Rorate Caeli

Traditional Mass rubrics are nothing...


...compared to the different versions of the New Mass's "General Instruction of the Roman Missal", and additional documents. It seems there is not only one version per language, or even one per country, but one for each publishing house, and one for each missalette. Perhaps this is what is meant by active participation in the "Ordinary form": things are just so different, from country to country, from diocese to diocese, from parish to parish, between priests in the same parish, or even between masses of the same priest (depending on the "audience"), that one is forced to participate even if only to grasp what local "rite" is actually being celebrated... And this only in English!

They should just leave the name Roman to the "Extraordinary people", and call it the Babel Missal.

50 comments:

ka said...

Could not agree more
Say the black, do the red.

New Catholic said...

OK, then. 300 languages to go...

Ryan Ellis said...

At some point, we on the Catholic Right (if you want to call it that) will have to start to accept the growing success of Benedict's liturgical reform.

In 20 years or so, a fairly common Novus Ordo will feature Mass propers, the missa normativa, ad orientem, Latin ordinary settings, and communion rail reception. Not everywhere, but in many places, just as today one can attend TLMs in many places.

To pretend that we're still begging "Spirit of Vatican II" bishops for an Ecclesia Dei indult TLM while fighting over "pro multis" translations at our local clown mass is increasingly-retrograde.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

One more reason why the 'Novus Ordo' is intrinsically and extrinsically immoral and noxious to the faith.

New Catholic said...

Are you kidding, Mr. Ellis? What liturgical reform? Yes, the example of some New Masses celebrated by His Holiness is quite good, but where is it written? Where are the new rubrics? Where is the New New Missal (and we do not mean the 2002 edition, with its English translation being introduced next Advent, but the supposed Missal of the "Reform of the Reform", that never came)?

No, Mr. Ellis, you are wrong. There is Saint John Cantius, there is the Brompton Oratory, there are some Papal Masses, there is a place of sanity here and there - but, incredibly enough, there are almost certainly many more places celebrating the Traditional Mass (as few as they may be) than those celebrating the New Mass in the way you believe to be the best. Because that is the problem with the New Mass - at least, one of its problems: the "Liberation Mass" in central Brazil, the "Red Mass" in Chiapas, the "Campesino Mass" in Peru, the "Pride Mass" in Massachusetts, the "Native Mass" in the African plains, the Boring Mass anywhere in Europe, the plain Youth Mass everywhere, they are not "wrong": they are acceptable under a myriad of possibilities afforded by the hundreds of options made available in the "New Roman Missal" in its dozens and dozens of versions and translations. There is no Benedictine Reform: there are nice people doing nice things, but no law forcing things to be better.

And, please, at least here, avoid using a term such as "Catholic Right". We vehemently reject this, it is insulting, demeaning, and a disgrace to the Church. There are some who fit this description: Catholics who love Tradition do not.

NC

LeonG said...

"The corrected translation will help. So will the positive unifying influence of the TLM in more and more of our parishes and seminary formation."

No it will not - this is a fabricated service with undeniable protestant influences and masonic principles. It is entirely unacceptable to many traditional Catholics & will always remain so. It is also unacceptable to groups such as the Neo-Catechumenal Way (this is a catechetical factor). Furthermore, there is little evidence that the pope's changes are doing any other than creating even more diversity.
Many bishops and presbyters are totally ignoring the rubrics whatever they amount to and doing their own thing. Many are opposed to the TLM under any circumstances and the evidence at "grass-roots" level bears this out.
Ultimately, the NO is destined to fail and become extinct because it is not the norm & never will be. Its presbyterate is dying out gradually and so are its bishops. Only the TLM will survive but we hope it will not be ruinated by this all-destructive vernacular (babelish) liturgical rite which has done everything to disunite the church and has been very successful so far in so doing. It certainly has plenty to do with the shrinking number ofpresbyters and the dramatic number of church closures.

What we need is an unsubverted, unhybridised Latin Mass which has been handed down to us by our very wise forefathers unsullied and uncorrupted.

There is no growing evidence of improving liturgical expression Mr Ellis except in your subjective opinion. According to my own research the ordinary liturgical form is becoming increasingly inculurated and degraded. Thus, we do not have to accept your mirage of improvement.

Anonymous said...

Loved your comments...so true...sad, but funny!

