Arguments for the NO Mass?
  • I've been going to the TLM for the past week or so (Daily Mass), as I've been able to take the streetcar over to the nearest TLM parish for their 11:30 Mass. This past Friday, the feast of the Sacred Heart, was also the day for Closing Ceremonies at St. Michael's Choir School. The 7 PM Mass was an NO Mass, the first one since I had to sing the procession for Corpus Christi on Sunday. I was disturbed by the celebration. I kept telling myself that it was a valid Mass, and that I would truly receive the Body of Christ, but something was missing, and I certainly didn't feel right. Any help? I want to convert entirely to TLM but the Cathedral requires all choristers to sing a weekend Mass and it wouldn't allow me to get to a Sunday TLM.

    Maybe I'm missing something from the NO Mass, or maybe I'm overthinking.
    Please pray for me.
  • Liam
    Posts: 2,998
    Talk to your spiritual director.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,287
    Both are valid rites of the church, so there is really nothing to discuss. Go to one, or the other, if you can get to them. Granted, many of us may like one better than the other. I have worked in Protestant churches where it was nearly impossible to get to any masses. Fortunately, that was a number of years ago.
  • Many sacramental theologians endorsed the inclusion of an explicit epiclesis in the new eucharistic prayers. Though not necessary for consecration, it does help the faithful understand theologically what is happening.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,287
    Though not necessary for consecration, it does help the faithful understand theologically what is happening.


    I have heard some say that the function of the Holy Spirit was not clear in the old rite, and needed more emphasis.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,676
    It is indeed valid.

    What is usually missing in the NO, for me, is any sense of recollection. The distractions are many; the silences and beauties few.

    It is very hard to pray at noisy singalong Masses in multipurpose facilities with white walls and American time sensitivities and percussive instruments. And that's even with a good ars celebrandi.

    If the priest insists on engaging people's attention like the MC of the Daytime Emmys, recollection is impossible.

    But it's perfectly valid.
  • Baptisms were sometimes performed (mockingly) in the Roman forum. Those actors were validly baptized, and frequently went to their deaths shortly afterwards, for behaving as if they had actually been baptized.

    A great many things can contribute to distractions from the truth -- but the truth is still the truth.

    A beautiful icon mixed in with modern art is still a beautiful icon, although it may be hard to find among all the detritus. Accordingly, a growing number of people occasionally endure the Ordo of Blessed Paul VI, when they have little choice, but find their peace (and therefore increased receptivity to the sacramental graces) in the older form.



  • dad29
    Posts: 1,202
    Charles, I offer the remarks of Fr. Hunwicke, a priest across the pond:

    My answer is invariably the same (see Search Engine attached to this blog): the Roman rite not only does not have an Epiclesis to summon the Holy Spirit upon the Elements so that they may become the Lord's Body and Blood; it never did have such a formula.


    That's because the Roman rite preceded the interest in the H.S. of the 4th Century ffd.

    See: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-holy-spirit-and-roman-rite.html
  • JonLaird
    Posts: 170
    In his address at Sacra Liturgia 2017, Cardinal Burke spoke about the mutual enrichment of the two forms. The OP has hit upon why that is necessary. Try spending a week at Clear Creek Abbey, attending all of the usus antiquior Benedictine office and daily missa cantata and, importantly, breathing in the holy silence that reigns supreme there, and then go back to your home parish. Even if your liturgy at home is relatively reverent, it is still a jarring experience.

    We have a deep need for a liturgy imbued with awe . . . solemnity . . . humility . . . profound reverence. That aids in disposing us to encounter God in the liturgy. It is possible to dispose ourselves to that encounter in spite of--over and against--an external culture which bombards us with the noise of the world. God forbid that such noise overcome us in the very rites which are the "source and summit" of our Christian life, as we take our place in the event which defines us as Christians. Yet, in many (most?) places, this is precisely what happens.

