Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Mass / Validity versus Scandal
EWTN ^

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


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; ewtn; newmass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-213 next last
To: Land of the Irish; NYer; Maximilian; SoothingDave; Canticle_of_Deborah; Bigg Red; Pyro7480; ...
At ministry workdays, the leader asks people to say five thankful things for each word of complaint they utter.
141 posted on 04/08/2003 8:22:19 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
At ministry workdays, the leader asks people to say five thankful things for each word of complaint they utter.

Well, then I'm thankful I'm not at "ministry workdays." ;-)

SD

142 posted on 04/08/2003 8:26:39 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
Been reading through the exchange between you two and thought I'd weigh in with my opinion -- anecdotal observation is more like it, actually.

Thanks for your inspiring story which parallels mine in several ways. Good insight on the sanctity inherent in the traditional Catholic Mass.

143 posted on 04/08/2003 8:28:02 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Aloysius
My children were appalled by the things that you mention: the irreverent handling of the Eucharist, the banal music, the sloppy or immodest dress, loud talking before Mass. At the time I defended what our particular parish presented as the N.O. because I honestly believed that it was mandated by the Vatican, even the Holy Father himself. I mean, that's what our priest told us. Now they are adults and for the most part avoid the Catholic Church. They do like the High Latin N.O. Mass at St. Matthew's in D.C. and will attend when they are there. But they complain that the whole atmosphere in most of the Catholic churches they have attended conveys an attitude of "this isn't really serious or all that important." Especially when most of the people show up in shorts or jeans.
144 posted on 04/08/2003 8:30:54 AM PDT by k omalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maryz
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."

Ha, ha, that reminds me of a parish in Boston which took the tabernacle off their altar and placed ferns in that spot. Later when they were beginning a "wreckovation" project they asked for comments on their website. I replied that the new church was a non-Catholic monstrosity but it would have 1 significant advantage: attendees would no longer feel as though they were engaged in nature worship since their adoration would no longer be directed towards ferns.

145 posted on 04/08/2003 8:31:53 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
"Many popes have dogmatically stated that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children."
"Any Catholic who is not active in the traditional movement will be unaware of such fundamental matters. There are hundreds more."

This is so sad and so true. Time and time again I have seen active parishoners (usually younger than I) who have no idea about this. Catechesis/education is assumed to be the main duty of others..."isn't that what the DRE is for?"

The only way to stop this is to insist upon the reading/teaching of the CCC as part of the Baptismal preparation of parents. Too much has been watered down in the various books and pamphlets used in the CCD/parochial programs. Original sources must be used above a certain grade level...before Confirmation.
146 posted on 04/08/2003 8:37:08 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I don't have cable, so I don't get EWTN, but I've assisted at reverently and tastefully said novus ordo masses. They do retain much of the Roman liturgical tradition, but they still use the novus ordo text, which is, compared to the traditional Latin Mass, quite banal. For this reason, while a properly and reverently said novus ordo can be spiritually nourishing and uplifting, it cannot match up to the traditional mass.

Furthermore, in my experience, reverently-said novus ordos that conform to the rubrics are much rarer and more difficult to find that a traditional mass.

147 posted on 04/08/2003 8:39:00 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I think that the Three languages that were nailed to the cross indicated the "lingua franca" of Christianity. Latin, Greek and Hebrew. IMO, we would all be better off for submitting to these timeless languages. I believe that these three languages seem to have been blessed by God.
148 posted on 04/08/2003 8:39:58 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
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).

The first revision of the New Mass had a literal translation of the Latin, "Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea," meaning "Lord I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof, speak but the Word and my soul shall be healed." But later they revised the translation to a non-literal, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, only say the word and I shall be healed."

We actually have a similar problem even at our Latin Mass as a carryover from the New Mass. When the Gospel is read in English, the priest says, "The Lord be with you," and based on their New Mass experience the people respond, "And also with you." But the correct response is "And with your spirit," which is the translation of "Et cum spiritu tuo."

149 posted on 04/08/2003 8:40:40 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
What "Reality" of the Faith do I not have? What tenet am I missing? What Truth am I not getting?

Here is just one example -- I chose an issue unrelated to the liturgy, but one which affects every aspect of your life as a family. Have you ever been taught the primary purpose of marriage? Many popes have dogmatically stated that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.

It's to get lower car insurance rates, right?

Any Catholic who is not active in the traditional movement will be unaware of such fundamental matters. There are hundreds more.

Well, I'm glad that you are getting everything you need. Please pray for us poor, ignorant souls, that God may have mercy on us as well, and maybe throw us a scrap of knowledge.

SD

150 posted on 04/08/2003 8:42:16 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
I think that the Three languages that were nailed to the cross indicated the "lingua franca" of Christianity. Latin, Greek and Hebrew. IMO, we would all be better off for submitting to these timeless languages. I believe that these three languages seem to have been blessed by God.

God certainly used Hebrew and Greek to write His Scripture. I don't know if that means they were "blessed" by God. Perhaps God just decided to use the language that we happened to speak at the time.

Latin has no such claim. It was just the common language of the Empire. The language literate people understood.

SD

151 posted on 04/08/2003 8:44:50 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
Don't get me wrong, I think Latin has its place in the liturgy. And the value of an unchanging language for expressing unchanging truths is vital.

But that does nto mean that the Church has no capacity to regulate Her own liturgies.

SD

152 posted on 04/08/2003 8:46:39 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Latin has two claims (again, my opinion) 1. Being one of the three languages on the cross and 2. Being the language of Western Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. I will assume that niether of these strikes you as special.
153 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:49 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=68&loc=US
154 posted on 04/08/2003 8:55:07 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Latin has no such claim. It was just the common language of the Empire. The language literate people understood.... Don't get me wrong, I think Latin has its place in the liturgy. And the value of an unchanging language for expressing unchanging truths is vital.

Pope John XXIII, the pope who initiated Vatican II, promulgated an encyclical "Veterum Sapientiae" which outlined the prime importance of LATIN for the Church. He listed the reasons why no other language could replace Latin, and he insisted that all seminary instruction must take place in Latin. That means that you can't enter the seminary until you already know Latin. We are friends with a young man in a diocesan seminary, and he will not even know such basic phrases as "Pater Noster" by the time he is ordained. Here is a link to the document:
Veterum Sapientia

Among other points, Pope John said:

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular."

155 posted on 04/08/2003 9:02:11 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
"My opinion is that there is an inherent function of the Tridentine that preserves the notion of holiness and sanctity of the Eucharist that is not INHERENT in the NO."

Perhaps it is the fact that the Saints said the same words in the same Latin. And, to God, all points in time are present...so all the Saints prayed/are praying together in unison. We are praying too but not in the same language (except for those who softly speak or think the latin responses.)
156 posted on 04/08/2003 9:03:11 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
Latin has two claims (again, my opinion) 1. Being one of the three languages on the cross and 2. Being the language of Western Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. I will assume that niether of these strikes you as special.

You assume wrongly. I am only objecting to the idea that the language is somehow "blessed" by God in a way that modern tongues are not.

I am indeed in favor of Latin for the ordinary parts of Mass because of its universal uniting and historical attributes.

I also appreciate a "dead" language for the purpose of expressing unchanging truths.

SD

157 posted on 04/08/2003 9:04:03 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
You think perhaps I disagree?

How many times do I have to state that I do indeed think Latin has a place in the liturgy, and that Latin has its use as the language of the Church?

SD

158 posted on 04/08/2003 9:06:48 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
Perhaps it is the fact that the Saints said the same words in the same Latin.

All the saints? I would think the earliest ones spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

SD

159 posted on 04/08/2003 9:08:20 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
You are probably right. Still I think you can understand the jist of my words...we are so limited when thinking of the timelessness of what used to be always called Holy Mass. And we are so limited in our perspective of heavenly prayers and God's view. I know I would love to attend the Mass of my childhood.
160 posted on 04/08/2003 9:20:32 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson