There Is No Such Thing as the “New Mass’
And there never was
Lucy E. Carroll has an excellent article in the latest issue of Adoremus Bulletin, a newspaper dedicated to the “reform of the reform” (I wish them luck), titled “What the Novus Ordo is – and Isn’t.” I have posted excerpts from the article below (forgive the length). Emphasis and commentary are mine.
“There is no such thing as the ‘new’ Mass. No, the Mass is not a new Mass. If so, it would be called the ‘Missa nova.’ (Are you telling me that no priests or bishops, many of whom were ordained back when Latin was still a mandatory subject in the seminary, caught that in the past 40 years? Hardly. Or did they purposely misinterpreted it for the laity because they had their own agenda?) No, it is the same Mass, trimmed down and slightly re-ordered, hence the new ordering (or Novus Ordo).
“Some practices vary between the two forms. In the extraordinary form, the priest and people always face the tabernacle while in the (plain ol’) ordinary form, the priest almost always faces the people, though the Council never mandated this change in posture, and it not required.
“After the Council, Communion rails were often removed, or were not installed in new churches, though this was an innovation. The rails were not just to keep folks out of the sanctuary. The Communion rail can be seen as kind of an ‘extension’ of the altar, and, like the altar, the railing was often made of marble.
“Contrary to some mistaken ideas, bells and incense have never been forbidden. Indeed, the Novus Ordo allows for a more generous use of incense.
“But even with the variations (or in some cases nonsense and novelties), the ordinary form of the Mass is still the Sacrifice of Calvary prefigured at the Last Supper and completed in the Resurrection. (It is sad that so many people who attend Mass and call themselves Catholic do not know that, much less understand it.) It is not something new."
And there never was
Lucy E. Carroll has an excellent article in the latest issue of Adoremus Bulletin, a newspaper dedicated to the “reform of the reform” (I wish them luck), titled “What the Novus Ordo is – and Isn’t.” I have posted excerpts from the article below (forgive the length). Emphasis and commentary are mine.
“There is no such thing as the ‘new’ Mass. No, the Mass is not a new Mass. If so, it would be called the ‘Missa nova.’ (Are you telling me that no priests or bishops, many of whom were ordained back when Latin was still a mandatory subject in the seminary, caught that in the past 40 years? Hardly. Or did they purposely misinterpreted it for the laity because they had their own agenda?) No, it is the same Mass, trimmed down and slightly re-ordered, hence the new ordering (or Novus Ordo).
“Some practices vary between the two forms. In the extraordinary form, the priest and people always face the tabernacle while in the (plain ol’) ordinary form, the priest almost always faces the people, though the Council never mandated this change in posture, and it not required.
“After the Council, Communion rails were often removed, or were not installed in new churches, though this was an innovation. The rails were not just to keep folks out of the sanctuary. The Communion rail can be seen as kind of an ‘extension’ of the altar, and, like the altar, the railing was often made of marble.
“Contrary to some mistaken ideas, bells and incense have never been forbidden. Indeed, the Novus Ordo allows for a more generous use of incense.
“But even with the variations (or in some cases nonsense and novelties), the ordinary form of the Mass is still the Sacrifice of Calvary prefigured at the Last Supper and completed in the Resurrection. (It is sad that so many people who attend Mass and call themselves Catholic do not know that, much less understand it.) It is not something new."
posted by Former Altar Boy at
12:00 AM
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't know if this is exactly true:
"the ordinary form of the Mass is still the Sacrifice of Calvary prefigured at the Last Supper and completed in the Resurrection"
I mean yes, of course, the two sentences of the consecration in the New Mass are still "the Sacrifice of Calvary prefigured at the Last Supper and completed in the Resurrection."
But to say that "the Mass is the Mass" as I have heard so many NeoCon, "reform of the reform", PJII idolators state for years now is just not true. The Mass is not the Mass.