    What you are seeking in the OF, Casavant Organist, is a liturgical praxis which not only satisfies the lowest common denominator of validity, but also disposes you to a personal encounter with God. It is possible to do, and that was one of Cardinal Burke's points. But in the absence of that, you have to do more work yourself, cultivating an interior disposition of profound awe and reverence especially for the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Cardinal Sarah proposed at Sacra Liturgia 2017 that we consider receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue. Obviously he was speaking of the OF, since this is already done in the EF.

    Warning: for those of us striving to do justice to the liturgy, it is my opinion that the devil comes at us from both sides. On the one hand, he will attempt to increase the noise for us personally, thereby exhausting us and causing us to give in to the noise, which settles in as a kind of dull, smug malaise which frustrates our ability to truly participate in the liturgy. On the other hand, he boosts our pride regarding our newfound enlightened view of spiritual realities, convincing us that we are able to pass judgment and sentence on everyone and everything. He will even help us learn more about liturgical history and theology, if it will serve his ultimate purpose of destroying us with this pride. At least, this has been my experience, and I have observed both phenomena in others as well.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 3,902
    On the other hand, he boosts our pride regarding our newfound enlightened view of spiritual realities, convincing us that we are able to pass judgment and sentence on everyone and everything. He will even help us learn more about liturgical history and theology, if it will serve his ultimate purpose of destroying us with this pride. At least, this has been my experience, and I have observed both phenomena in others as well.


    Hear.............hear.

    The deficiency Kathy mentions as "recollection" could simply be solved and enacted by sober preparation from all parties, not the least being the celebrant/homilist.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Thanks very much JonLaird for your kind words. Maybe I've been so disposed to liturgical abuse that the OF, at my stage, can't really be too "normal" after having been exposed to 7-8 years of guitar masses. I started receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue this year.
    Thanked by 1JonLaird
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,676
    On Fr. Hunwicke's blog, a commentator asks

    How about the Veni Sanctificatur in the EF offertory prayers?

    Any thoughts?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    I have attended NO masses that were as reverent and sanctified as any EF one that I ever did witness. I have also 'arranged' some with priests who sang literally every last word, all sung readings, sung universal prayers and everything else, as the closing masses for our chant workshops at St Basil's Chapel, UST, Houston. What an EF mass has that such an NO hasn't would be difficult to imagine. When people come to our chant workshops, one quip that I always toss to them is that 'if you, after going through our workshop and participating in the workshop mass, don't experience extreme culture shock when you return to your parish, you've missed the boat'. Then, of course, there is the Ordinariate Use - there's nary an :EF mass anywhere that could put it in the shade. The normative regimen in the Ordinariate is a solemn high mass (or as near as they can get to what's done at the Ordinariate cathedral - that's one thing that cathedrals are for) every Sunday. (I might add that in the Ordinariate Use the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are said in the sacristy before mass.)

    Does it need to be said yet again? It isn't the NO, it's what people do to it. And if it weren't around, they'd do it to the EF. That's just the kind of people they are. They just don't get it. (In fact, their seminaries saw to it that they didn't get it.) Neither do the EF people who prefer to rattle their rosaries at low masses - or be scolded into silence by deacons at high masses (how's that for sacred decorum?!).
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Ali
  • stulte
    Posts: 125
    To answer the original question bluntly, no. Unless you must go because you have no other option to fulfill your Sunday obligation or to receive the Sacraments or have some other duty you must fulfill. Granted, it's valid. But often, that's all it is (which is still a lot). Yes, it can be said in a manner far more in conformity with traditional praxis, but that still doesn't address the theological impoverishment of it compared to the EF in terms of the texts and gestures. The offertory in the OF is minimalist for example. If you're not otherwise attached, perhaps you should consider moving some place where you can exclusively attend the EF?

    And as guy with a music degree who directs a men's schola, I LOVE going to Low Mass and praying the Rosary quietly. The prejudice against this really needs to stop.