Knight of Malta said...

"There will soon be available a new translation of the various texts [of the Mass], certainly improved regarding some verses, but I will not marvel at all if for other passages there will be more problems than in the first edition resulting from certain exegetical or historical-theological eccentricities....” -Msgr. Gherardini

Must have been nice, pre-60's radical revolution in the Church, when one could worship anywhere in the world in the same language. Now, my parish, for instance, has an english mass, a teen mass, a Vietnamese mass, a spanish mass, etc.--oh, but no Traditional Latin mass (despite my pleadings all the way to the Vatican). Funny, if the had a TLM, we could all worship together; instead we have the Babel--the separation and compartmentalization-- that we have...

New Catholic said...

Thanks, Knight. I have actually edited the post to reflect that, which I had left out in the original note.

NC

Jordanes551 said...

Yes, the new (first ever) English translation of the Missal will help -- it's a step in the right direction. An even bigger step in the right direction would be to seriously crack down on the new Missal's "optionitis." But what would really help would be the elimination of Mass in the vernacular, which would immediately rid us of most optionitis and ad-libbing.

Ld Schmidt said...

Hear Hear!! New Catholic.Thank You again for your Clarity with Charity.

Anonymous said...

N.O IS THE MAIN PROBLEM! EVERYONE CELEBRATES IT Different the Pope one way and Fr.X another way. Usually cheap and folks and man center production. I avoid it like I would have lost my faith 35 years ago.

Bernonensis said...

Because the "Catholic Left" is not really Catholic at all, I also dislike the term "Catholic Right." Yet I hope the coming Day will find me statuens in parte dextra.

Prof. Basto said...

New Catholic's comment posted at 12:22 hit the nail on the head.

Brazil, a Portuguese speaking country, is the country with the largest population of Catholics, at least nominal Catholics, and the Portuguese language is one of the leading languages spoken by Catholics (to the extent that the Apostolic See itself maintains one website in Portuguese).

The 3rd edition of the Ordinary Form Roman Missal was released about 10 years ago, and yet we here in Brazil are left without a timeframe for its introduction.

And, unlike in the English speaking world, because there are fewer Catholic blogs addressing the local situation, it is way more difficult to come across information about what the Episcopal Conference is doing in regards to the new translation.

I, for one, know nothing about it. Surely there are conservative and liberal groups fighting over details of the new translation, and votes are taken, and preliminary drafts exist, and an exchange of documents between the Conference and the Holy See takes place, etc., etc., etc. However, we are all left in the dark, becuase little information about this process surfaces.

So, while all the attention is focused on the English translation, it is even possible that the Portuguese speaking Nations will get a translation that is worse than that of the second edition.

(to be continued)

Prof. Basto said...

(second and final part)

All of this without even mentioning that to this day the "Reform of the Reform" did not take place!

As New Catholic's comment of 13:37 points out, the places where the Papal example of reverent novus ordo Masses is followed is not that widespread.

Few places have a decent ordering of the sanctuary, fewer still follow the benedictine arrangement of candles, and only a handful of places have ad orientem Mass or any meaningful use of Latin that goes beyond the final blessing.

And not to mention the question of vestments! Few places have restored use of ornate vestments, or of vestments in the Roman tradition. And most "gothic style" vestments are actually made of low-quality materials! As for extra-liturgical attire, most priests NEVER use a cassock, and even the "clergy button shirt", usually with short sleeves and in a variaty of collors, is not that widespread, the roman collar being replaced by normal clothes such as jeans and a regular shirt. If you enter a Church and you don't know the priest, you cannot know from his attire that you are in front of a clergyman!

And here where I leave, we even have to suffer trough the several "acclamations" at the end of EACH paragraph of the Eucharistic prayer, acclamations that were approved by the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See in the 70's to make the people "actively participate" in the praying of the Canon. Those absurd acclamations only serve to break the unity of the Eucharistic prayer. There is even one acclamation between the end of the "Quam oblationem" and the beggining of the "Qui pridie"!

So you see that, so far, the Benedictine "new liturgical movement" is entirely voluntary. It is only about the adoption of a style, but it so far does not involve any actual change in rubrics.

Which begs the question: are the present rubrics, is the present form of the Ordinary Form, considered worth preserving unchanged?

