Good review of how the Novus Ordo Mass came about February 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgical Year, Liturgy, reading, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the enemy, Tradition.
I have had some readers ask me to both explain how the liturgical reform came about, and what all the changes to the Mass between the 1962 Missal and 1969 Missal entail.
Both are very big subjects, and I’ve done dozens of blog posts on both over the years, most recently last week. I just stumbled across another good resource today, in the form of a post done by Dr. Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo, probably one of the world’s most foremost Scholastics (adherents of St. Thomas Aquinas). Dr. Romero Carrasquillo recently reviewed Fr. Anthony Cekada’s Work of Human Hands, a book I’ve reviewed on this site.
I always meant to go back to that book and do another, better review. But Dr. Romero Carrasquillo has made that unnecessary, since he’s written the review I always intended to. It’s a pretty long review. In the course of it, he gives a good overview of some of the key differences between the NO and TLM, and how the NO came about. It’s a good companion piece to last week’s interview with Dom Alcuin Reid.
Just one part of the review, there is much, much more:
Another extensive example of antiquity-as-an-excuse-for-novelty is given in Chapter 10, which concerns the changes to the Lectionary. Here—Cekada argues—despite the fact that, thanks to its three-year cycle, the New Lectionary contains more Scripture readings than the old Missal, nonetheless, through ‘adroit choices’ some important Scriptural texts—often a verse or two in the middle of a feast day or Sunday Gospel reading—are bracketed off as optional or altogether omitted, because of their ‘negative theology’, i.e., they doctrinally run afoul of the nouvelle theologie or of ecumenism. Thanks to these omissions, the average Catholic can attend Mass every Sunday for an entire Lectionary Cycle (three years) and never hear theologically ‘negative’ Scriptural passages such as Our Lord’s warnings against hell, St. Paul’s warning against receiving the Body of Our Lord unworthily, his teaching on heresy, heretics and their fate, or his command that women be submissive to their husbands, that they cover their heads, and remain silent in Church. [I have personally confirmed that ALL of these portions of Scripture were expunged from the Novus Ordo Mass lectionary cycle by the liturgical revolutionaries] In practical terms, this chapter is perhaps the most devastating for the defenders of the liturgical reform, and it alone, in my opinion, is worth the price of the entire book.
Read the entire review, I think it will give those readers seeking to understand even more the differences between the TLM and NO much of what they’re looking for.
If you get inspired to buy this book, which I do recommend, do bear in mind that Fr. Cekada is a sede vacantist. He believes the last valid pope was Innocent III. No, I’m kidding, he thinks it’s Pius XII, but you may as well go back to Peter if you think the Chair is empty. Nevertheless, on this subject, Cekada has produced as thorough, and as devastating, an analysis of the Novus Ordo, its origins, and its incompatibility with the preceding liturgical tradition as I’ve seen. So, enjoy the book, but stop there, don’t go chasing after any of Cekada’s other works.