  • 108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.

    32. If the private and interior devotion of individuals were to neglect the august sacrifice of the altar and the sacraments, and to withdraw them from the stream of vital energy that flows from Head to members, it would indeed be sterile, and deserve to be condemned. But when devotional exercises, and pious practices in general, not strictly connected with the sacred liturgy, confine themselves to merely human acts, with the express purpose of directing these latter to the Father in heaven, of rousing people to repentance and holy fear of God, of weaning them from the seductions of the world and its vice, and leading them back to the difficult path of perfection, then certainly such practices are not only highly praiseworthy but absolutely indispensable, because they expose the dangers threatening the spiritual life; because they promote the acquisition of virtue; and because they increase the fervor and generosity with which we are bound to dedicate all that we are and all that we have to the service of Jesus Christ. Genuine and real piety, which the Angelic Doctor calls "devotion," and which is the principal act of the virtue of religion -- that act which correctly relates and fitly directs men to God; and by which they freely and spontaneously give themselves to the worship of God in its fullest sense[33] -- piety of this authentic sort needs meditation on the supernatural realities and spiritual exercises, if it is to be nurtured, stimulated and sustained, and if it is to prompt us to lead a more perfect life. For the Christian religion, practiced as it should be, demands that the will especially be consecrated to God and exert its influence on all the other spiritual faculties. But every act of the will presupposes an act of the intelligence, and before one can express the desire and the intention of offering oneself in sacrifice to the eternal Godhead, a knowledge of the facts and truths which make religion a duty is altogether necessary. One must first know, for instance, man's last end and the supremacy of the Divine Majesty; after that, our common duty of submission to our Creator; and, finally, the inexhaustible treasures of love with which God yearns to enrich us, as well as the necessity of supernatural grace for the achievement of our destiny, and that special path marked out for us by divine Providence in virtue of the fact that we have been united, one and all, like members of a body, to Jesus Christ the Head. But further, since our hearts, disturbed as they are at times by the lower appetites, do not always respond to motives of love, it is also extremely helpful to let consideration and contemplation of the justice of God provoke us on occasion to salutary fear, and guide us thence to Christian humility, repentance and amendment.


    Evidently, Pope Pius XII agreed with you.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,805
    The NO is permissive, while the EF is instructive. Yes, it's possible to say the NO with all the reverence and ceremony of an EF sung Mass, but according to its own rules, the NO can be said irreverently, and without emphasizing the Sacrifice. I read an article that suggested that the EF cannot be said validly without emphasis on the Sacrifice and Real Presence, whereas the NO (again per its own rules) can be. This for me is the principal difference: the EF tells priests what to do, and the NO lets them choose.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    As others have said, the NO done by the book is valid - but also anemic. Read any honest history of the creation of the NO and you will see how it was actually intended to dilute and weaken faith in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and even in the Real Presence itself (the best summary would be in Michael Davies' "Liturgical Revolution" books - https://angeluspress.org/products/set-the-davies-liturgical-revolution-series). The short answer is that the Vatican II fathers desired and asked for very careful, organic, small changes; but with Bugnini's consilium they got a protestantized scandal of a liturgy.

    So, while the NO can be and is in many places done with great reverence, yet even then it is weak, compared to the inherent, unassailable Catholicity of the ancient Mass.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    This is not a loaded question. If, as monscarmeli says, the NO was more revolutionary than was wanted by the council fathers, why was it accepted, approved in the first place? Why was there no hue and cry from theologians? Is this just another instance of poor, toothless, guardianship by 'the Vatican' - to wit all the liturgical chaos that was (and continues to be) permitted after the council with very little disciplination?
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    Dom Alcuin Reid gives a very good summary of what the council fathers ask for and then what they actually got from Bugnini and company:

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/12/04/the-liturgy-fifty-years-after-sacrosanctum-concilium/

    The causes of the post-Council chaos have been discussed ever since that time, but it's time to say very plainly that behind it all is simply the influence of Freemasonry and their minions (and to pass that off as "conspiracy mongering" is precisely what they want you to do).

