jump to navigation

A cry of anguish over the Novus Ordo March 5, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, Liturgy, North Deanery, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

I’ve been blogging a bit of late about Dr. Jay Boyd and her new book Natural Family Planning: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom.  There is a side story there I hope to get to tomorrow, but for today I wanted to point out another post on Jay’s blog about her struggles at the Novus Ordo Mass.  A friend/reader actually pointed this out to me, so thanks Steve B. I think Dr. Boyd’s comments on the Latin Mass deserve wide reading, so I’m going to copy extensive bits of her post and add emphasis and comments as usual:

For me, Sundays are…Just. Not. Good. I’ve addressed that here and other places on this blog; see the “TLM, Liturgy, and Liturgical Abuse” tab at the top of the page.
 
Now, however, I’ve progressed to a new level of anguish.14771440-abandoned-catholic-church-building-on-cat-island-bahamas
 
It’s not that we have more egregious liturgical abuses than other parishes do; it could be a lot worse.  Still, the bad music, the ad-libbed prayers, the often-ridiculous “prayers of the faithful”, [yes, even those taken from the “reformed” Liturgy of the Hours are frequently so banal and worldly as to be depressing, when they’re not actively asking for things that are impossible or even destructive]   the glad-handing and racing around the church at the “sign of peace”, and so on…ad nauseum…constitutes a continuous grating on the nerves.
 
But now the problem is that I am becoming more and more aware of thetheological issues with the Novus Ordo Mass. I can’t ignore it NM_20CHURCHG_22180153%20(Small)-thumb-300x212-126998any longer. I can’t pretend. I know too much. [I feel her pain. It’s not a pleasant place to be, especially in Dr. Boyd’s circumstances, with few TLM options anywhere even remotely near]
 
On the Sundays when we attend Mass celebrated by a fairly orthodox priest, I get my hopes up a little, and I think, “Maybe this week I can hang onto my state of grace long enough to receive Holy Communion.” Because usually I don’t. Recently, though, even when I have been able to overlook the bad music and a few liturgical abuses, I cannot bring myself to receive. [Well, that’s a catastrophe.  What an indictment!]
 
That’s because, on the heels of that thought about receiving Holy Communion, I wonder how I can receive at a Mass that seems to be inherently flawed in its own perception of itself, so to speak. It’s a Mass that says it’s Catholic, but wants very badly to be Protestant. It fools most of the people most of the time. But it seems to me that it can’t fool the people who have attended and plumbed the depths of the ancient Rite, the Mass of the Ages, the “extraordinary form” of the Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass…whatever you want to call it. In my own mind, I often call it “the real Mass”. (And yes, I know the NO is a valid Mass, assuming the basic conditions are met.
Dr. Boyd then goes on to list the theological problems she sees in the Novus Ordo:2012-06-27 10_01_26
First, there is the problem of the NO Mass seeing itself as an “assembly” rather than a “sacrifice”. It’s a “memorial of the Lord’s Supper” rather than the sacrifice of the Cross. Its essence is defined as the “gathering” of the People of God”. [This is exactly right, and it was intentional. Pope Paul VI and the other “reformers” wanted a Mass that was much more soothing to protestant sensibilities. Protestants hate the idea of the Mass as Sacrifice, so that had to go.  The modernist sensibilities of many of the reformers (Bugnini, Lercaro, many others) also militated in favor of radically reducing the sacrificial aspects of the Mass. It’s one of the most disturbing changes made in the entirety of the Novus Ordo, and has had the effect of dramatically decreasing belief in the Real Presence, proper participation in the Mass, and so many theological tenets that flow from the Real Presence.]  When I was the secretary at my parish, it was my duty to prepare a little script each week for the “announcer” to read, giving a little summary of the Gospel, etc. I always included the line, “Now let us take a few minutes of silence to prepare ourselves for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” One announcer wouldnever say the word “sacrifice”; he said “celebration”. (And most announcers could not remain silent for more than 30 seconds before saying, “Now let us stand for our opening song.”)
SAMSUNG  Second, there’s the problem of the role of the priest. In the EF Mass, you can see that the priest is really a priest, and that he offers the sacrifice for us, and that it is a Really Important Event. In the NO, the Mass is defined as “the People of God…called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ”.  [I think this quote is from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the “guidebook” for the Novus Ordo] The important thing to note is that the NO revisers made the priest a “presider”, and out of that he has become a talk-show host. In the EF Mass, the introit is a time of the priest’s preparation for the Mass. In the NO, we’ve lost the prayers at the foot of the altar, and the introit is now the “entrance hymn” – just a parade up to the sanctuary where the priest opens with a funny comment to break the ice[Which also de-sacralizes the Mass and makes the Mass more acceptable to protestants. Which isn’t really the point, the point of the Mass is to offer the only Sacrifice acceptable to God. The detestation of the sacrificial aspect is what led the modernists at Vatican II and after, in their creation of the Novus Ordo, to attempt to deny priests the solemn right of offering so-called “private Masses,” or Masses offered with no congregation present. Such Masses are of course totally valid and very effiicacious of Grace, even for those not in attendance, as they still offer that Sacrifice.  In fact, concelebration was an attempt to create a means for priests to “offer Mass” without doing so privately.  Even today, in this Diocese, there are pastors who attempt to prevent their younger vicars or assistants from offering private Masses, and there are Diocesan rules against having altars in rectories to that end]musicam sacram.jpg
 