Or wouldn't it be necessary that several alterations be made, to make the references to the Saints more explict, as well as to make the sacrificial nature of the Mass more clear? Wouldn't it be expedient to PROHIBIT ALTOGETHER, the reception of Holy Communion in the hand? Is the re-introdution of the genufections and sings-of-the-Cross removed by Bugnini not urgent?

All those changes need legislative action. The "Reform of the Reform" will only trully happen when the rubrics and texts of the Ordinary form mass are changed, with the composition of a "new new Mass" more in line with the Latin Church's liturgical tradition.

But so far, the Pope has reigned for six years and nothing in this front has been done. The leadership by example has been great, but only by legislation can several aspects of the Ordinary Form that need to undergo reform be reformed.

Anonymous said...

We don't need another synthesis formed from two opposites, the TLM and the NO. What we need is for the Church to put Quo Primum (the TLM) back into effect. If it was good enough for St. Pius V to mandate its usage throughout the Latin Rite in 1570, it's good enough for me. Problem is - it's not good enough for the Modernists who insist on synthesizing things ad infinitum. As for rubrics, the De Defectibus decree says all that needs to be said.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

New Catholic said...

Thank you very much for your testimony, Prof. Basto. This is an English-speaking weblog, but we try to be the least Anglocentric we can possibly be - because we are called to be Catholic in all senses. The problem of the New Mass, the INTRACTABLE problem of the New Rite, is simply incomprehensible if we limit ourselves to what happens in a few nations, almost all of which are not decidedly historically Catholic nations. Sometimes, the so-called "Reform of the Reform" (which exists in practice in a few places, in theory in many minds, and in law nowhere) seems quite strong, if one's Catholic existence is limited to "conservative" English-speaking sources. Alas, that is certainly not the case in most places where Catholics around the world go to the New Mass every week.

Johannes said...

"To pretend that we're still begging "Spirit of Vatican II" bishops for an Ecclesia Dei indult TLM while fighting over "pro multis" translations at our local clown mass is increasingly-retrograde."

In which English-language country do you live? Benedict's liturgical reform? Benedict's liturgical reform. My priest said that his bishop asked him for a brief report on the then upcoming translation. He wrote three or four pages and gave it to him. The bishop thanked him and said he had done his "home-work". My priest then told me that in contrast - and our last bishop was a liberal from the first "L" to the last - none of the other bishops with whom he met had paid it any mind at all; that is except those who went to the media to attack it. But that is part of the success - no? Bishops' and priests' conferences loudly opposing the translation and encouraging disobedience on the model of German-language bishops. And indeed - does the success of Benedict's liturgical reforms extend to his native tongue in your imag...sorry - estimation?

The successful liturgical reform? My priest is left-centrist (I hope and believe that I have brought him further to the centre than he originally was - this late in the day...). He has always used (good) Gregorian in his English-language Masses. He gave an excellent over-view of the liturgy and the coming changes in our parish and the nearest one as well (which no other parish within many kilometres after that received). And yet - to this day one has to roar "And with your spirit" over an obstinate crowd that it is a little difficult to believe is truly finding it so taxing and impossible to respond correctly. It is followed by giggles and exchanged smiles - "oops". "But it's just Mass". "We're getting there father" - this as the man is still praying, mercifully too deaf now to be distracted. The better translations have come and have been utterly undermined almost immediately by being cast in the common profane melodious nothings that typify the Novus Ordo Missae.

The directives that the laity respond not only the correct words, but in Gregorian has been met with unapologetic indifference. Since they had had an unhabited nun lecture for weeks on the new translation - I was indignant that this had not been addressed. What did the woman do for three weeks? And to what purpose did she come if not to prepare the laity for the new translation? How could they then be so impractical that not even basic lessons or advice on Gregorian chant were given? How are the laity to respond in Gregorian if no one teaches them how?

And yet there is an endless stream of speakers (one out of ten would be Catholic) given time in the church itself or on the consecrated grounds to talk of things completely irrelevant to the place where they stand; the latest some political activist, she is coming to stand in the sanctuary to tell an audience more attentive than they are to the sermon at Mass about - herself. But we cannot have the prior, or an able monk, from the local Benedictine monastery give one day a week to lessons for Gregorian chant for a month? Perhaps leaving behind appropriate books, charging us to practice (hopefully with our priest) and returning in a few months to mark our progress?