    We can't forget that all the "novelties" we have seen since the council - vernacular, movable wooden table altars, communion in the hand and under both kinds while standing, the dissolution of the priesthood - were actually Innovations of the Protestant revolutionaries over 400 years earlier, implemented to destroy people's faith in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the Real Presence.....
    Thanked by 1francis
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,805
    I think @monscarmeli is correct here. There was an outcry from some theologians: see "The Ottaviani Intervention." The fact of the matter as I understand it is that modernists and secularists had been installed into positions of great authority in the Vatican and pushed their agenda: Bugnini, et al. As I understand, there were many followers of De Chardin and Jungmann who subscribed to their brand of modernism. It has also been historically documented that many of the things that the Council implemented were condemned by previous popes and councils. See "Auctorem Fidei," and "Lamentabili Sane."
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 946
    MJO
    The Ordinariate Use is great, but our main Ordinariate church has the EF Sung on Wednesday evenings and a EF low Mass on Saturdays... and on Feasts say Corpus Christi, they are not allowed to have the Ordinariate Rite as the Bishops of England and Wales have moved the Feast to Sunday... instead we have the EF, photos here, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashpod84/albums/72157682105850742
    N.B. the celebrant is the Parish Priest (Ordinariate)

    We will be singing an extra EF Mass again for St. Peter and Paul (Thursday) and we have also been invited back to sing an EF Mass for the Patronal Feast, on the Assumption!

    N.B. This church also has the OF, and hopefully soon will have the Sarum Usage!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,287
    It has also been historically documented that many of the things that the Council implemented were condemned by previous popes and councils. See "Auctorem Fidei," and "Lamentabili Sane."


    It is also true that all this occurred during the reign of a weak, vacillating, wishy-washy pope who couldn't or wouldn't stand up to those modernists.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    ...Use is great, but...

    tomjaw -
    I think it a great irony that in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (English) the Ordinariate Use does not hold the place that it does over here. I understand that the OU is celebrated as just one option in the English Ordinariate - the others being the OF and the EF, which get equal (if not more equal) time. I just don't get this at all. What, pray, is the point in an ordinariate if it gives equal time to non-Ordinariate rites and uses? One would never hear of this over here, nor within any of the various non-Roman rites within the Catholic Church which have and jealously guard their own identities and ethoi.

    I can't speak to what the situation in Australia is, but, the situation in England seems to me tepid, very wishy-washy, and really not a full-blooded use at all. The whole purpose of the ordinariates was having an Anglican Use - outside of that they make no sense. The Anglican Use and the Ordinariates are an existential unity.

    It is common knowledge that in the formation of the ordinariate use it was the English who fought most strenuously against a full BCP and Sarum heritaged liturgy - they'd all been using the NO all along anyway and exhibited no particular appreciation of Sarum or BCP - in fact, they disdained it! What is the point of a distinctive use with folks who don't use it exclusively and treasure it? There isn't a consistent ritual identity. This, to me, is weird.

    In the Chair of St Peter we profoundly treasure our use and would not countenance any other in our churches. We are deeply grateful to HF Benedict for it and consider it a gift of God to those of us who are privileged to share in our Anglican patrimony and that which is truly Catholic which resides in it and always has.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 946
    MJO
    Yes, it is true most of the Anglicans that have joined us and formed the Ordinariate, were using the N.O. books. Prior to the N.O. they were using the 'English Missal' or the EF books and sometimes the BCP.
    The oath they all took as Anglicans involved "I promise to use the BCP and none other..." N.B. the 'none' is pronounced with a silent N.

    But I should note in one place in England an Ordinariate priest is still using the 'English Missal', and a few have continued to use the EF books. Others swap between the EF and Ordinariate Use so they can follow an older calendar!

