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: disaster, novus ordo, suffering, TLM, vatican ii
comments closed
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.
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 
any 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]
any 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:
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.”)
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]
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]
Fourth, 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]
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——————————
Again, 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.
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 