Posted on 04/07/2003 10:40:50 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Question from R James on 04-02-2003:
Dear Father Levis:
On this expert forums, there is sometimes debate over the validity of the New ("Novus Ordo") Mass.
I would like to respond to this debate by noting that oftentimes the reason that many Catholics avoid the New Mass (and attend the traditional Latin Mass instead) is not out of concern over its validity (as most "traditional Catholics" I know believe that the New Mass is indeed valid), but rather out of a fear that by attending the New Mass, they would be immorally scandalizing their CHILDREN. Please allow me to explain.
The dramatic fall-off in Mass attendance, along with the dissipation of priestly vocations, can be clearly traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Similarly, decline in the belief in the Real Presence of Christ can be traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Thus, many Catholic parents fear that it would be immoral to subject their children to the New Mass out of concern that they would, among other things, (1) stop going to Mass, (2) less likely to be called to the priesthood / religious life, and (3) less likely to believe in the Real Presence.
And this is not simply a matter of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (in other words, coincidence). There are simple, cogent reasons why the New Mass could be seen as detrimental to the Faith.
For instance, the Real Presence of Christ in the Latin Mass is undeniably confirmed by the fact that (1) the priest must not separate his fingers once he touches the Sacred Host, (2) laity receive the Host on their knees, (3) laity may not touch the Host, (4) a paten is placed under the chins of those receiving the Eucharist to guard against the chance that a crumb may fall to the ground. None of these safeguards are present in the New Mass.
The notion of Mass as a SACRIFICE is obscured by replacing altars with tables. Sure, they may still be called altars, and they may even be marble (although they're usually not), but they do indeed look much more like tables to children rather than something different and set apart -- like a Tridentine altar.
The fact that the priest faces the congregation throughout the New Mass makes it appear much more like the priest is talking to the congregation, rather than to God. Children see this.
In sum, children are quite perceptive, and they notice these little things. Catholic parents need all the help they can get in raising children in the Faith. Sadly, the New Mass is not that helpful -- indeed, it often undermines many of the key tenets of the Faith via practices that are inconsistent with the Truths of the Mass.
So please understand that many of us who avoid the New Mass do so not because we believe it's invalid (we don't), but rather because we are parents who believe that it would be immoral to subject our children to a liturgy that can confuse or undermine Church teaching.
(An obvious response to this would be: how can the Church do anything to undermine its own teaching? One need only look at "Catholic" colleges, and many "Catholic" high schools, to see that this sadly happens all the time. Or see how Catholic bishops have responded to the sex-abuse scandals; the Church is certainly infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, but is NOT infallible in matters of prudential judgment. In other words, the Church can make a mistake with regard to the best method of evangelization, safeguarding the Faith, etc.)
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 04-03-2003: R. James, Many thanks. Your arguments are very interesting; I am not sure I would use them like you do, but they have some strength. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis
You forgot the free-wheeling priests who sort of make it up as they go along, improvising no doubt for the sake of "spontaneity."
Yes, I've noticed, but what really sets my teeth on edge is the "bowing to graven images" -- i.e., the priest and his entourage come on the altar and everyone bows toward the front; same thing at the end -- bows to what exactly? The Sacrament is reserved on a side altar and ignored; the Real Presence used to be the Catholic justification against Protestant arguments of idolatry, i.e., "bowing to graven images."
In my current parish, the Sacrament is still reserved on the center altar in the lower church, though the altar is not covered with a cloth and has no candles. The tabernacle light (or I guess that's what it is) is not red and hangs from the ceiling approximately over the communion rail. So the "presider's chair" (novus ordo priests seem to need to rest a good deal!) is on the side; nevertheless, when the priest rises for the Gospel, he first bows toward the table! What is this?
At best, someone didn't think this through.
You say that as if it's a bad thing - LOL. (You must get better sermons than we do.)
"martha, Martha, you are busy with many things. Mary has chosen the better part, and it shall not be taken from her." (Only it has been.)
"Non-participatory?" From the time I was 12 and started attending daily Mass, I felt utterly at one in worship with the Mass and the congregation during the Tridentine Mass. In the Novus Ordo, I feel constantly distracted and jostled. (I try to offer it up.)
I need to be a part of the mass, saying the responses, singing the music (NOT the contemporary stuff), and responding to Christ in the Eucharist.
Maybe you should consider joining a little theater group.
;-)
I agree, and I think part of it is the Latin: the vernacular (the extremely vulgar vernacular) of the new Mass makes people think they understand it. (Like the old song, "Is that all there is?") Oh, they understand all the words, but the Mass as mystery is less accessible.
Following along here with interest and I appallingly agree with EVEYONE on the thread to some degree. Feel the love! ;-)
The priests in my parish (bible scholars, really) end the Mass by saying "The Eucharist is ended. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and each other." Where does that come from?