    Also we should have an Ordinariate priest using the Sarum soon!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    What a curious ritual pastiche you all have!
    Interesting about the Anglican Missal.
    I had always thought that the Catholic Church should have instituted a not-necessarily-TudorBethan version of it instead of the NO. Things might have gone sooo much better. But, apparently, many bishops and scads more of priests actually wanted the chaos that they invited or winked at or did nothing effective about - it was like the Paris mob going on a rampage through corridors of the Tuileries.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,202
    the Veni Sanctificatur in the EF offertory prayers?


    This is now a dimming memory, but I think that a well-studied authority on the Roman Rite also cites that as 'epiclesis'. Since I cannot be accused of being an authority, I'm not going to get between these two guys on the matter.
  • Kathy,

    Could you turn the priest around in the top photograph, so that he's facing Our Lord?
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 67
    I think that the memes posted by Kathy summarize exactly what I was going to say. (But why should that stop me?)

    There are issues with the Novus Ordo, without a doubt. One can question certain edits of the readings, the placement of the sequence before the alleluia, etc. But if the celebrant were to say a Novus Order mass in Latin, ad orientem, using EP I, most would be hard pressed to differentiate it from a EF mass after the responsorial psalm.

    And there is some good in the Novus Ordo. For example, while perhaps a point could be made for it, it seems silly in an EF mass for the readings to be read in Latin, only for them to be repeated in the vernacular just before the homily. And while one can quibble with the selection of the Old Testament readings, in principle, having more read from the Old Testament is on the whole a gain.

    That said, the implementation of the reform is an entirely different question. For example, Sacrosanctum Concilium paragraph 54: "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." What percentage of even the most conservative pastors are following this? What percentage of Catholics today can say the proper responses in Latin from memory? And we all know what the Council said about chant.

    The good news is that the most objectionable parts of how the NO is celebrated are not required by the church. Beauty and solemnity can be restored. But they won't be restored if those who most thirst for it abandon the project.

    Just some thoughts.
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    Thanks Chaswjd, and your observations make perfect sense, and that's how I felt for a long time.

    But then I realized it begs the question: just why, really, did the Mass have to be so radically changed anyway? Or, if it didn't have to be, why was it?

    It seems that faithful Catholics, so weary and beleaguered by decades of strife and acrimony, and longing for peace, try very very hard to look at the N.O. and just "make" it be "ok".

    There are so many destructive forces at work, but we have to acknowledge the two primary opponents to true worship: those intending to destroy (who are relatively few), and those who just want to get on with things and stop fighting (who are legion). This is no different than in past ages, when someone tried to force changes (insert pertinent king or prelate), a majority of priests and nobles "went along with it" ("for fellowship's sake"!), but thankfully some people rose up to denounce the error (e.g., "Western Rising of 1549" in Wales after Cranmer forced the liturgical changes).

    But, why should it have to be such a laborious, tortuous, life-long or even life-giving fight just to get a little reverence at Mass? We've "settled" for something very poor and empty, we've "settled" for letting Christ be weakly and ambiguously honored. But then, you see, the honest reading of history shows us that this is precisely what the Masons/modernists wanted and forced into being.

    This is why I and many others, while never denying the objective validity of the N.O., are thoroughly convinced that, outside of the core elements that were retained from the Mass of the Ages, the N.O. is more a work of men than of God, and its time is limited.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,287
    Time and again I have read the comments about the NO vs. the EF and how deficient the NO is. Guys, there is no one on this forum with the rank, title, and authority to change any of it. It is a valid rite, like it or not. When did the Vatican EVER ask what any of us thought? Perhaps it could change some day, but not by anyone here.
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    Thanks CharlesW, and that is all true. But also, I'm not aware of any of the saints having been asked by the Vatican to start making things better in their part of the world; they just did it. And so we need to follow that example and promote truth and beauty and goodness and justice wherever we can....