Does it have to be this way? No. Does the theology of the New Mass expose itself to this with great abandon? Yes.  [And much more.  A TLM offered facing the people would look rather silly, with the priest engaging in a dialogue with God but with his back turned to the tabernacle. But with much of that dialogue removed, or radically altered, the Novus Ordo made Mass facing the people much more viable. And the de-emphasis of the sacrificial nature of the Mass of course leads to things like Communion in the Hand.  The list goes on……]
Third, the “new translation” notwithstanding, we still have weak prayers. “Sin” has been put back into them in places, but they still lack the force, the power, the no-nonsense-tell-it-like-it character of the real prayers. Just look at a 1962 Missal to see the difference. [This is very true.  The Propers – the variable prayers at each Mass – for the TLM are much more specific, much more hardhitting, than virtually any Propers in the Novus Ordo.  In the TLM, specific sins are condemned in the Collect or Introit, or exhortations to very specific virtues are made in the Offertory and Secret – like emphasis on fasting  and suffering during Lent.  In addition, the Bible readings – one of the main “selling points” of the Novus Ordo, are much more effective and just Catholic, as Fr. Ray Blake points out here.  For an example, St. Paul’s critical statements regarding the Real Presence in 1 COR 11:26-29 are wiped out in the Novus Ordo – they’re just skipped.  Like they don’t exist.  There is much more, but let’s move along]
578097_10151002632063210_1904214918_n.jpgFourth, the concept of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been diluted and distorted, so that it’s no wonder people don’t really believe in the Real Presence any more. The GIRM states that “Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.” Now, all of those things may be true, but lumping it all together that way, brings the Real Presence down a few notches, to say the least, and fails to show with actions the ineffable and sublime meaning of the real Real Presence.  [Again, all dead on right, and all very intentional. There were in fact seven! “other real presences” proffered by the modernists to undermine the true Real Presence in the Body and Blood. Again, this was done for “ecumenical” ends, to make the Mass more acceptable to protestants, and to support modernist sensibilities and their prideful insistence they could create a better Mass in a few years than so many Saints and other holy men could over many hundreds of years]
 
In addition, the omission of actions that show the greater reverence due the Real Presence, have led people away from the sense of awe we should experience when we are in that Presence, and when we receive Holy Communion. Reception of Communion standing and in the hand, the disparaging of veils for women, the casual dress permitted for lay ministers…these are all of the answer to the question, “Why don’t people believe in the Real Presence?”  [Just spot on.  Truly great analysis. I pray people are still reading this!  But this is not all. It’s not just in such actions on the part of the laity that have dramatically de-sacralized the Mass, it is changes to the very Mass itself. It was the removal of so many “useless repetitions,” the numerous genuflections made by the priest in the TLM, the dozens of signs of the Cross made by the priest cut down to just a couple in the Novus Ordo, the cheap and ugly vestments that replaced the glorious silken chasubles of the past…..all these things de-emphasize the sacred and replace it with something else, something much more worldly and materialist]8A52BE6093474ED1478C6D539AF1B_h316_w628_m5_cFGxiSLXB
 
 But I ask you: isn’t that enough?!  [It’s sadly true, there is so much more, so much more than could go in this post]
 
