Posted on 09/28/2004 2:11:32 PM PDT by tridentine
This is funny. The only negativity around here is sown by the traditionalists.
Period.
Synthetic?
The Novus Ordo mirrors almost exactly the Eucharist as celebrated in the early Church, documented in The Didache, 155 A.D.
"The Novus Ordo mirrors almost exactly the Eucharist as celebrated in the early Church, documented in The Didache, 155 A.D."
Perhaps this is true, but many of us do not see this in our parishes.
What we too often see are picnic, polka and hula Masses, "grip and grin" at the beginning and middle of Mass, hand holding, and gaudy performers up front in the sanctuary leading us in the latest OCP pop-slop.
I doubt that this was the intent of the Council Fathers, but it is certainly the intent of my bishop and I fear most others in at least this country.
Beacuse I have only a little knowledge about the facts of the matter (I always rely on Rome for direction) I always go to those who have more knowledge to instruct and comfort me. This is from "Vita Brevis" Blog re the new liturgy:
One article on Bob Sungenis’ site that hasn’t received much attention is the article about the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s an article by Jacob Michael entitled The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite
While Bob Sungenis himself didn’t write the article, I point out that his front page says: “Our Apostolate is directed at supporting the work of Catholic Apologist, Robert Sungenis, to propagate and defend the Catholic faith. There are no paid staff here at CAI and all funds are pumped into supporting Robert, his family, and the apostolate.” For all intents and purposes, then, Bob Sungenis is the owner of the site and bears ultimate responsibility for everything posted there.
The descriptive paragraph found on the front page, (scroll down to find) mentions that the article “explains how the New Mass is objectively inferior to other approved, legitimate rites”. The key words are “objectively inferior”. If information is truly objective, no reasonable person can dispute it. The dictionary definitions for “inferior” that have any pertinence to the issue at hand include “(a) of low or lower degree or rank; (b) of poor quality, mediocre; (c) of little or less importance, value, or merit”.
Thus the article is claiming to explain how no reasonable person can differ that the Novus Ordo Mass (“NOM”) is one or more of the following:
(1) of lower degree or rank than the Tridentine Mass (“TM”);
(2) of poorer quality than the TM to the point of being mediocre when compared with the TM; or
(3) of less value or merit than the TM.
There’s not a measurable scale that could determine clearly, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, the “degree or rank” of Mass texts. Thus the last two are the only possible conclusions drawn from the use of “inferior”.
I won’t be going line-by-line, as the base article itself is over thirteen thousand words in length. The article makes many comparisons between TM and NOM. The following seem to be the largest points of contention in the article:
1. The NOM offers more options than the TM;
2. ICEL translation of the NOM does not match the author’s understanding of the Latin text;
3. The NOM does not maintain a sufficient distinction between the priest and the laity;
4. Some items that were repeated multiple times in the TM are not repeated in the NOM;
5. The NOM does not include any corporate absolution;
6. The NOM does not include as many phrases and concepts that are “uniquely Catholic” and amounts to a tacit surrender to Protestantism; and
7. The NOM is not sufficiently respectful toward the Host prior to the consecration.
No one could question that the NOM offers more options than the static text of the TM. The reasons for this are made clear in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI (April 3, 1969): “the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving” and “particular care has been taken with the prayers. Their number has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources.” (Full text available here.) Where the article sees constant use of the same texts as a high value, Pope Paul instead requests that texts vary. There’s a good cognitive reason for this as well. When one hears the same thing over and over, one often has some difficulty in paying close attention. When, though, one encounters something less familiar, more concentration is necessary. That greater concentration may be a valuable teaching moment.
Attacking the NOM because of ICEL translation issues is not intellectually honest. The Holy See is aware that there are issues with the translation and is acting accordingly. If, rather than promulgating the NOM, the hierarchy had simply authorized translations of the TM, many of the same issues raised by the article could still have developed. If one were to compare the NOM and the TM, use of only the normative texts for each would be more appropriate and more honest. (To be fair, I should note that I too have issues with the ICEL’s translations.)
The role of the laity in the Church was a major point in the Second Vatican Council. Bob’s own front page quotes a conciliar document (Apostolicam Actuositatem) regarding the importance of the laity’s mission. For several centuries, the Church had undergone a highly clericalist focus. The importance of the role of the laity in the mission of the Church can be underscored by the role of the laity in liturgy. Priests are, after all, sinners just as the laity are, the unique powers and responsibilities placed upon them by virtue of their ordination notwithstanding. To give too lofty a position to priests vis a vis the laity also may lead to unreasonable expectations regarding the sanctity of the priest and damage to the faith of the laity in light of sins committed by priests. In the end, though, rejection of the increased role of the laity in the Mass is a rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium which directed the modification of the liturgy such that “devout, active participation by the faithful more easily achieved”. Repetition of prayers within the Mass was also discouraged by the conciliar fathers.