And this is an overall decent vernacular Mass on this island. Outside of this and the other parish under my priest? The priest does not need to be wearing make up - to make it a "clown mass". I honestly could not conscionably attend Mass if I lived just two towns over or in the next one immediately to the West.

The "growing success of Benedict's liturgical reform". You must live on the Fortunate Isles themselves.

New Catholic said...

Anon., if you write a comment saying, "When I read another comment like that here, I'm not coming back," or words to that effect, you are practically begging us not to allow your comment to be published. If you wish to rephrase it, we will approve it. I ask you also to please read my last comment, in which I ask all to consider the prevailing reality in the entire Catholic world, not only "conservative" havens in scattered places in America and in a few other nations.

Jordanes551 said...

We don't need another synthesis formed from two opposites, the TLM and the NO.

Whether or not we need a synthesis of the TLM and the NO, nevertheless it is blasphemous to claim that the NO is the "opposite" of the TLM.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear N.C. May the Lord Bless and keep you. What you wrote at 13:37 ought be printed in every Parish Bulletin on the Planet.

As much as I love our Holy Father, it is always a surprise to me when I read him described as one who is leading a restoration when he himself has said, repeatedly,that here is no going back and, in "The Ratzinger Report," it was made crystal clear that his being in favor of the first Indult was out of an appreciation of pluralism in matters liturgical.

Page 124 "Far from regarding this "Indult" on the lines of a "restoration," he saw it in the context of that "legitimate pluralism" which has been so stressed by Vatican II and it's interpreters."

C'est la vie. Our Holy Father is four-square in favor of Vatican Two and its reforms. Period.

I am incredibly surprised to have lived long enough to see such a thing as Summorum Pontificum appear and I do believe the Holy Ghost is active in the Church in a restoration of an authentic Roman Rite but I am too old to expect to see the Pope who will re-establish the Ecclesiastical Discipline (without which all is chaos) that was abandoned prior to Vatican Two.

In the meantime, we lucky few who are able to assist at the real Mass (ok, rhetorical excess) must work and pray to help make grow those Orders which celebrate it.

And, I think, your site has been having a huge impact.

In the meantime, I will treasure the opportunities I have to go to Christ The King Chapel in Sarasota, Fl (FSSP Parish) and assist at the real Mass and do my duty as a member of the FSSP Confraternity.

Missa bugniniensis delenda est

Knight of Malta said...

"We don't need another synthesis formed from two opposites, the TLM and the NO"

LtCol--true that!

The praxis of the forms is different: the first looks at the alter, and the Sacrifice, the second towards a table, and meal.

They both validly consecrate, yet only the TLM leads to a complete understanding of the significance of Holy Mass--that of Sacrifice.

Jack said...

\\One more reason why the 'Novus Ordo' is intrinsically and extrinsically immoral and noxious to the faith.\\

Since the Pope himself celebrates in the Ordinary Form, he clearly disagrees with you.

**No it will not - this is a fabricated service with undeniable protestant influences and masonic principles.**

What are the masonic principles or protestant influences in it?

Please be specific, giving protestant and masonic sources.

||Must have been nice, pre-60's radical revolution in the Church, when one could worship anywhere in the world in the same language.||

Wrong.

The Latin Rite was celebrated in Church Slavonic in dioceses along the Adriatic in Communion with Rome for centuries before Vatican 2. Look up "Slavonic Language and Liturgy" in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14041b.htm

Prof. Basto said...

Lt Col Haley:

I too would prefer if the Ordinary Form did not exist.

But, realistically, given the last 40 to 50 years, and the fact that most Catholics in the world only know the Ordinary Form (even after Summorum Pontificum), I don't think a simple "reppeal" of the Ordinary Form and adoption of the extraordinary form as the only form of the Roman Rite can happen.

It would not be feasible to do away with the Ordinary Form overnight.

That's why I think that, alongside promotion of the extraordinary form, that is essential, the best scenario regarding the Ordinary Form (once we rule out as unrealistic the prospect of its simple abolition) is a "Reform of the Reform".

Not as a synthesis between error and truth, but as a Reform aimed at transforming the Ordinary Form into a solidly tradtional liturgy, even if one has to introduce massive changes. I believe, for instance, that any meaningful Reform of the Reform would have to start by NOT using the current Ordinary Form Roman Missal as the basis for a future Ordinary Form Roman Missal. Instead, the basis should at the least be the Ordo Missae of 1965, or the extraordinary form missal iself.

