Replies

You were aware that the Novus Ordo Mass did not come from Vatican II, right?
--pascendi

Here is a link to a page with links to the official instructions for the correct implementation of Vatican II's reforms of the liturgy. Cardinal Ottaviani sent his letter of criticism of the "Novus Ordo Missae" to Paul VI about 2 1/2 years after the second instruction which was issued in May of 1967:

St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology

What liturgical changes do you imagine Vatican II mandated? It made a few harmless suggestions ...
--ultima ratio

So, I can safely assume that you completely approve of all of the following excerpts from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: ... to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; ... The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
...
4. ... The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
...
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
...
22.
1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
...
25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world. ...
36.
1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
...
37.Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
...
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.
...
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
...
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
...
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

You are again way over your head. The reform of the liturgy never meant a total re-write. What the council fathers anticipated was the elimination of some redundancies in the ancient Mass--such as the two confiteors--and a possible use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass which are specifically meant for the enlightenment of the community--the Scripture readings.

Such minor adjustments in text and rubrics had always been allowed and were consistent with tradition. What had never been permitted and which had never been anticipated was an all-out suppression of the Old Mass and the introduction of a thoroughly protestantized New Mass.

There is absolutely no indication the council fathers ever intended by "restoration" the kind of phony restoration that Bugnini attempted. Bugnini's claim, in fact, is little more than an attempt to align the Catholic liturgy with Martin Luther--who also threw out the Offertory and eliminated sacrificial features of the Mass to make it more of a memorial paschal meal instead. This notion had been soundly rejected by Trent--and repeated by preconciliar popes, including Pius XII who warned about such false efforts specifically in Mediator Dei. Vatican II does not refute such warnings.

Finally, I am tired of these exclusively cut-and-paste responses of yours. If you don't know enough to argue your point, then have the class to admit it. Anybody can play this selective, time-consuming game which takes quotes out of context, each of which requires a separate prolonged refutation. The bottom line is this: you seem to think Vatican II somehow introduced the new Protestantizing liturgy, rather than Paul VI years after the Council had closed. This is totally false and betrays colossal ignorance on your part.

You're not only dealing with the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae was not derived explicity from the Second Vatican Council, but also, the fact that the English translation of the Ordo Missae Cum Populo is yet another step removed from the Latin text in which the new Mass was issued.

In the 1975 Edition of the Ordo Missae Cum Populo, during the Consecration, the Novus Ordo text reads the same as the old traditional Mass:

"Mysterium fìdei."

The reference is to the Blessed Sacrament itself, which is the Mystery of Faith. This fact is stated by Pope Paul VI himself within the first couple paragraphs of his encyclical called, of all things believe it or not, Mysterium Fidei:

"The Catholic Church has always devoutly guarded as a most precious treasure the mystery of faith, that is, the ineffable gift of the Eucharist which she received from Christ her Spouse as a pledge of His immense love..."

But the translation "Mysterium Fidei" into English version of the Mass we're all familiar with reads as follows:

"Let us proclaim the mystery faith:"

Followed of course, by "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

Now the whole time I was growing up, I thought that the "Mystery of Faith" was "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Now where did I get that goofy idea? Is that what was intended? Imho, yes. Is it correct? No. Who drew that conclusion? Me.

So we have this translation of "Mysterium Fidei" translated as "Let us proclaim the mystery faith:"... but it wasn't until I attended the traditional Latin Mass that I finally understood this phrase "Mysterium Fidei", because before that quite frankly, I wondered exactly what it meant and I didn't get it. It's just one example of many that, for whatever reason, made the biggest impression on me when comparing the new Mass with the old.

There's more to all this than meets the eye.