The deletion of corporate absolution seems like an odd thing to rankle a traditionalist. Wouldn’t the corporate absolution make a person less likely to go to confession? Wouldn’t the deletion of corporate absolution actually encourage more frequent confession on the part of the conscientious layman? Isn’t that a good and desirable result? Also the use of corporate absolution is central to the liturgical Protestant worship service. Not using corporate absolution makes the Mass significantly different from Protestant celebrations.
The items that are “uniquely Catholic” that were mentioned in the article are all good and laudable – the saints and angels, especially. The Mass, though, does not exist to give glory to saints and angels, it exists as the Sacrifice of the Living God. Maintaining focus more exclusively on Him and less on His creatures should not give pause to anyone, regardless of their degree of devotion to any saint or angel.
The Host prior to the consecration is a special object, but it is nothing compared to what comes after the consecration. Paying special reverence to the Host prior to consecration could lead the faithful to have less regard for the immensity of the miracle of the consecration. What is brought to the altar is not what is ultimately sacrificed upon the altar and then given out as the very Bread of Life, it only maintains that appearance to mortal senses. Any failure in catechesis regarding the Eucharist is tragic, but it cannot reasonably be attributed to a diminution in reverence toward a non-consecrated Host.
What’s more important, though, than the individual points is the implication drawn that the NOM is “objectively inferior”. Had the author posited that there are reasons for individuals to prefer the TM, there’d be no problem. I can understand why a person might, for reasons of their own devotion, have a strong preference for the TM, the Latin NOM or the vernacular NOM. What causes the problem is the use of the term “objectively inferior”.
If the NOM is truly inferior to the TM, it is either “of poorer quality” or “of less value”. To say that any valid Eucharist – the source and summit of Christian life – is of less value than another is to sit in judgment on Him who comes to us in His body and blood. I would not presume to place myself upon that judgment seat. To question the quality of Jesus’ prayer to the Father is beyond what I could arrogate myself under any circumstance.
Lastly, our spiritual fathers duly promulgated the NOM. To accuse our spiritual fathers of denigrating the liturgy (and how else could one describe a change from the previous form to one that is “objectively inferior”?) is to show a degree of disrespect and dishonor to those whom Christ has selected as our superiors that is not becoming to His disciples. A great saying that was oft-repeated by Pope John XXIII and attributed to St. Augustine is a fitting conclusion: “In essentials, unity; in other matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”
* I'll let the know-it-alls fight it out amongst themselves. The litle I do know about liturgical history makes me aware of how much I do not know about liturgical history. From some of the posts I read on here, I think the know-it-alls think they know more than Ecumenical Councils and Popes which is hardly a sign of Christian humility.
*And with your sarcastic spirit :)
"Attacking the NOM because of ICEL translation issues is not intellectually honest. The Holy See is aware that there are issues with the translation and is acting accordingly. "
Why is it taking thirty-five or more years to act on translation issues that could be resolved by a few high school Latin students in a week or less? Is this "acting accordingly"?
The faulty translations were obviously deliberate and have caused an entire generation to be exposed to the watered down theology the English language version presents.
There are many many points that need addressed in your post. There are a number of distinctions that must be made, that you did not make. Due to my other obligations (family, school, etc.) I will not have time to properly address this until the weekend. Thank You for answering though and I will hopefully be able to pay you the same courtesy.
"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."CARDINAL RATZINGER
Secondly, the Catholicity of the Didache is questionable. It is not known, and questioned much, whether this is authentic or a book of some group of heretics.
Regardless, though, Pope Pius XII strongly warned us about this type of antiquarianism in Mediator Dei in 1947:
". But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."PIUS XII
Now I know you are simply going to respond, as you have before, that no pope can bind another pope in liturgical matters rather than addressing the reasoning behind what he here condemns.
You seem to think that by hacking the arms and legs off of a grown man and throwing the amputee into a stroller you can somehow return him to the purity and innocence of his infancy. You can not. He has developed organically, and any superficial attempt to suddenly undo that process is extremely harmful.
That doesn't even address the fact that the only thing that resembles the "rites of antiquity" in in the Novus Ordo is the lack of form. It doesn't use the ancient prayers, it simply claims that there were different prayers in the early church, and so to imitate it we have to make a bunch of them up now. I notice that you haven't been out advocating the public confessions and extremely harsh penances of the early church. Why do you seem to only want changes that are easy or dumbed down?
Perhaps you'd like to post one or two references which questions the Didache. And, make the reference someone outside the orbit of The Remnant.
I notice that you haven't been out advocating the public confessions and extremely harsh penances of the early church.
There were no public confessions. There were public penances, it is true, and one could likely guess what the sin was by the penance served.
You guys really do need to get over your hysteria about the Novus Ordo. It is not going anywhere. The best course of action at this point is to discuss ways of mutual coexistence. I am in favor of a wide application of the indult, where attendance can support it.
