EWTN Edits Fr. Levis

EWTN Experts forum ^ | 09/9/05 | Fr. Levis and an un-named editor

[murphE]

On September 9, 2005, Fr. Robert J Levis of the EWTN Experts Forum and televsion program, Web of Faith, responded to a question about the Novus Ordo mass. This is his answer as it originally appeared:

 

Previous Question

Next Question

Latin Novus Ordo
Question from gem on 9/8/2005:

Dearest Fr. Levis

God Bless You!

Our former Pastor stated that the Novus Ordo Mass was more historically accurate (going back further in history) than the Tridentine, what could he possibly mean by that? He also said that he once celebrated a Latin Novus Ordo, is that simply what it sounds like?

He also said he need a dispensation to celebrate the Tridentine, is that accurate?

I cannot ask him myself, otherwise I would. He is missed terribly by all in our parish!

Thank you for your reply

Sincerely;

gem

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 9/9/2005:

Dear Gem, The NOvus Ordo Mass was a complete fabrication or product of its creators, a point of contention within the Church since it has few if any roots in the Tridentine Mass. This point is very important to our present Pope. I have no idea what this priest means by his prioritizing the new Mass over the former. In America at present, no priest is to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without permission of his bishop, without an Indult from the Ecclesia Dei Commission of Rome. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis

COPYRIGHT 2005

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend       

Days later, and after being copied and linked to by many websites the answer was changed. The new version is now the only one available on the EWTN Experts Forum and appears below:

Previous Question

Next Question

Latin Novus Ordo
Question from gem on 9/8/2005:

Dearest Fr. Levis

God Bless You!

Our former Pastor stated that the Novus Ordo Mass was more historically accurate (going back further in history) than the Tridentine, what could he possibly mean by that? He also said that he once celebrated a Latin Novus Ordo, is that simply what it sounds like?

He also said he need a dispensation to celebrate the Tridentine, is that accurate?

I cannot ask him myself, otherwise I would. He is missed terribly by all in our parish!

Thank you for your reply

Sincerely;

gem

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 9/9/2005:

Dear Gem, In America at present, no priest is to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without permission of his bishop, without an Indult from the Ecclesia Dei Commission of Rome. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis

COPYRIGHT 2005

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend                    

[Gerard.P]

It's interesting the Fr. Levis' second answer is actually wrong even by Novus Ordo standards. The current line is that the only Liturgy cannot be celebrated "publicly" without a celebret. Any priest however can say the Old Mass privately without the permission of his bishop.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

"Fabrication" was a poor choice of words. In its Latin root, it made sense here--the Novus Ordo liturgy was put together by a committee, the absolutely worst way to do it. The traditional liturgy grew organically from the start, hence was not "fabricated."

But unless one knows Latin, this root sense will be lost on readers and will be understood as "made up out of nothing" which is hopelessly incorrect. The NO was assembled by the committee from the traditional liturgy and retained most of the traditional liturgy but made significant changes in the Offertory, at the beginning and end of the Mass etc. [And before anyone jumps on me to say that it substituted "all" for "many" in the Consecration etc., please, I'm talking about the Latin text of the NO, comparing it to the Tridentine. All sorts of infinitely worse changes were made in the vernacular translations. They are not at issue here. Adherents of the Tridentine Rite who argue against the NO on the basis of the vernaculars are comparing apples with oranges and don't deserve the time of day. If one wishes to compare the NO and the Traditional Latin Rite, then one has to compare the two Latin texts first, decide what was wrong with the NO in its Latin text. Then if one wishes one can move on to the translations. Errors in the translations can be corrected by new translations and strike absolutly no telling blow against the NO Latin text. Its errors need to be assessed on their own. Adding three new Eucharistic Prayers was "fabrication" in both the root Latin sense and the colloquial sense of the word.

My guess is that the former pastor's reference was to the replacing of the Offertory prayers for the bread and wine with the paraphrased pieces from the Didache--he probably meant that this constituted a restoration of a more ancient liturgical form than the Tridentine Rite. It's nonsense, of course and the Didache inserts don't fit at all and they come at the expense of the sacrificial emphasis of the Tridentine Offertory prayers. But if Fr. Levis had taken the time to point that out instead of unloading animaus against the NO, he would have educated his readers and made clear what the deficiencies of the NO are without misleading his readers.

It was an imprudent way to express his animus and he should not have let his animus get in the way of genuinely serving an honest inquirer. For all those reasons, it was a foolish reply and should not have been left standing, since it obviously had become a "prooftext" banging around the Internet. If he had only answered accurately and dispassionately he would have struck a much more telling blow against the NO and in favor of the Tridentine Rite. Instead, he brought embarrassment to the very cause he wished to serve, namely, devotion to the Tridentine Rite.