But I don't deny that we should keep the eventual abolition of the Ordinary Form as the ultimate goal of all reforms.

For instance, if I had the authority of the Pope, the first thing I would do is this: I would abolish the use of the Ordinary Form ordination rites. Holy Orders would only be conferred in the Latin Church with the rites of the extraordinary form. And in saying this I'm making no statement about validity. I'm just saying that the Ordinary Rites of Holy Orders are very very poor when compared to the majesty of the extraordinary form rites of ordination.

Anonymous said...

ka said, "Could not agree more. Say the black, do the red."

Only this the point RC was making. There are going to be multiple Blacks and Reds to keep track of, and all the more how unfaithfully they will done. From past experience we know this will be the case. Advent this year is not going to be a magic date where suddenly everyone is compliant to the rules and rubrics of the Novus Ordo. Not by any stretch.

Yes, RC is correct in his assessment "Roman" should be ascribed to the Tridentine Missal and whatever else pertaining to the Sacred Tradition. Babel Missal is humorous but I can't even think of what could encompass all of this. How about Silliness Missal?

Matt

Gratias said...

Reforming Novus Ordo through contrast with TLM is a very worthy goal. We have no better friend than Pope Benedict XVI. Centanni!

There are efforts under way. Benedict will only give communion on your knees and on the tongue. I am a dedicated Catholic tourist and have been to masses that are dignified. At St. Germain d'Auxerrois in Paris diocesan priests give a NO designated "Gregorian Mass" every Sunday that has the Credo, Gloria and other parts I now forget sung in Latin by a magnificent Schola (found it thanks to the indispensable Wikimissa). At St. Peter's in Rome we attended a weekly NO mass in Latin that was excellent. The host is accepted standing, but if you take it in the tongue (most do) the usher is standing next to you and says Amen on your behalf (really funny if unexpected). Many of my co-religionists here in post-Mahoneyian Los Angeles would be grateful for the opportunity, since we us must drive 75 miles or more to the nearest TLM. Over 99% of Catholics attend NO, so improving their holiness should be a paramount consideration for all of us. One small gain is that a few are now taking communion in the tongue in NO thanks to the Holy Father. Deo gratias.

Anonymous said...

Jack wrote:

"What are the masonic principles or protestant influences in it?

Please be specific, giving protestant and masonic sources."


Dear Jack,

Regarding the protestant influences, Rorate Caeli published a short scholarly essay some months ago.

If you like you could read it.


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/thorough-comparison-of-traditional.html

Barbara

Anonymous said...

So true. Long before I had attended the extraordinary form, I was used to the Novus Ordo at our local parish while in catholic school in the '90s. I didn't know what the Latin Mass was, but I also didn't know what Vatican II was. Our Pastor was old-school, and said a reverent mass without any optionitis. I believe the only innovation was the fact that he said the prayer to St. Michael after Mass. After he retired, I returned to the parish to find the new pastor's mass. I wondered when all these changes had been introduced, but eventually came to realize that the Mass hadn't changed, just the priest.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes551 said...
Whether or not we need a synthesis of the TLM and the NO, nevertheless it is blasphemous to claim that the NO is the "opposite" of the TLM.

Is it also blasphemous to call the NO "a banal product of the moment" from the following quote: "What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment." (Ratzinger's Preface to the Reform of the Reform by Klaus Gamber).

Is it also blasphemous to say: ...it "represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent" in the letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to Pope Paul VI commonly known as the Ottaviani Intervention?

So, now I'm accused of blasphemy, eh? With all due respect I believe you are overreacting to my comments. But to make myself abolutely clear - it seems to me that there are two opposites at work whether intended or not. And if you disagree with my opinion that is your privilege but to label my remarks as blasphemous is quite over the top.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Jordanes551 said...

Is it also blasphemous to call the NO "a banal product of the moment"

No, it isn't. That's simply the truth.

Is it also blasphemous to say: ...it "represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent" in the letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to Pope Paul VI commonly known as the Ottaviani Intervention?

No, it isn't. Again, that's simply the truth.