I have seen the question about the authenticity of the Didache several times. Right now I was going through one of the books that I remember seeing the question mentioned, and found such an instance (mentioned by Fr. Sean Finnegan, diocesan priest of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, Catholic Chaplain to the University of Surrey, founder of the Priestly Association of St. John Fisher in England). One of the other books that I own that I can think of that would have delt with the issue is currently on loan, so I don't have it available. It may or may not speak to this issue.
That said, I simply mentioned that in passing in my above post. The criticism had little to do with the authenticity of the Didache (I am willing to accept it as authentic, as I have no idea if it is or not).
The crux of my argument was twofold. 1) I addressed your first complaint of my use of the term "synthetic" with the very words of Cardinal Ratzinger, and could follow those with numerous quotes from various churchmen who were not happy about the results of the consilium's masterpiece. They obviously weren't impressed that it so resembled Bugnini's idea of what the primitive mass would have looked like.
2) I stated that the type of antiquarianism that those who point to texts such as the Didache and say that we should be imitating them, is harmful. You can not suddenly transfer the Church as it is now into it's infancy as though the organic development that has taken place is somehow wrong. This is what the prots try to claim when they point to the vague writings of the early church and say that the Catholic Church is obviously not it.
Those who claim that the modern Mass is somehow an imitation of the early liturgy are 1)falling into the antiquarianism condemned by Pius XII 2)ignoring that the prayers and calendar of the new mass are not ancient, but were created in the 60's 3) being very selective in what they suddenly want to bring back.
As to 3 (selectivity), I mentioned that for some reason you weren't advocating a return to severe penances and public confessions. Your own prooftext, the Didache, testifies to public confessions, per this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia-
"The "Didache" (q.v.) written at the close of the first century or early in the second, in IV, xiv, and again in XIV, i, commands an individual confession in the congregation: "In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions"; or again: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread . . . having confessed your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure."
Now, again, I don't want to hang up on whether confessions were public or not. I will grant you that private confessions were probably the norm (I have now found other sources showing that). That still leaves harsh public penances. Are you for bringing those back?
If you want to bring back seven years outside the church in sackcloth and ashes for these three offenses, fine by me.
If Pius XII was opposed to antiquarianism, why did he restore the "ancient practice" of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, which had fallen out of favor for hundreds of years?
Antiquarianism is, again, one Pope trying to bind another, liturgically. There is no precedent for that in the Church.
With regard to the proposed closure of Manhattan churches, of which St Ann's is but one, here's some sound advice...
http://www.anti-abomination.com/counterattack.htm
This is what the vandals at the chancery would like to destroy...
http://www.anti-abomination.com/nationalshrineofsaintann.htm
That's not at all clear. If he meant it, he would say so to all the bishops who resent and reject parishioner's pleas. In fact, some have suspected that failing to winnow away sufficient numbers from the underground that the Commission is eager to suppress the assorted 'indult's.
There were many abuses in the old liturgy
No - there weren't. There were ad hoc inventions and innovations, such as those hypocritically proscribed by Vatican II. But the Mass was The Mass - and still is, if you take the trouble to attend, rather than a 'new order'.
But, I think the new liturgy in the vernacular makes more sense
You can't possibly defend such a statement in the details without simultaneously revealing an anti-Catholic bias. That's why I find those who share your opinion are loathe to discuss details with an informed Catholic.
it certainly didn't mean the old liturgy would prevent abuses.
But it most certainly did. That's why the 'reformers', so-called, needed to replace it with a Protestant substitute, and unholy mess. That was why. The Mass would have served as constant counter-example to everything issuing from the liturgical publishing houses. They could not allow it to stand. Catholics cannot allow 'new order' to stand, and won't.
But Pius XII didn't change the Ordinary of the Mass or the Canon. Anyway, what was wrong with keeping the Mass the same? If it aint broke why fix it?
Point 1: What was the reason to call Vatican II? The other councils had been called during or as a result of heresies, anti-clericalism, etc... (Trent, Vatican I, Constance)? And from what I have heard, it is only a pastoral council.
Point 2: I feel that the current church comes across as being too "tolerant" and not being proud of being Catholic. anybody have an opinion on the subject?
John XXIII wanted to "update" the Church's response to the world. That included the liturgy.
Hey, look. I'm for granting those who want the Tridentine Mass a wide availablity of it so that they can worship as they choose.
But in no sense do I desire a return to the Mass of Pius V. And I would never attend a Tridentine Mass unless that was all that was available.
"Once he launched the council, it was never the intention of Pope John to control or manipulate it; he simply gave it direction. He did not know precisely what the council would do, treating it, in the words of one historian, as an “empty container” waiting to be filled. There were to be no new definitions of dogma."
http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2004/johnston.htm
"Whatever Pope John's disposition was, however, before the second session of the council could open, he died. His last words on his deathbed, as reported by Jean Guitton, the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council, were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council." In any case, it is a fact that Pope John signed not one document of the Second Vatican Council."
Tradition in Action
It's St. Pius V, not just Pius V.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.