  • Liam
    Posts: 2,998
    "But also, I'm not aware of any of the saints having been asked by the Vatican to start making things better in their part of the world; they just did it."

    Actually, while not quite the same thing, many saints did want to do things that required permission from their bishop and/or Rome and struggled mightily to get that, and didn't necessarily get what they asked for. And Rome certainly sent saints on missions they didn't want.

    There's an hoary old Catholic proverb about life in the Church that goes something like, if you want to become a saint, you will likely be crucified by the Church along the way. (Of course, the point of the proverb is stop one from whining/whinging about it! It's basically a variation on "offer it up". Actively practicing cradle Catholics may be more familiar with this sensibility than inactive, revert or convert Catholics.)

    (All that said, it's not like there aren't voluble explanations in the official documents for the whys of the changes made and not made in the conciliar liturgical reforms (and certain reforms that anticipated them), and an ocean of commentaries available thereon. While most folks are aware of SC and major landmark documents, the introductions of myriad implementing documents contain even more arguments/explanations, et cet. Not that everyone will be persuaded, but a lot of people are just not very familiar with them, and it's not for lack of argument/explanation.)
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    About those papal desires, echoed by the recent council, for the people to be able to say (or sing!) their parts in the mass: I find it curious that none of this has happened amongst those who prefer the EF. I'm making an effort to couch this in an objective and nonjudgmental manner: it seems to me that those who prefer the EF do so, among other reasons, precisely because they are not required actively to participate in the ritual except by apprehending with a worshipful mind what is going on in the sanctuary whilst saying their rosaries or meditating. This was not the vision of the council nor of the various popes who wished for the people actively to participate, to become a part of, directly to enter into, the action of the mass. It doesn't seem to me that the EF should be exempt from these desired developments by the council and various popes.The failure of 'EF people' to initiate such developments is, I think, one factor of many that gives the EF a false sense of 'otherness', or detachment, of being 'too holy' for mere laity's voices to muss up. An EF that fulfilled the council's and various popes' vision would have the laity singing the ordinary, singing the dialogue, and all other parts of the mass that 'pertain to them', - without being withdrawn into their own individual prayer exercises and being scolded into silence by appallingly (c)rude (one might go so far as to say 'insolent') deacons.

    To repeat myself - the EF is not exempt from the liturgical vision of Vatican II, it is not a separate world unto itself, it should not be an imagined refuge for people who prefer silently to observe the mass through the medium of their own private prayers and meditations. That is not what the mass is. That is one of the great, profound, lessons of the IInd Vatican Council.
  • Liam
    Posts: 2,998
    (It's time to make popcorn....)
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 723
    Jackson: On the contrary, with the exclusion of specific changes made since “Summorum Pontificum” the EF is indeed “walled off”, in its entirety, from the liturgical vision of Vatican II (whatever that means).

    It is, of course, beholden to the liturgical vision of Pius XII, which very much included congregational singing of at least the dialogues for sung Masses—to a much greater degree than was really given a chance to take root before V2.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,202
    beholden to the liturgical vision of Pius XII


    ...and Pius X.

    Let's not forget John XXIII who (IIRC) allowed "dialog Masses" wherein laity joined with the altar boys in ALL the responses at Low Mass, spoken, not sung. (Not stirred, either.)
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    And those are all excellent observations, and for the record I too perceive (though without ever experiencing Mass before the Council) the great value of the people singing the parts that pertain to them, having the readings in the vernacular, etc. - - those seem only sensible. Having experienced these things in reverent Latin N.O. Masses has convinced me of the effectiveness of these things.
    But to be sure, it is also of great value to not be "forced" into external "activity", especially since it is precisely the internal activity the council was looking for - I would much prefer to remain on my knees praying than having to stand for the "Our Father", for example.

    The main point I'm trying to communicate is that, rather than respecting centuries of tradition and faithfully implementing what the council fathers asked, the consilium produced something entirely new and revolutionary - there are even the direct quotes from those admitting they were trying to make something "acceptable" to Protestants, it's all there in the historical record. The old Mass may have had genuine "issues", but it certainly still upheld the Truth at every moment, unlike the new Mass, which (among other factors) helped usher in a nearly-unprecedented apostasy.

    I feel that the fact that so many crucial, "sacrificial" prayers were gutted from the Mass, and that so many vapid options are allowed, that the end result is that most priests, being human, take the simpler "options" and we are left with appallingly few N.O. Masses in Latin ad orientem with the Roman Canon. At least with the old Mass there were greater limits on how badly you could "abuse" it - with the new, you can "option" into a perfectly acceptable Protestant service.

    The theoretical starting point to restore things would be to start with the old Mass and then try actually doing what the council asked....
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    (extra butter on the popcorn!)
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,805
    @monscarmeli, then there's the issue of Quo Primum. Here's what I think: the Consilium group did not violate Quo Primum because they didn't alter the old book; they wrote a brand new one. Hence none of the old documents that appear in the front of the old Missale Romanum appear in the front of the new book for the Mass of Paul VI. That's one of my many theories, anyway.
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    That's an interesting point - and as presented, that wouldn't be a very Catholic attitude on the part of thy consilium...
  • monscarmelimonscarmeli
    Posts: 25
    *the
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,805
    Many of their influences were consistently condemned by the Church. De Chardin was removed from a teaching position, and asked to sign a statement retracting his heretical statements regarding original sin. This is an example of the men who influenced the modernists of V2.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,440
    i haven't even chimed in yet
    :0
    we will restart the whole argument all over again at that point
    Thanked by 2WGS monscarmeli
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    .
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,440
    MJO... once again, an excellent point!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    Felipe - I can't see how the EF is, in your words, 'walled off' from the liturgical precepts of Vatican II and a hundred years worth of papal admonitions. The council's reforms are not limited to Paul VI's mass. They should rightly be understood to apply to the mass, period; that of the Roman rite - in any of its manifestations. The council's clear vision was that the people actively, outwardly as well as inwardly, participate in those parts of the mass (that would mean the ordinary and the dialogues, etc.) that pertain to them. By no stretch of the imagination can I imagine that the EF is exempt from the council's vision of the mass as public, not private, worship. This would have been clear as day if the EF had been merely somewhat revised and been the only rite - if the 'OF' had not happened. As it is, the council's readily apparent concept of participation at mass applies to The Mass - in whatever form. The EF should not be thought of as a way of avoiding the council's wishes in these matters. Treating it as such does it no honour - indeed, is but another abuse!
  • Jackson,

    If the OF had never existed, would we have the question of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, or girl altar boys or a confusion about whether the Mass is worship or pedagogy, theocentric or anthropocentric in nature, improvised Eucharistic prayers, the fiasco in the Philippines, Footnote 351 (which matters because it involves reception of the sacraments) or other similar stuff?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,017
    Chris -
    ...would we have the question...

    Much as I hate to contemplate it, we very well may have. The times being what they were (and they're not over yet!) we may, as well, have had the same unfortunate sort of people perpetrating their horrors on whatever form of the mass was available. As always, when dealing with 'what ifs', the answers must be highly conjectural.

    We do, however, know what did happen. We do know what the council said about active inward and outward participation AT THE MASS. It did not say that the (yet to be permitted) EF was exempt. By authority of the council the people have the right and the just obligation to sing the ordinary and the dialogues, etc., regardless of rite or use, AT MASS.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 470
    SC is mostly articulating what the council fathers hold to be already true and asking for it to be clearly implemented. (my emphases)-
    SC 31. The revision of the liturgical books must ensure that the rubrics make provision for the parts belonging to the people.
    SC 54: ... Neverthless steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them. ....