However, unless the word "opposite" doesn't mean "opposite," it is blasphemous that say that the reformed Roman Rite of Mass is the "opposite" of the traditional Roman Rite of Mass. The reformed rite can and should be criticised on many grounds, but to say that it is worship offered to Satan the Devil rather than to God (for that is what "opposite" must mean in this context) is blasphemy. The Council of Trent explicitly reprobates such opinions about the Church's sacraments.

LeonG said...

"the NO is the "opposite" of the TLM."

Because the NO occupies a very changeable paradigm it cannot therefore be a true opposie of the TLM whose paradigm is quite the opposite to that of the NO. Thus, while not being true opposites they certainly do contrast starkly and compare unfavourably. The outcomes are very contrastive also.

Anonymous said...

"Opposite" obviously means different things to different people. Perhaps I had better used the terms thesis and antithesis. It simply is hard for me to believe the TLM and the NO are one and the same rite - at least in the way that the NO is celebrated in many places. And from the words that I quoted from Cardinals Ratzinger and Ottaviani, both former Prefects of the Holy Office (now CDF), one would think they agree. Nevertheless, I maintain that I am not guilty of blasphemy, as you inferred, at least in my intent, not to mention what follows.

..."to say that it is worship offered to Satan the Devil rather than to God (for that is what "opposite" must mean in this context) is blasphemy. The Council of Trent explicitly reprobates such opinions about the Church's sacraments.". Now you have said that your opinion as to my intent and my understanding of the term opposite must conform to yours because yours is that of the Council of Trent is beyond the pale. Are you saying that because you set the context your meaning is therefore correct and unassailable?

FYI one of the definitions of "opposite" is: "Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other" and I suggest that ad populum and ad orientem are facing away from each other. To even suggest that I meant the NO to be "worship offered to Satan the Devil rather than to God" is just wrong. And so is the charge of blasphemy, Jordanes, and I am rightly offended by it. Anyone else out there similarly offended?

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Jordanes551 said...

I didn't say anything about your intent. I've only addressed what your words mean, regardless of what you intended to say. You may be offended if you like, but what you first said is offensive.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Basto said in part:

It would not be feasible to do away with the Ordinary Form overnight.

Why not? The NO was foisted upon us almost overnight. Anyway, I do not advocate any such overnight transformation - just a recognition that it is coming and must eventually be put into effect. In the interim faculties and jurisdiction for the FSSPX and like-minded groups who profess Benedict XVI as the legitimate successor to St. Peter would be a welcome change from business as usual. If we are to believe what is being reported in certain circles, the FSSPX leadership (whatever that means) is being called to Rome in September. That would be a perfect opportunity to right the ship but I am not sure that is what is in the works.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

'The Latin Rite was celebrated in Church Slavonic in dioceses along the Adriatic in Communion with Rome for centuries before Vatican 2. Look up "Slavonic Language and Liturgy" in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911.'

That's it? In the whole world?? Nowadays, almost every parish in the U.S. has a Spanish, a Vietnamese, youth, etc...Mass.

Let's go back to the old days, I say!

Anonymous said...

@ LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret),

"And so is the charge of blasphemy, Jordanes, and I am rightly offended by it. Anyone else out there similarly offended?"

I would have been offended if my comment had been interpreted like that. I have always thought that your comments LtCol were truthfully balanced and your love for the Church very evident. I see nothing blasphemous in what you said. In a sense the two forms are "opposites". One is mainly God centred and the other is mainly man -centred. That is the way I interpreted your remarks. But what do I know - I'm quite new to all of this.

God bless us all.

Barbara

Jordanes551 said...

The opposite of "God" is not "man." "Creature" is not the opposite of "Creator."

In regards to the two uses or forms of the Roman Rite, the opposite of "excellent" is not "mediocre" or "banal."

One must also distinguish between the reformed Roman Rite and its usual celebration, for the rite itself in its texts certainly is not mainly man-centered -- no more so than the traditional rite is.

Jordanes551 said...

Why not? The NO was foisted upon us almost overnight.

And we see how well that worked out for everyone . . . .

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

Fair enough. Learning to use terms correctly is important.

What about this though:

“The new liturgy is (thus) psychological rather than ontological, subjective rather than objective, anthropological rather than theological, and expresses not so much a transcendent mystery as the feelings with which the people react to that mystery.” (page 630 Iota Unum)

“The specific function of worship is to stimulate man’s sense of the divine rather than to convey the reality of a divine gift; hence (in the new liturgy) the congregation is more important than the Eucharistic rite, and the laity more important than the priest.