What makes me really sad – and really angry – is that so much of this appears to have been done on purpose by those with a modernist view and agenda at the Second Vatican Council. They purposely Protestantized the Mass. The evidence is out there; there are many accounts of what was said behind the scenes, what the modernists wanted to accomplish, the involvement of Protestants in guiding the “reform” of the Mass. (See for instance, Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum, Anne Muggeridge’s Desolate City, and titles like Liturgical Shipwreck by Michael Davies.)
———————————End Quote——————————
lit_kim_12.jpgAgain, I’m afraid Dr. Boyd is absolutely correct in that last quoted paragraph. And go to her blog, there is more to read there.  But it is critical to note that everything she and I have said was pointed out during the Council and shortly after by those prelates opposed to the progressive, often modernist change agents.  Ottaviani, Bacci, Siri, Luigi, Spellman, Tromp……numerous Council fathers were not only vehemently opposed to the changes but prophesied exactly what would happen once the changes were made, and it’s exactly what Boyd and I wrote above. And they weren’t a tiny minority – Roberto de Mattei makes clear that the orthodox faction at the Council was about the same size as the radical, progressive faction (with most prelates in the soft middle – some things never change), but the progressives had the media, and, most importantly, support from both conciliar popes on many issues.  Well intentioned they may have been, but 50 years of experience with radical changes to the Mass show that the effects have been anything but positive, as the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pointed out repeatedly, and most vociferously at the end of his pontificate.
I know this is a sensitive issue for some readers, but I believe more and more that the future of the liturgy is the Traditional Latin Mass.
 dedication_sarasota_003

Comments

1. Jay Boyd - March 5, 2013

Thanks again! It’s so kind of you to highlight my posts! And…funny you should mention my TLM posts…I’m starting to put together another little book that is a compilation of my posts on the Mass. 😉

2. Steve Kellmeyer - March 5, 2013

Dr. Boyd is absolutely wrong in one respect: VC II is not responsible for the current liturgy.

As many, many others have pointed out, the liturgy we celebrate is NOT the liturgy that VC II describes.

People keep SAYING that we are celebrating the VCII liturgy, but that is manifestly untrue. We are celebrating the Mass as Pope Paul VI implemented it, NOT as VC II described it. VC II is not the first ecumenical council whose opinions were ignored by the Popes, and it won’t be the last.

We need to quit blaming VC II for any of what has happened in the last 50 years. That’s pure conciliarism, and it is a heresy.

EVERYTHING WE HAVE, all of it, is given to us by the Popes. Popes can and regularly do ignore decrees of ecumenical councils. Counciliar decrees matter only insofar as a Pope (a) signs it and (b) implements it. When it comes to the VC II liturgy, while (a) may have happened, (b) clearly never did.

So, quite blaming any of this on Bugnini and company. They may have been complete fools, nefarious Masons or even direct tools of the devil for all I know, but it is the POPE who protestantized the Mass, and his papal successors who decided to keep it as it is.

If you want to blame someone, blame someone with actual responsibility, instead of faux responsibility. This fact is why I don’t complain about the Novus Ordo Mass. I don’t think I have the capability or the responsibility to complain about the liturgy given to us by the Vicar of Christ.

I can complain about the abuses, but not about the liturgy itself. Not my brief.

tantamergo - March 6, 2013

Dr. Boyd isn’t saying anything regarding thinking the Council trumps the Pope, or that ecumenical councils are the ultimate authority in the Church. Even her statement about VII at the end is, to me, vague, I’m not altogether sure she’s declaiming the Council itself or the radical spirit that is often confused with it.

As for my statements, there were certainly interventions by orthodox prelates pointing out grave concerns about the schema that produced Sacrosanctum Concilium. That the final document was voted for overwhelmingly does not mean their concerns were addressed in that document.

As for the rest, I’m heading out, maybe tomorrow. The final issue you raise has been hashed out pretty extensively, I don’t think Dr. Boyd or anyone else is doing something sinful in pointing out problems with the Novus Ordo.

3. Steve Kellmeyer - March 6, 2013

I guess I just don’t see the point of the complaints.

Do we think the Pope was unaware of the “problems”? That is, are we complaining because we hope to enlighten the Popes and the Curia about things we caught over the course of the last 50 years that they did not?

Do we have the authority to change the liturgy? That is, are we making our complaints known because our opinion on the liturgy (promulgated by the Pope himself) matters?

Of what possible relevance is it whether we “like” the liturgy or not? How is our “dislike” of the Novus Ordo any different than the “liberals” who “like” the Novus Ordo? What theological difference does our “like” or “dislike” make?

