the future: “The norm for the future within Catholicism will be the norm Calvin enunciated: freedom within form.” In other words, the future Catholic liturgy is being patterned after John Calvin’s ideas – the same Calvin who taught that the Holy Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ’s spiritual presence in the congregation.

Again, in the Intervention of 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani predicted with lamentable accuracy that “the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.”

God will always give His faithful a way to overcome any spiritual crisis, and today is no exception. Pope St. Pius V, in his decree QUO PRIMUM ordering the traditional Mass of Rome, said that his command would be in force in perpetuum – forever – and that if anyone should dare to contradict it, that person would “incur the wrath of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul.”

May God bless you...
Reply
#94
(07-08-2009, 10:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: In the traditional Mass, the very Body and Blood of Christ are offered in sacrifice.

That is true for the TLM and the NO, as the Catholic Church professes.


Reply
#95
(07-08-2009, 11:30 AM)lumine Wrote:
(07-08-2009, 10:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: In the traditional Mass, the very Body and Blood of Christ are offered in sacrifice.

That is true for the TLM and the NO, as the Catholic Church professes.

Yes, but that is referring to the way the nature of the new Mass is understood by its own promulgation - in the original, there was no mention of the Sacrifice. Mention of the Sacrifice has since been added, but still omits its propitiatory nature. Regardless, it does not negate the information in the post.
Reply
#96
Further thoughts. I don't like the NO. Whilst, as an obedient Catholic, I admit its validity, I find it devoid of Catholic catechesis, devoid of majesty and devoid of beauty. However, that said, since we have the EF here in Edmonton only on Saturday and Sunday and sometimes at really odd times due to the celebrant's travel schedule (recent examples include at 02h00 and 04h00!) my daily choice is the NO or a very long walk at an inconvenient hour (I'm very much not a morning person!) to an UCC Divine Liturgy. I choose to attend daily Mass in the NO. It is reverently done, Rosary recited before it begins and I can kneel to receive Communion. I will not deprive myself of the graces of Holy Mass and Communion simply because of my personal preferences. However, I do pray for the end of the OF and the return of the EF as the normative Mass of the Church.
Reply
#97
(07-08-2009, 11:49 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Further thoughts. I don't like the NO. Whilst, as an obedient Catholic, I admit its validity, I find it devoid of Catholic catechesis, devoid of majesty and devoid of beauty. However, that said, since we have the EF here in Edmonton only on Saturday and Sunday and sometimes at really odd times due to the celebrant's travel schedule (recent examples include at 02h00 and 04h00!) my daily choice is the NO or a very long walk at an inconvenient hour (I'm very much not a morning person!) to an UCC Divine Liturgy. I choose to attend daily Mass in the NO. It is reverently done, Rosary recited before it begins and I can kneel to receive Communion. I will not deprive myself of the graces of Holy Mass and Communion simply because of my personal preferences. However, I do pray for the end of the OF and the return of the EF as the normative Mass of the Church.

Hi Jovan66102,
I'm going to show my lack of knowledge with this question:  What does UCC stand for?  The only UCC that I know is a Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ, and I am really sure that you did not mean that.

Thanks.

PS: I think I just answered my own question(only on my 2nd cup of coffee today): Ukrainian Catholic Church?
Reply
#98
(07-09-2009, 07:17 AM)lumine Wrote: Hi Jovan66102,
I'm going to show my lack of knowledge with this question:   What does UCC stand for?  The only UCC that I know is a Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ, and I am really sure that you did not mean that.

Thanks.

PS: I think I just answered my own question(only on my 2nd cup of coffee today): Ukrainian Catholic Church?

Well, up here UCC also stands for United Church of Canada, but I did, indeed, mean the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)