This change in turn produces another which might be described as the principle of liturgical creativity. According to this view, the people of God pour their own culture and their own spirit into the Church’s rites, and the priest acts as the means of expressing all this in the celebration. The objectivity of the liturgy , which is a reflection of the absolute Object, must retreat before the importance of a human subject seeking self expression.” (page 632 Iota Unum) (could go on …but I’ll stop here..)

This was what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. (I am no Romano Amerio!). I get the impression that was what the Lt.col meant. Hence, no blasphemy. God forbid.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

One must also distinguish between the reformed Roman Rite and its usual celebration, for the rite itself in its texts certainly is not mainly man-centered -- no more so than the traditional rite is.

We don't worship in a vacuum - lex orandi, lex credendi. To say that the original texts, which is what the Ottaviani Intervention was based on, "were not mainly man-centered" seems to fly in the face of what Cardinal Ottaviani said: "...the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements universally susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted - represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent." If not man-centered, what was the Cardinal referring to? Was he saying the "widely different interpretations" were divinely inspired rather than humanly inspired? I don't think so.

As to my comment: "Why not? The NO was foisted upon us almost overnight. Can you not see the sarcasm evident there? Also, further on I said: "I do not advocate any such overnight transformation". Just to make it, as they say, perfectly clear - I do not claim the new rite is invalid but certainly a departure from what went before or, as Cardinal Ottaviani said: "a striking departure".

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Jordanes551 said...

To say that the original texts, which is what the Ottaviani Intervention was based on, "were not mainly man-centered" seems to fly in the face of what Cardinal Ottaviani said: "...the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements universally susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted - represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent." If not man-centered, what was the Cardinal referring to?

First of all, didn't the Ottaviani Intervention pertain to the 1969 edition of the new Missal, and weren't changes made in those texts because of the Intervention?

Secondly, the striking difference in Eucharistic theology need not refer to the texts making man rather than God the object of the prayers and liturgical action. It might have to do with the noted changes in the expression of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the added emphasis on the "meal" aspect of the Eucharist, not to mention the de-emphasis (not elimination, but de-emphasis) of our sinfulness and unworthiness.

Joe B said...

Nothing ill would come from an immediate cessation of the Novus Ordo. In fact, it will be necessary for the church to do that to recover simply because it is our strongest weapon against Satan. We've thrown away our most beautiful treasure. Because the church is divinely inspired, sooner or later she will eject the imitations.

In fact, if Jordanes' recommendation on the vernacular were put into effect, returning to the TLM would be no big deal and there likely wouldn't be much opposition.

And we have at least a thousand hybrid Novus Ordos out there right now. Have any of those swept across the globe conquering liberalism as they went? How many shots do these guys get before they are rejected as incompetent or worse?

Anonymous said...

First of all, didn't the Ottaviani Intervention pertain to the 1969 edition of the new Missal, and weren't changes made in those texts because of the Intervention?

I do not know of such changes. Paul VI's Missale Romanum was promulgated on 3 April 1969 and the letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci was dated 25 September 1969. If any changes were made, they were not transparent to us in the pews. In fact, the whole idea of changing the Mass was the farthest thing from our minds at the time. We were shocked when the new Mass was suddenly imposed on us.

Secondly, the striking difference in Eucharistic theology need not refer to the texts making man rather than God the object of the prayers and liturgical action. It might have to do with the noted changes in the expression of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the added emphasis on the "meal" aspect of the Eucharist, not to mention the de-emphasis (not elimination, but de-emphasis) of our sinfulness and unworthiness.

Whatever the changes there was a striking departure in the Theology of the Mass as stipulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. Your assumption that the emphasis on the meal aspect did not eliminate, in the minds of the average pew-sitter, the sacrificial aspect has yet to be proven. I would challenge that assumption based on the current statistics regarding belief in the Real Presence which is less than 40% among everyday Catholics according to some polls. Are we re-enacting the sacrificial crucifixion on Calvary or are we gathered together in an assembly with the priest as Presider?

I don't know how the average Catholic can be expected to know the nuances of sacrifice vs meal in theological terms but I do know the intentions of Annibale Bugnini and he clearly intended to protestantize the Mass. That's enough for me to see the separation between the NO and the TLM.