Certainly we pray what we believe. The Novus Ordo hasn’t changed any doctrine, it just changed emphasis. That’s it. If it changed doctrine, the Mass would be rendered invalid thereby. We are not permitted to interpret liturgy in such a way that the doctrine it embodies changes.

I might say the changes make it more difficult for me.
OK.
George over there says it makes it easier for him.
Do you doubt George?
Why is my being at ease more important than George being at ease?
By what criteria do I choose myself over others?
I say if George would only pay attention, he would find it easier for himself as well. Maybe it would. But I’m not the bishop, nor the Pope.
It’s their responsibility to make these judgement calls, not mine.

When my children tell me how to raise my children, I nod, smile, and mostly ignore them. The children are MY responsibility, but their advice is not always sound. Now, sometimes what they have to say IS sound. But what happens next is MY judgement, right or wrong.

Bishops are in the same position.
I don’t think any of the concerns raised here are new.
So why do we keep whining about them?

tantamergo - March 6, 2013

I’m not trying to reach the Pope. I’m trying to reach other laity. I’m trying to get more people to abandon the NO for the TLM. I’m trying to get folks to exert pressure on priests to offer it, or to improve how they offer the NO. I think this information is not well known and should be better known. People can make of it what they will.

4. Steve Kellmeyer - March 6, 2013

Well, I’m all for offering a liturgy without errors or abuses.
And making private devotions better known is, I suppose, a useful thing.

But let’s say I promoted the Rosary the way that Latin Mass enthusiasts promote the EO:

“You know, that Liturgy of the Hours you’re praying sure is lousy when compared to the Rosary that you SHOULD be praying.”

“Why do you bother with the Akathist Hymn when you should be praying the Rosary?”

“Yes, the Stations of the Cross, when done properly, are alright, but there just isn’t enough of a Marian aspect to them. You should pray the ROSARY instead.”

“Have I told you the list of reasons that Eucharistic Adoration is really not forming you as well as praying the Rosary would?””

You shouldn’t tear down the NO in order to promote the EO.
That just ticks people off, especially priests.
Especially priests who have celebrated the NO their whole lives.
You, a layman, have just told them they wasted their lives.
They don’t want to hear that from you and they don’t want to hear you telling their congregation that.

The NO is the ORDINARY FORM of the Mass.
Do you *really* think that is going to change in our lifetimes?
Or even in our children’s lifetimes?

I know Fr. Z. promotes otherwise, but If Fr. Z. really believes what he is peddling, I would be shocked. He knows how the game is played in Rome and he’s currently just suckering donations out of EO fans so he can feed his birds.

Once Pope B16 publicly proclaimed the NO the ORDINARY FORM, he laid down the stony path the Church will follow for a long, long time. The next Pope is not going to change this path without calling an ecumenical council. And no Pope besides John XXIII is stupid enough to call an ecumenical council without knowing ahead of time which way it is going to declare.

Steve B - March 6, 2013

Steve Kellmeyer,

The issue for those of us who have whole-heartedly embraced the TLM/EF, and who want to “promote” it within the Church, is NOT primarily about aesthetics or what “we like” better about it relative to the Novus Ordo.

The issue is that we clearly see that the TLM is inherently ordered to being offered more reverently, that by its nature it is more theocentric, and that its prayers embrace the fullness of Catholic doctrine – all of which, we are convinced, give greater glory to God and allow Catholics to worship Him in a way which is much more pleasing to Him.

Our emphasis is more upon God than ourselves – wwho, in their right mind, would really WANT to worship God in a “dead” language?

We see it as offering worship to God in a sacred language – one set apart exclusively for Catholic worship. The point is that the TLM is NOT about us at all….

Your point about the Novus Ordo not being the “Mass of Vatican II” will fall on deaf ears for all but a scant number of Catholics. I think that many TLM advocates would agree with you, but since such a Mass doesn’t exist anywhere on the planet, what’s the point of that discussion?

Maybe we Traditionalists’ advocacy and “promotion” of the TLM won’t change the minds and hearts of very many Catholic laity and clergy. But, we won’t be deterred to “promote” it nonetheless. Why? So that more and more Catholics who ARE scandalized by the irreverence and banality at their local Novus Ordo parish can know their is an alternative to merely “putting up with it”.