This is a good example of the need for prudence and charity on these issues. One can be devoted to the Tridentine Rite and criticize the NO without doing so with meanspirited animus. The defenders of the Tridentine Rite sometimes are their own worst enemies--which is true of defenders of just about anything.

[murphE]

He could have edited the remarks himself. The word "fabrication" was misunderstood in many circles.

I think he explains what he means very clearly, "The NOvus Ordo Mass was a complete fabrication or product of its creators, a point of contention within the Church since it has few if any roots in the Tridentine Mass."

I think that is precisely why it was edited.

The new answer doesn't even answer the person's questions. I have seen many of Fr. Echert's answers edited or removed from the EWTN expert forum, answers in which he refused to condemn the SSPX as being "in schism". I think this is more of the same.

[Gerard.P]

Adherents of the Tridentine Rite who argue against the NO on the basis of the vernaculars are comparing apples with oranges and don't deserve the time of day. If one wishes to compare the NO and the Traditional Latin Rite, then one has to compare the two Latin texts first, decide what was wrong with the NO in its Latin text.

Obviously this cuts both ways. Defenders of the Novus Ordo can't defend the vernacular versions of the Liturgy by appealing to the Latin text of the original. So claiming that Rome promulgated it, therefore it's valid on that basis also doesn't deserve the time of day.

[murphE]

To give credit where credit is due, this was your scoop.

[Salvation]

Bump!

[B Knotts]

Actually, I think Hilary had it first over at The Devout Life.

[royalcello]

The new answer doesn't even answer the person's questions. I have seen many of Fr. Echert's answers edited or removed from the EWTN expert forum, answers in which he refused to condemn the SSPX as being "in schism".

I hardly ever post here anymore, but a traditionalist friend from another forum, intrigued by what you wrote, asked me to ask you if you have more information, and anything to document these edits.

[murphE]

No, I have nothing to document it. I used to save links to Fr. Echerts comments about the SSPX. He was always very diplomatic. He never came right out and supported them, but he never condemned them or their supporters like the rest of the EWTN crew. Mostly the posts were SSPX supporters writing in and defending the SSPX to which Fr. Echert would reply, "Thanks for your comments" with no corrections. The links have since disappeared.

If you search his forum for SSPX it will turn up nothing.

[TotusTuus]

I don't know, but this sounds like a spoof. I can't imagine a dignified and experienced Priest like him making the statement as found in the first reply. For one, it is completely wrong when it states that the "Novus Ordo ... has few if any roots in the Tridentine Mass. " Canon I, the "Roman Canon", the very heart and core of the Mass, is identical in both.

I could swear I've read that first sentence 100 times before right here on FR. Sounds more like SSPX proselytizing than anything else. With all the photo shopping on the Internet nowadays, hacking capabilities to boot, who knows? That's what it could be.

Then again, I could be wrong. Either way, I expect better from their Expert Forum.

[murphE]

I don't know, but this sounds like a spoof.

Who would be doing the spoofing? The original answer was on the EWTN forum. I saw it, Seattle Catholic even linked to it because, I imagine, they were surprised by the frankness Fr. Levis' answer. Other websites linked to it, some of them were smart enough to copy the first answer.

With all the photo shopping on the Internet nowadays, hacking capabilities to boot, who knows?

OH pul-leeze. And it's the trads who are always being accused of believing conspiracy theories. Believe what you want to stay in your comfort range. The edited version is obviously incomplete and does not even answer the questions asked.

Canon I, the "Roman Canon", the very heart and core of the Mass, is identical in both.

Not according to Fr. Levis =D - as well as many others.

New Mass: Inalienable right or Inferior Rite

[TotusTuus]

The edited version is obviously incomplete and does not even answer the questions asked.

Well, it answers the last question, but not the other two, one of which is speculative.

I dunno, no biggie. It just sounded like a strange answer. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

Regarding Canon I, it is identical in it's Latin form in both Missals. English translations? yea, sure, they suck. That is inarguable.

[Gerard.P]

I would recommend for a real comparison listen to William Biesach and Charles Coulombe's 16 hour line by line comparison between the Old Missal and the New Missal. Latin against Latin and English Translation against ICEL translations.

They also cover the consecrations by comparing the Chaldean and Coptic and I think a third Eastern rite with the Traditional Latin against the Novus Ordo.

[Markjwyatt]

I think Colin Donovan edited this. He is the "VP" of Theology for EWTN, and pretty much determines waht is orthodox and what is not.

Mark Wyatt

[murphE]

Interesting.

[Maeve]

The idea of Colin Donovan editing Fr. Levis is an obscenity.