If you believe that the NO is not man-centered with all the interventions by laity in the ceremonies and the ad populum presentation, then I daresay most traditional Catholics would disagree. Be that as it may, this discussion has run its course IMO.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Jack said...

ME: \\'The Latin Rite was celebrated in Church Slavonic in dioceses along the Adriatic in Communion with Rome for centuries before Vatican 2. Look up "Slavonic Language and Liturgy" in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911.'\\

ANONYMOUS: \\That's it? In the whole world?? Nowadays, almost every parish in the U.S. has a Spanish, a Vietnamese, youth, etc...Mass.\\

My point, which you seem to be missing, is this:
Latin was never the universal language of the Roman Rite, despite claims here made to the contrary.

I also did not mention (until now) what I have been told but have not verified, that the Roman Rite was at one time celebrated in Chinese before V2.

**To pretend that we're still begging "Spirit of Vatican II" bishops for an Ecclesia Dei indult TLM while fighting over "pro multis" translations at our local clown mass is increasingly-retrograde.**

How many clown masses are celebrated in a month in your local diocese, Ryan Ellis? And what exactly do you mean by the phrase "clown mass"? Please be specific.

Most Holy Theotokos, save us.

Jordanes551 said...

I do not know of such changes. Paul VI's Missale Romanum was promulgated on 3 April 1969 and the letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci was dated 25 September 1969. If any changes were made, they were not transparent to us in the pews.

I was under the impression that the Ottaviani Intervention was one of the chief reasons the Novus Ordo Missae was issued twice, first, abortively, on 3 April 1969, and then a second time in 1970. But I could be garbling that.

The language and gestures of sacrifice, oblation, and propitiation are mitigated in the new Missal, but they is far from eliminated. They're found no only in the Ordo and the various Eucharistic Prayers, but also in numerous Collects and Postcommunions (which I think was probably one of the reasons the missal and those prayers were deliberately mistranslated).

Anonymous said...

Barbara said in part:

I have always thought that your comments LtCol were truthfully balanced and your love for the Church very evident. I see nothing blasphemous in what you said. In a sense the two forms are "opposites". One is mainly God centred and the other is mainly man -centred. That is the way I interpreted your remarks.

Thank you, dear lady, for defending me in this forum and may future discussions avoid the charge of blasphemy against me. Sometimes the rhetoric gets pretty hot and heavy around here and I shall due my part to avoid it.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

cyrillist said...

As I'm growing rather fond of saying, I have no problem with a legitimate synthesis of the TLM and the NOM.

If the best aspects of each rite are chosen, then the resulting synthesis cannot fail to be... the TLM itself.

Jack said...

There is an interesting article at newliturgicalmovement.com about the Slavonic edition of the Roman Missal, used in Croatian dioceses centuries before Vatican II.

You can find pages from this missal illustrating the article.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/07/glagolitic-missal-missale-romanum.html#disqus_thread

Anonymous said...

Jack,

The point, that you seem to be missing, is that those exceptions were really exceptions. In the case of the vernacular in China, there was a real cultural reason.

Nowadays, the norm is the exception. Get it? You keep trying to justify the NO shenanigans. You are going to get tired.

LeonG said...

Indeed, Anonymous Said, the exception, however microcosmic, has been made the order of the cosmos. In consequence, there is indecipherable chaos confused for diversity and essential evil propagated as virtue - labelled as cultural relativism.

Where the Latin Mass is concerned there is only one true Rite of Holy Mass for the Western Latin Rite Church and this has been defined and codified unambiguously for us by our great Saint Popes & doctrinal councils - that is until our culturally relativistic and pantheistic post-conciliar ecclesiastical epoch has determined otherwise. Thus, "in perpetuum" no longer means this to the dogmatic liberal modernist and time-honoured anathemas no more signify anathema because they need to adapt to the postmodernist regimens.
Great Saint Popes and their works are completely ignored and side-lined as though they never existed or no longer have any contemporary relevance. Today, as a result, very little makes sense anymore and out of the overwhelming disorder and indiscipline have come liturgical and pastoral anarchy which we are being persuaded is continuous living tradition. This is why even so-called traditionalists can accept the unacceptable because they are just as bemused by this intellectual mirage.