In the meantime, contrary to the vast majority of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo, those of us who frequent the TLM will merely make an diligent effort to follow Church teaching, continue to strive to learn the faith, instill it in our children (while being receptive to the possibility of them having a call to a religious vocation), and be fully open to the gift of life and the possibility of of a large family.

Barring a bloody persecution that will aim to deter us, or a renewed effort to discriminate against us within the Church, we TLM advocates are convinced that we WILL eventually cause the tide to turn in our favor, on demographics alone.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

Elizabeth - March 6, 2013

Amen, Steve B. You took the words right out of my mouth. Exactly my thoughts as I read the words of Steve Kellmeyer.

Steve Kellmeyer - March 7, 2013

Well, I get all that Steve B. I’ve been attending an FSSP Mass for several years now. I’ve heard all these arguments.

You seem to have missed my main point.

You will never successfully promote the EF Mass unless you stop attacking the OF Mass.

Stop.
Attacking.
A Legitimate Form.
Of.
The Mass.
Stop it.

No one wants to hear negative things about what they’ve been doing for the last 50 years. Priests will shut you down and ship you out if you talk like that in front of them or their congregations. That’s why EF promoters are considered scum by most priests.

It matters not one little whit what you think about the superiority of one to the other. No one really cares. You and I are laymen, and they are ordained men, so our opinions mean nothing to them. They call the shots.

Whether you like it or not, the Ordinary Form is the ORDINARY way the Church will be celebrating Mass for the next several decades (barring a council). While Benedict was Pope, there was always the chance he would reverse himself, but now that he isn’t Pope, this is NOT going to change – and it doesn’t matter what you think.

If you want to get parish priests on your side, or convince them to try out the EF form, you won’t do it by attacking the Ordinary Form. Learn to praise whatever you can in the Ordinary Form, and do so frequently. Then parish priests will listen to you.

Until you get the priests on your side, you will never get the congregations because the priests won’t let you.

servo - March 9, 2013

I
Will Not
Stop
Attacking A
Protestantized
Liturgy.

And that’s why I tune out anyone who uses the terms ‘Ordinary’ and ‘Extraordinary’ form. It ain’t the same thing, and by most any measure they are not equal in dignity.

5. Frank - March 6, 2013

Even during Lent, the Confiteor is purposely left out of the Novus Ordo. Why? Also, can anyone tell me when the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Novus Ordo? Was this omission also intentional to placate Protestant sensibilities?

6. Marguerite - March 6, 2013

After Sunday Mass, the extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist were consuming the Precious Blood outside the Sanctuary with the ear-piercing cacaphony going on in the Church. When I mentioned this irreverence and indecorum to the pastor, he told me that the committee and Bishop approved this as the best way to consume the Holy Eucharist. I’m the one who has the problem as no one seemed to mind that Our Lord was being treated so disrespectfully.

7. Woody - March 6, 2013

I think Steve K is correct. You can complain too much about the NO Mass. And if Dr. Boyd feels the way she does about the Mass she attends, she should find another Mass to attend. It’s not the Mass you dislike; it’s the way it is said that disturbs you. Otherwise said, it’s the priest, the pastor and the bishop. The NO can be said beautifully by a reverent priest, both in Latin and venacular. The music can be holy if the pastor insists that the music be suitable for the Mass. There is no reason that a parish cannot have both the NO and EF Masses if there is a priest that knows Latin and the bishop allows it to happen. However, we all know that there are bishops, pastors and priests who loathe Latin masses. And there was a reason that the pope decided to have all masses said in Latin. Maybe one day the pope will decide that venacular was a bad idea and go back to Latin. Don’t hold your breath, though. In the mean time, offer it up.

Elizabeth - March 6, 2013

Woody, you’re missing an important distinction. Knowing Latin is irrelevant. It’s not a matter of assisting at the Novus Ordo in the vernacular or if it’s offered reverently. The language the Mass is said in isn’t the thing at all. They are two entirely different Masses, not that one is in Latin and one is in English. You also seem to miss Dr. Boyd’s point that what disturbs her ISN’T the way the Mass is said, ISN’T whether there’s Latin present or not. Her point was that the NO Mass inherently, no matter what, is a protestanized version of the Mass.

tantamergo - March 6, 2013

It’s an important distinction. That’s why I say I’d rather have a vernacular TLM than a very reverent NO Latin, at this point. They’re just too different. And it’s not aesthetics, it’s fundamental aspects, to me. Although, certainly, the aesthetics of the TLM are much better, as well. But the Masses just have a very different feel, and that “feel” is more than just aesthetics, it’s core emphasis. And I say that as someone who still regularly assists at NO Masses (but, it is getting steadily harder to do so).