The TLM has had the benefit of Tradition, organic growth, intelligent God loving and God fearing saints, beauty, form, constancy, reverence, etc.
The New Mass has none of this. To the contrary the New Mass is a break from Tradition, a product of inorganic growth forced upon us by a bunch of men who thought they were greater than God. It is not beautiful, it in many ways is formless, irreverant, and constantly changing.
The Mass is the highest public prayer of the Church. It is in essence a prayer. You cannot completely change the Mass in almost every respect and say that "the Mass is the Mass." If we changed all the words to the Our Father, or if we started praying to "Our Mother", would we still say that the "Our Father is the Our Father"? Of course not.
Just because God loves us so much that He is willing to condescend and be present in substance at a prayer service which is so deficient and so much less than what we could offer Him and what we had offered Him for centuries does not mean that "the Mass is the Mass" regardless of the "form" used.
Ya know, I'm sooo tired of defending the True Mass (Latin Mass) that I see that people either don't want to hear about it (or act as though) or they are perfectly fine with the the new church jamboree masses. Period! I guess through prayer and sacrifice will the peoples' eyes and ears be opened, if the scandals and abominations cause them NOT to question what the H_ll is going on, and within the mass where it is in plain view, then only God's hand will be able to change this messed up world.
By the way, the liberals are spouting that to take Communion on the tongue, could pass the H1N1 flu. So they're trying to discourage people to receive the RIGHT and REVERENT WAY! What a bunch of Pig Sh_t!!
So do they plan on ceasing to administer the Precious Blood then?? Another Protestant invention! As though Chrisy is not in the Consecrated Host. Don't TAKE IT ANYMORE. GIVE EM H_LL!!!!
I originally subscribed to the Adoremus magazine/news paper. Sent in my annual donations like a good little boy over a period of years. I stopped donating, but they still send me their publication. I got tired of reading their letters to the editor of all the abuses that the writers encountered in the celebration of the N.O.M. And to think that Adoremus still believes that the N.O.M. can be reformed. Hah!
Adoremus not a fan of the TLM or of the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite's Ordinary form which makes it somewhat palatable. Actually could be very palatable if they would ditch the berekoth that passes for an Offertory and put in some REAL prayers as in the TLM.
Interesting that you would post this now. I just got myself entagled in a discussion of this same thing here..
http://cleansingfiredor.blogspot.com/2009/09/useful-glossary-of-terms.html
A few things I’d liked to say:
1. Options.
Sure the NO allows for this or that Traditional thing but they have been rendered merely optional. All optional things in the NO must die and traditional forms must be mandatory.
2. The same sacrifice.
It’s the same sacrifice yes but since the NO I watered down the TLM yields more extrinsic grace.
One could have a Mass with just the words of consecration in a janitor’s closet and still “have the same sacrifice.” Ritual and prayer and important and they help communicate doctrine and yield graces.
3. Relating to number 2, watered down prayers and ritual.
The TLM is more explicitly Catholic in its prayers and ritual.
Reform the New Mass all you want, it still has inferior prayers.
“But we can reform the prayers”
Then just use the TLM at this rate!
I don’t think her complaining about a “new Mass” is even valid anyway. No one said it’s somehow another sacrifice and therefore it’s new. Everyone uses the word to describe a new form of Mass – a novelty and banal fabrication by men looking to appeal to protestants.
Therefore she argues against a strawman.
It’s the same sacrifice yes but since the NO I watered down the TLM yields more extrinsic grace.
Extrinsic grace? This is not a Catholic theological term for grace, but IIRC the term arises from the Reformation. It is related to the Calvinist conception that sinful man's sins are not wiped out, but are covered over by God's grace. Hence, extrinsic grace is inappropriately applied to the Catholic mass.
And if it is the same sacrifice (of the Cross made present on the altars of the world until the end of time), how then can one mass be more grace-filled than another? Finally, I am going to guess that you are a layman. