What's good about the Novus Ordo Mass?
#11
(06-07-2011, 08:20 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: What's good about the Novus Ordo? That its existence prevented traditional Roman rite from being distorted further by innovators.

That's probably the best thing, yeah.

I would've liked to see the reintroduction of the Old Testament lessons to the traditional Mass. It's not an innovation because it existed before in the liturgy, and traces of it remain in the Ember Days. And, as Adam Wayne suggested, the Office isn't so much a part of Catholics' liturgical lives anymore. Catholics need more exposure to the Old Testament because, among many other reasons, Protestants are well-versed in it and typically beat Catholics down with it in Scriptural debates. The Old Testament is now increasingly a hot topic because militant atheists and secularists bring up the OT as "proof" of God's sadism and Christianity's origins in ancient Middle Eastern barbarism.


Resurrexi Wrote:The faithful of the British Isles did well enough with clandestine Tridentine Low Masses for centuries. I'm sure that the faithful of the countries mentioned above could have done the same.

If the matter is about keeping things short, I agree. A Tridentine low Mass can be offered at breakneck speed if desired.

If the matter is about language, I believe a dispensation for a vernacular liturgy is way more justified for African and Asian missionary regions than it is for post-Reformation England. The English already had a millennium of Latin-based tradition behind them, and it was still a language used by the elites: from scientific eggheads like Newton, to the royals, to even the Protestant hierarchs themselves. Conversely, African and Asian missionary countries had/have no Latin tradition. They might not even use the Roman alphabet. And this is just my opinion, but I believe if the Church had authorized the missionaries of the 17th century to offer at least portions of the Mass in Chinese, China today would be far more Christianized than it is now.
Reply
#12
(06-07-2011, 10:41 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: And this is just my opinion, but I believe if the Church had authorized the missionaries of the 17th century to offer at least portions of the Mass in Chinese, China today would be far more Christianized than it is now.

An American-born friend of mine from a Spanish (not Latin American) family who is very familiar with Chinese culture and has spent time in China points to the disallowing of "ancestor worship" as the cause of the sort of abysmal failure we see in the history of Catholicism in China.  He also points out that apparently Pius XII said the views against it were misguided and pointed out that "ancestor worship" is quite similar to the veneration of the saints.  While the veneration of certain ancestors may be misguided, the practice itself isn't entirely evil.

I say this because I think legitimately respecting the native cultural and people (to the greatest degree that is wise, allowable, and charitable) is the real issue - language is just part of that.  While I'm not an expert on the subject, I have heard about how missionaries in Africa would use similarities between natives' pagan beliefs and the truth to draw them closer to the Church - as long as we do nothing immoral or preach against the truth this seems to be the best strategy as far as I can tell (beyond preaching the truth itself, of course).
Reply
#13
(06-07-2011, 10:56 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: An American-born friend of mine from a Spanish (not Latin American) family who is very familiar with Chinese culture and has spent time in China points to the disallowing of "ancestor worship" as the cause of the sort of abysmal failure we see in the history of Catholicism in China.  He also points out that apparently Pius XII said the views against it were misguided and pointed out that "ancestor worship" is quite similar to the veneration of the saints.  While the veneration of certain ancestors may be misguided, the practice itself isn't entirely evil.

I say this because I think legitimately respecting the native cultural and people (to the greatest degree that is wise, allowable, and charitable) is the real issue - language is just part of that.  While I'm not an expert on the subject, I have heard about how missionaries in Africa would use similarities between natives' pagan beliefs and the truth to draw them closer to the Church - as long as we do nothing immoral or preach against the truth this seems to be the best strategy as far as I can tell (beyond preaching the truth itself, of course).

Sometimes, good ol' medieval syncretism works best.
Reply
#14
(06-07-2011, 11:03 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-07-2011, 10:56 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: An American-born friend of mine from a Spanish (not Latin American) family who is very familiar with Chinese culture and has spent time in China points to the disallowing of "ancestor worship" as the cause of the sort of abysmal failure we see in the history of Catholicism in China.  He also points out that apparently Pius XII said the views against it were misguided and pointed out that "ancestor worship" is quite similar to the veneration of the saints.  While the veneration of certain ancestors may be misguided, the practice itself isn't entirely evil.

I say this because I think legitimately respecting the native cultural and people (to the greatest degree that is wise, allowable, and charitable) is the real issue - language is just part of that.  While I'm not an expert on the subject, I have heard about how missionaries in Africa would use similarities between natives' pagan beliefs and the truth to draw them closer to the Church - as long as we do nothing immoral or preach against the truth this seems to be the best strategy as far as I can tell (beyond preaching the truth itself, of course).

Sometimes, good ol' medieval syncretism works best.

Could you elaborate?  As far as i'm concerned, not only is "syncretism" the origin of many of the heresies of the historical church, but it's the chief blasphemy of NO-ville.

I could be wrong though, and I think we're using different definitions.
Reply
#15
(06-07-2011, 11:20 PM)Norbert Wrote: Could you elaborate?  As far as i'm concerned, not only is "syncretism" the origin of many of the heresies of the historical church, but it's the chief blasphemy of NO-ville.

I could be wrong though, and I think we're using different definitions.

I mean it in the sense of baptizing and Christianizing old ideas. The early medieval Church would have never converted the barbarians of Europe wholesale if there wasn't at least a little bit of this going on. Rededicating fountains of old pagan gods to saints, converting old temples into churches, etc.
Reply
#16
(06-07-2011, 11:26 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-07-2011, 11:20 PM)Norbert Wrote: Could you elaborate?  As far as i'm concerned, not only is "syncretism" the origin of many of the heresies of the historical church, but it's the chief blasphemy of NO-ville.

I could be wrong though, and I think we're using different definitions.

I mean it in the sense of baptizing and Christianizing old ideas. The early medieval Church would have never converted the barbarians of Europe wholesale if there wasn't at least a little bit of this going on. Rededicating fountains of old pagan gods to saints, converting old temples into churches, etc.

Yeah, but that was about explaining how people's old faith bore SIMILARITIES to the true faith, not about altering the true faith to reflect heresy or pagan practice (as NO-ville does time and time again).  Veneration of the saints predated Roman paganism (AFAIK) and it doesn't totally resemble Chinese ancestor worship either.
Reply
#17
Since the NO was created out of and as a supposed improvement of the TLM, I think the appropriate question is what has been an improvement, or at least a neutral change, in the NO over the TLM.

I think most here will tell you that there is nothing about the NO which is an improvement in any way.
Reply
#18
(06-07-2011, 11:35 PM)Walty Wrote: Since the NO was created out of and as a supposed improvement of the TLM, I think the appropriate question is what has been an improvement, or at least a neutral change, in the NO over the TLM.

I think most here will tell you that there is nothing about the NO which is an improvement in any way.

It isn't simply unimproved, It is a detriment. It (NO mass) replaced "in-practice" the TLM.
Knowing what you know now about the TLM, if you look back and ponder about attending the NO, you know that you will offend God.
Not because of your actions at mass, or because it is invalid or not invalid, but because of others. And you can't scold, or correct people at mass. So unless you want to be complacent and "live and let live" at the NO(which I doubt), you won't attend that mass anymore.
Once you go to the Real Mass, the TLM, It's as if a veil were taken from your eyes and you see the reality.


Reply
#19
(06-07-2011, 08:18 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: While I don't care for the Old Testament Reading all the time, I do at times find it very useful for the layman to find the theme for the Mass.

The 2nd Readings, or what we call Epistles, are much imporved in the sense of capturing the Proper of the Season. For instance, if you go to Daily Mass during the first couple of weeks in Eastertide, they are reading from The Acts of the Apostles. These are important readings to be heard, and obviously read.

On the flip side. There is no knowledge of a Common of the Saints. I'm sure one exists is some watered down format, but I haven't detected it. So when a Saint's Feast Day occurs it is almost as if it is not happening, unless the priest gives a little talk during the homily about the Saint and you here his name in the Collect, Canon, and I guess the post Communion prayers. It's been awhile since I've darkened the NO doorway.

Now in the TLM, many Saints appear after the Octave of Easter. And they don't read from The Acts. However, as I just started to pray the Divine Office about six months ago, I've noticed this is covered in the Breviary. I found that interesting since I had perceived this as a defect before.

So, in a way, I think the theme of the day being brought forth through the readings is a good thing since most lay people never prayed the Divine Office and probably did not, and certainly today, do not, know the Psalms well enough to catch the subtlties in the other Propers or even know that there is a method to the Common that identifies different types of Saints.

According to my Fr. Lasance missal (1945), the readings after Easter are also from Acts, so that's not an innovation. The Masses in Easter Week are high-ranking enough to supersede most Saints' days anyway.  And the date of Easter varies, so the Saints' feasts would vary as well.

(06-07-2011, 08:35 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(06-07-2011, 08:27 PM)tradne4163 Wrote: Hypothetically, it would have been best used in situations where the Mass needed to be kept short, like in China, Burma, or other places where being a Catholic put your life at risk. However, it would still be ill suited for regular use because of all of the prayers and symbolism that was suppressed.

Never thought about it from that angle, where a Catholic's life might be in danger or for brevities sake. But, Low Masses usually take no longer than 40 minutes on a weekday usually under an hour on Sunday's.

I believe the minimum length for a Low Mass is 15 minutes. Less than that and it is considered abusive. (Cited: My dad who was in the seminary back in the day).
Reply
#20
I think this is good, it's the Mysterium Fidei.

Mortem tuam annutiamus Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias. This is a bright spot. The vernacular is horrible, but the Latin is good. Another is Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt. I'm not going to speculate how to make it better. The Mass at EWTN, if fully in Latin,and the ordinary sung in plainchant, with a eight minute limit on the sermon,  would be a good example for the NO Mass.

tim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)