Woody - March 6, 2013

Sorry, but I’m not missing any distinction. The Mass has gone through changes since the very first Mass was celebrated by Jesus Chris at the Last Supper. Remember, there are different and distinct rites within the Catholic Church. The Mass is different in each of these rites yet all are equally valid and attendance at any one these rites fulfills the Sunday obligation. In the Latin rite, the NO is a VALID MASS, whether you like it or not. If you don’t like it, don’t go and find a Mass that you do like. However, stop complaining about the NO Mass as if it is invalid. It’s as valid as any other mass in any other rite of the Catholic Church.

Steve B - March 6, 2013

Woody,

None of us who are advocating and “promoting” the TLM are saying, nor even implying, that the Novus Ordo is an invalid form of Holy Mass.

I think that you can stop with that rabbit hole for this conversation.

What we are stating is that the TLM is unabashedly Catholic, in its theology, its practice/praxis, and in its primary emphasis being much more clearly theocentric – whereas, the Novus Ordo has clearly compromised in each of those areas, in large measure to avoid upsetting Protestant “sensibilities” – as clearly admitted by the liturgical reformers themselves.

We can continue the discussion along these lines, if you wish. But, please drop the canard about any assertions any of us are making wrt the validity of the Novus Ordo.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

tantamergo - March 6, 2013

Please! I assist at the NO every week! Of course it’s valid, licit, it’s perfectly regular. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t many problems. I have never written nor even implied that I doubt the Novus Ordo’s validity, simply that I think in many prudential areas mistakes were made in formulating the new Mass.

Elizabeth - March 6, 2013

For the record, of course the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. Criticism of it doesn’t inherently mean that I think it’s invalid. I’m through with apologizing all over myself for my views on the Novus Ordo. Yes, it’s valid. There.

Steve Kellmeyer - March 7, 2013

No, Elizabeth, these are NOT two entirely different Masses. That’s the kind of talk that gets you branded borderline heretics by most parish priests.

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass.
EF, OF, doesn’t matter.
One emphasizes the Body of Christ, the other emphasizes the Sacrifice of Christ, but both are VALID and LICIT emphases.

Until you are able to recognize that, you will always lose.
You will NEVER successfully promote the EF Mass until you are willing to grant that the OF Mass is just as legitimate as the EF Mass. Why?

BECAUSE THE POPE SAYS SO.
B16’s edict SAID the OF was the ORDINARY FORM.
Get that through your head.
It is the ORDINARY way of saying Mass so it is COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE.

Stop setting the two against one another.
You are WRONG when you do that.

servo - March 9, 2013

BUT WHY WOULD I GO TO an ‘EXTRAORDINARY FORM’ Mass if they are BOTH THE SAME? Just BECAUSE it’s preTTY?

I’M SO TIRED OF neo-CATS invading TRADITIONAL MASS CENTERS and trying to CONVERT US TO EWTNism.

8. Woody - March 6, 2013

Read a little slower as I know this discussion brings froth to your mouth with those who disagree with you. Let me repeat “…stop complaining about the NO Mass AS IF it is invalid.” Got that? AS IF. Listen to the complaints you make regarding the NO Mass that you attend. I know misery loves company but you can be so anti-NO and pro-TLM that you end up turning people off to the TLM. And as for the TLM, I am sure you know that the Latin Mass has had its problems through the ages. It was not happily accepted when it was forced upon the catholics of the world. Yet, for those of us in the 21st Century, we sure are glad that it was changed. But then again, that applies to those of us who like it. Pox to you, err, I mean Pax! (That’s a joke in case you’re still frothing)

Steve B - March 6, 2013

Woody,

Instead of hurling ad hominems, bad puns, and invectives at us TLM advocates, how about addressing the issues we’ve raised?

The “problems” that you insist are inherent to the TLM are just not true. The TLM itself is not the problem – the problem is that both Priests and laity don’t really understand what’s happening during Holy Mass. So, if you don’t really have a clue about the TLM, and why it is inherently has a different spirituality than the Novus Ordo, then you won’t understand our arguments and you’ll be tempted to use the worn-out stereotypes hurled against the TLM.

Once you understand what St. Pope Pius X meant by “praying the Mass”, perhaps then we can have a fruitful discussion.