And where did the open arms and open palms come from during the Our Father? Only the grey hairs do that.
And what is up with the "Lord I am not worthy.... that I shall be healed" - I say "that my soul shall be healed" and only noticed a couple of months ago that no one else says what I say (my daughter pointed it out, I never noticed).
Sooner or later, you will be correct, when we get some accurate translations of the Third Missal. Consider yourself ahead of the curve. LOL
SD
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Obviously it is a great thing that a person who was deprived of learning the Faith had an opportunity to do so at a later age.
This may be difficult to answer, but do you imagine that given the same set of circumstances in your youth, that having Mass in Latin instead of English would have resulted in you learning the Faith?
As for something "inherent" in the old Mass, versus the new, I think we need to consider a few things. One, you had a true desire to learn the Faith, and to recognize the Mass of the ages.
Two, the Latin Mass community is self-selected and as such, is more particular. The reverance and holiness you find "inherent" in the Latin Mass may just be a sense of holiness in this particular community. I would reckon that if this Mass was offered everywhere, that you would find it done good and bad, with differing degrees of reverence among the congregations.
Three, not speaking Latin added a sense of awe and mystery that your own language could not. The Mass could have been said in Polish or Swahili to the same effect. The fact that it was in an unknown, special language made it special, holy, set apart. This is not to say that a liturgical language is a bad thing, just to recognize that there is a power in a special language.
SD
Perhaps you neither consider the altar to be a sacred place, nor have the relics of a saint contained within?
SD
Oh no! Not ONE HAND!!! I can see how this gives you nightmares. ONE HAND!!!!
This is obviously a Protestant innovation, this using of ONE HAND.
(For what it's worth, my priests use both hands. Furthermore, we should keep seperate the NO rite and its abuses.)
For all the world it looks to be that he is sharing bread with the congregation (most priests don't raise the host very high and they twirl around to get the far corners of the congregation). The consecration of the wine looks like a TOAST.
I realize it must be disconcerting to have te priest look like he is sharing bread with the congregation. Especially as he says "take this, all of you and eat it." To the untrained eye, it would appear as if Jesus or the priest actually wanted us to eat it. Or perhaps, to share this bread.
This is an obvious corruption of the text. Jesus never said that.
Also, the consecration of the Wine has a wrong translation for Jesus' words. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Pro multis it says. What do you think it means?
SD
I don't think so. I used to go to the Lithuanian Novus Ordo (when I lived near that chapel), and it wasn't the same at all.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever watched the mass on EWTN?
|
EWTN's Televised Mass The Mass on EWTN is in keeping with the norms for the Roman Rite. Anyone who has been to Rome or to one of the great shrines of Europe knows this. Unfortunately in many places the great tradition of the Roman Rite is being obliterated by banal (and illicit) innovations, and de-Romanized by the elimination of Latin and Chant. The effect has been that the young have no experience of a truly Catholic liturgy and older people have forgotten it or been convinced it is "out-of-date." By offering the Mass in Latin and English the desire of the Second Vatican Council and all Popes since the Council for Latin to be retained is satisfied. Pope Paul VI, in granting permission for the vernacular languages, stated that he wanted Catholics to retain the use of the Church's sacred language in the Proper Responses (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus etc.). Pope John Paul II also wants the Church's language to be used. This was repeated yet again in the latest document from the Holy See on the Sacred Liturgy, the 4th Implementing Document of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council (1994). In fact, this goal is part of every document Rome has released on the liturgy, including paragraph 19 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (the book used on the altar). [See also Latin and English in the Mass] EWTN broadcasts worldwide by TV and WEWN short-wave so it is appropriate that Latin be part of the Mass for that reason. Catholics who don't know English can follow the Mass by its universal structure and even participate in the universal language of the Church. Finally, the Mass on EWTN/WEWN educates Catholics concerning the true nature of the liturgical reform called for by the Council and the popes since, and which in many cases has been co-opted by those with their own agenda. It shows Catholics the glory of the Roman Rite as it is possible even now, using the current missal. By its fidelity to the intentions of the Magisterium it thus glorifies the Father, in the Church, through Jesus Christ. Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL |
You consider bowing to relics (if there are indeed any in the table) acceptable?
Do you speak Lithuanian? Did you attend this Mass before yo had ever seen a Latin Mass?
My point was that someone unfamiliar with the Latin Mass could be just as awe-struck by any Mass in a strange tongue.
SD
The word you are looking for is "altar." Yes, there are relics in any Catholic altar.
And yes, Catholics often venerate relics or other reminders of saints. Perhaps you have seen such?
SD
No, I don't (in fact, I was trying to learn some). And no, of course not -- and here you're being deliberately obtuse. When we went to the Lithuanian church as kids, we got a Lithuanian sermon -- and some lovely hymns in Lithuanian, but the universal Latin Mass.
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.