Posted on 01/30/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Catholic54321
"why not just compare the Tridentine Mass with the Novus Ordo Mass."
In twenty-one words or less? Actually, you should read the Archbishop's study--it's pretty enlightening. To sum it all up--the Novus Ordo is theologically Protestant and the Traditional Mass is theologically Catholic. That is the ugly truth. Bugnini's concoction in fact did exactly what Luther did, INCLUDING tossing out the Offertory, taking the words "mysterium fidei" and "pro multis" out of the Consecration, and converting what had been a propitiatory sacrifice into one solely of thanksgiving and praise in violation of Trent.
Excuuuse me?!?!?!
That claim is utter nonsense! How can you even make it with a straight face? How can you sit there and expect me to believe anything you have to say when you try to slip a piece of absurdity like that past me?
Please tell me that was just a brain-fart ... just an accidental slip of the fingers.
Please.
You've just demonstrated that the words "Mysterum Fidei" are actually not part of the consecration, but were tacked on after the elevation.
The absurdity is yours. It's true the ICEL took the words "pro multis" out first in emulation of Luther. But Rome has put its imprimatur on the change and allowed this to stand.
Your problem is that you believe the Latin original matters. It has long since been superceded by facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground are the Masses actually attended by people in the real world, not a Mass that exists nowhere except in Mother Angelica's monastery.
Pyro: The way I read the Latin, it seems to me that "Mysterium Fidei" is describing the entire consecration. ICEL, of course, deliberately breaks this up.
This same issue came up on another thread. Someone else tried to make the claim that "for many" and "for all" meant the same thing, since according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "for all" really meant "for all the elect," with "the elect" understood. Here is what I answered:
____________________________________
Let's see if I've got this right. The Church took a perfectly clear meaning and decided to make it ambiguous. Doesn't this strike you as strange? Why would churchmen do this? Why change the words of Jesus Himself?
You must admit the people who did this knew they would raise a few eyebrows, would even raise a howl of protest not unlike the old "Filioque" dispute. But still, they did it anyway. And when people complained to Rome, the Holy See made matters worse by allowing the change.
So there had to be an agenda. They took something clear and made it fuzzy. They knew they would be charged with distorting the meaning of Jesus--but they did it anyway. They knew it was the most sacred part of the text--the origin for which went back to apostolic times--but still they did it.
And not only this. But they remove tabernacles from a place of centrality, they eliminate genuflections, they prohibit kneeling for Communion, they insist on Communion in the hands, they tear out communion rails, they place teddy bears on the altar and dress up as Santa for Christmas--and still people like you will say there is no agenda.
Meanwhile the Pope offers heathens our altars at Assisi, heretics are elevated to the cardinalate, an encyclical is published which states that "Man is the path the Church must follow," and on and on. And still you say there is no agenda. Of course there is an agenda.
You will never admit it, but any one with common sense understands what it is. It is to destroy the old religion and institute the new. But still you will deny it. You will see the evidence of catastrophe everywhere, the statistical declines that correlate perfectly with the systematic destruction of Tradition--but still you will deny the obvious.
1) My "own experience", which you so blithely dismissed, is more common than you think. I, for one, think that's a good thing. 2) I quoted you the Latin Novus Ordo. Even you cannot deny that pro multis is right there in black and white.
3) Here in the real world, "badly translated" does not mean "left out". Deal with it.
4) You have been reduced to bandying semantics. If you wish to continue doing so, you will have to do it with someone else. You may have the last word, if you like.
Any thread on Roman Catholic devotion is, to the schizzies, just another advertising opportunity.
I kneel for communion and receive ONLY on the tongue and so do my wife and kids. Many who attend Novus Ordo Masses do so as well. In my hometown N.O. parish, the tabernacle is right where it belongs at the center of an altar attached to the wall behind that altar. The NO Mass is said on the usual "hot dog stand" in front of that altar. The Church itself, built in 1928, was totally restored in 2004. Despite some expressed desire by numerous parishioners, an altar rail was not newly installed but pews cluttering the altar area were removed which would make that more possible in the future. The chairs of priest and servers were moved to the side where they belong from their prior inappropriate position on the congregation side of the tabernacle.
Your quite reasonable problems with language in American N. O. liturgy should be expressed to the execrable Bishop Imesch of Joliet, Illinois, who, as head of ICEL has been fighting guerrilla warfare against JP II and his appointees on the linguistic atrocities perpetrated by ICEL. I would prefer that the discipline of Imesch be as vigorous as the discipline of your deceased and excommunicated hero but I don't make the decisions and neither do you.
This Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger whom you favorably cite: Would he be JP II's right-hand man who has never objected to the justice meted out to Marcel? Just asking!
I don't mistake you for an apologist for the ICEL at all. You are somebody who attends the Novus Ordo--and that tells me all I need to know. Whether you kneel or not for Communion, or whether you take Communion on the tongue, is beside the point.
And you are wrong to imagine that "pro multis" has been "badly translated." If the phrase has not been honestly translated, then there has been a conscious decision to ignore what Jesus actually said. That's leaving his words out. You can rationalize this any way you like--but it's still a deliberate deception--of the sort that permeates the New Mass.
This was done by Bugger Bugnini and his Very Best Pal, Rembert (and others on the Consilium.)
The Mysterium Fide is chanted, and the chanted response is Mortem Tuum annunciamus Domine, ...(etc.)
It was built into the NO as an acclamation/response after the Consecration.
And it was a lousy idea.
How can we make this into a "shaming" phrase?--or is it better that you have a scarlet N.O. emblazoned on your chest?
As for the scarlet N.O. ... Matt 5:11-12
;'}
The placement in text certainly is referent to the Consecration, or the re-presented Sacrifice of Calvary, agreed.
But the placement in text is severely weakened by the 1) Elevation and 2) genuflection which take place after the Consecration. In other words, the placement 'in action' seriously impairs the intended effect of the placement 'in text.'
Here is only one instance wherein the NO's clumsy, committee-engineered "effect" is at best weak and at worst meaningless.
There are countless others, beginning with the license for potois instead of Latin.
"Christ is right there on the Altar, why are we blithering about end-times?"
Why, indeed--if not to subvert the faith?
"Any thread on Roman Catholic devotion is, to the schizzies, just another advertising opportunity"
Some might call it advertising; I call it getting the word out.
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.