As we stated before, the Novus Ordo is a liturgy which has its roots that stem from the TLM. But, Card. Ratzinger himself called the Novus Ordo a “banal, on-the-spot product” of a committee of liturgical reform “experts”.

I’ll try to be charitable in saying this, but if all you have to offer to this dialogue is invectives and blatantly inaccurate and disrespectful stereotypes, then please invest your time and effort in something else more fruitful for both yourself and the rest of us.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

Steve Kellmeyer - March 7, 2013

Steve B.,

You seem to think that the OF is flawed.
B16 disagrees.
Given a choice between him and you, I go with him.
You should too, if you really claim to follow the Pope.

As for the TLM, you *DO* realize that the TLM is, itself, an innovation, since the original Mass was said in Aramaic, then when Christianity spread through the Empire it was said for centuries in Greek, and the decision to say it in Latin was made because Latin was the vernacular in Rome?

That is, you realize that the TLM was the *vernacular* Mass of its day, right? Right?

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2010/06/when-did-we-start-celebrating-mass-latin

The NO is the vernacular Mass of our day, and it is likely that we will have it for centuries as the OF Mass.

When Benedict retired, the EF community lost that battle.
Sorry, but it’s over now. Done. Finis.

tantamergo - March 6, 2013

I realize I’ve been hitting this subject hard for quite some time. I hope to leave it soon, I’m frankly getting tired of it. But I think there are some misconceptions you may be operating under. The TLM is the Mass as it was since at least the 4th or 5th Century. There were local variations prior to Trent that were for the most part eliminated in the Western Rite. I’m not talking about the Eastern Rites. What the point I’m trying to convey is that the Novus Ordo has unique problems that go beyond the differences between Eastern/Western or even the various old rites that used to exist – Sarum, Carmelite (still around, but rarely), etc.

I get it, you think I’m overselling the case, very well, that’s certainly possible. I resolved a year or so ago to really examine VII and Novus Ordo and I’ve really just been reporting what I feel like I’ve learned. As I said in the post, I recognize some people don’t like this, but I feel called, or moved, to share this. It’s a bit funny to me, the variations I see in people’s reactions to things I write. Kellmeyer wrote a whole post where he lambasted the Novus Ordo as a “children’s Mass,” now he’s saying it shouldn’t be criticized. To me, calling it a children’s Mass is a more severe than anything I’ve written. I’ve seen you have a few harsh words, yourself. Perhaps its less what I’m saying, but how I’m saying it. I don’t want to actively drive people off, and I didn’t even feel particularly frothy when writing the post, but I feel like I’ve learned things through this very intensive period of study, things that are not common knowledge, or which may answer certain misapprehensions, and I think it’s important to share them.

I’m sorry for the disagreement, but I can’t unlearn what I’ve learned. I’m not Yoda.

Steve Kellmeyer - March 7, 2013

Yes, I lambasted it as a children’s Mass, but I wrote that shortly after B16 put out the edict on the EF, and he looked like he still had a long reign ahead. It could have been the beginning of a series of incremental changes over the course of a long career.

But then he announced his retirement.
So now I realize that this battle is done, and the EF didn’t win.

skeinster - March 8, 2013

Well, there’s sharing by blog, which has a little distance.

Then there’s sharing by backing visitors into a corner and catechizing them on one’s own, sometimes highly-colored, views on the NO, as we called it then, and Vat II. Until their eyes glazed over and they disappeared, never to be seen again. Because Trads are bat-crap crazy.

Which i saw a lot of, back in the day, and spent much time on lists discouraging.
People would defend this as educational, but I have to be honest- I think it was a lot more about re-affirming their own perceptions and another chance to vent.

Now, most of these were people who had lived through that time as adults and had been truly traumatized. So they were understandable, but still not helpful. There was a lot of shooting ourselves in the foot going on.

Now, we have more people learning about this after the fact, who were quite small or not even born at the time. And they are, again, understandably shocked and angered.
But the public criticism of the OF, per se, (not talking about abuses) is still mostly not the way to go. I agree with Mr. Kellmeyer on this.

It’s a fine line to walk. My own suggestion- focus on the positives of the EF, without mentioning the OF at all. It can be done, it just takes a little thought.

9. Woody - March 6, 2013

And I will leave it at that. I do hope that Dr. Boyd finds a church that she can attend that does not cause her pain.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: