Ranking arguments against the NO
#21
Yes, misunderstanding. But not on your part.
Reply
#22
(05-04-2010, 01:24 PM)glgas Wrote: snip...
- the removal of the unnecessary repetitions: double confiteor, repeated invocation of the Triumphant Church (offertory, canon, preparation for communion) etc
Wow. That's quite a position to take.


edited, again.

God bless, glgas.
Reply
#23
(05-04-2010, 03:37 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 01:24 PM)glgas Wrote: snip...
- the removal of the unnecessary repetitions: double confiteor, repeated invocation of the Triumphant Church (offertory, canon, preparation for communion) etc
Wow. That's quite a position to take.


edited, again.

God bless, glgas.

I hope that proper catechesis would correct that error.

glgas, there are actually three confiteors during the Mass. The first is the priest's, the second is the server's, and the third is prayed by the servers on behalf of the congregation.

Removing the "unnecessary repititions" washes away the theological distinctions between the three different offices of the Church. The priest alone has the power to confect the sacrament; he prays to the saints to petition to God on his behalf. The acolytes assist the priest during the Mass; they pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God. The congregation assists at the Mass; on behalf of the congregation, the acolytes pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God.

Reply
#24
(05-04-2010, 04:24 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: glgas, there are actually three confiteors during the Mass. The first is the priest's, the second is the server's, and the third is prayed by the servers on behalf of the congregation.

Removing the "unnecessary repititions" washes away the theological distinctions between the three different offices of the Church. The priest alone has the power to confect the sacrament; he prays to the saints to petition to God on his behalf. The acolytes assist the priest during the Mass; they pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God. The congregation assists at the Mass; on behalf of the congregation, the acolytes pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God.

While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions.  I cannot however, imagine how anyone could defend removing every explicit reference to the propitiatory nature of the Mass. 
Reply
#25
(05-04-2010, 04:29 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:24 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: glgas, there are actually three confiteors during the Mass. The first is the priest's, the second is the server's, and the third is prayed by the servers on behalf of the congregation.

Removing the "unnecessary repititions" washes away the theological distinctions between the three different offices of the Church. The priest alone has the power to confect the sacrament; he prays to the saints to petition to God on his behalf. The acolytes assist the priest during the Mass; they pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God. The congregation assists at the Mass; on behalf of the congregation, the acolytes pray to the priest to pray to the saints to petition to God.

While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions. 

In the same way as removing unnecessary repititions of the Kyrie Eleison, the Ave Maria during the rosary, or the Ora Pro Nobis during a litany? 
Reply
#26
For me, the three most serious problems are:

1. Disunity of prayer (which, according to "lex orandi, lex credendi" elicits a disunity of belief and undermines the first mark of the Church by which She is known)

2. No explicit mention of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the Mass

3. A radical break with tradition

EDIT: 1 and 3 are connected.
Reply
#27
(05-04-2010, 01:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: Are you saying, glgas, that you  think that the TLM is not objectively better than the NO?  I really think that is an untenable position.  How can you possibly support it?

[edit: fix typo]

Actually, I think he believes the NO is objectively better than the TLM.
Reply
#28
(05-04-2010, 04:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:29 PM)JayneK Wrote: While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions. 

In the same way as removing unnecessary repititions of the Kyrie Eleison, the Ave Maria during the rosary, or the Ora Pro Nobis during a litany? 

I think that someone could make a case for removing repetitions because this was explicitly mentioned in Sacrosancto Concilium.  It was arguably the intent of the Council fathers.  This is a different kind of change from those which cannot be justified as mandated by the Council.
Reply
#29
(05-04-2010, 01:24 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 05:45 PM)franklinf Wrote: 1) That the NO changed the law of prayer, in particular the omission and suppression of the rubrics / prayers of the TLM that emphasized reverence and Catholic beliefs.

So did Jesus with the strict Law of the pharisees. The Son of Men is Lord of the Sabbath, and His Church govern the rubrics

Quote:2) The focus on modern man and not God, whether through the Mass itself or through the allowance of things that run contrary to hundreds of years of Church teachings.

This is true, but only' post hoc ergo propter hoc'argument against the New Mass. I attend almost every Sunday New mass of the St John Cantius fathers, which focuses only on God.

Quote:3) Variety in which the Novus Ordo can be celebrated.

I dislike the variations too, but the truth is

- until the Tridentinum there was no central regulation of the rubrics, it belonged to the local bishop, and there was wide variety in the rites

- we are no longer slaves of the Law or the rubrics, we are free in Christ

The advantages of the New mass are

- vernacular, what one can follow with heart

- the removal of the unnecessary repetitions: double confiteor, repeated invocation of the Triumphant Church (offertory, canon, preparation for communion) etc

- removal of the additions which are against the dynamics of the Mass (e.g. Psalm 42, prayers after the Ite Missa est). Our religion and liturgy should be living one.

Wow and your a traditional Catholic [i]how[i]
Reply
#30
(05-04-2010, 06:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:29 PM)JayneK Wrote: While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions. 

In the same way as removing unnecessary repititions of the Kyrie Eleison, the Ave Maria during the rosary, or the Ora Pro Nobis during a litany? 

I think that someone could make a case for removing repetitions because this was explicitly mentioned in Sacrosancto Concilium.  It was arguably the intent of the Council fathers.  This is a different kind of change from those which cannot be justified as mandated by the Council.

Okay. To which council are you referring?
I think we might want to remove the unnecessary repetitions in the Bible, too. Afterall, St. Paul did say:

Galatians Wrote:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

I don't see a need for this repetition, do you? Or how about this one:

Psalm 135 Wrote:1 Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. 2 Praise ye the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. 3 Praise ye the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever. 4 Who alone doth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. 5 Who made the heavens in understanding: for his mercy endureth for ever.

1 "Praise the Lord"... By this invitation to praise the Lord, thrice repeated, we profess the Blessed Trinity, One God in three distinct Persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

6 Who established the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. 7 Who made the great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever. 8 The sun to rule over the day: for his mercy endureth for ever. 9 The moon and the stars to rule the night: for his mercy endureth for ever. 10 Who smote Egypt with their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever.

11 Who brought Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever. 12 With a mighty hand and a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever. 13 Who divided the Red Sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever. 14 And brought out Israel through the midst thereof: for his mercy endureth for ever. 15 And overthrew Pharao and his host in the Red Sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.

16 Who led his people through the desert: for his mercy endureth for ever. 17 Who smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever. 18 And slew strong kings: for his mercy endureth for ever. 19 Sehon king of the Amorrhites: for his mercy endureth for ever. 20 And Og king of Basan: for his mercy endureth for ever.

21 And he gave their land for an inheritance: for his mercy endureth for ever. 22 For an inheritance to his servant Israel: for his mercy endureth for ever. 23 For he was mindful of us in our affliction: for his mercy endureth for ever. 24 And he redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever. 25 Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.

26 Give glory to the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever. 27 Give glory to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

It would seem that repetition is a very good thing.

If you examine the structure of the new Mass, you will see that the removal of the confiteors goes hand-in-hand with the overall modernist agenda of many of the council fathers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)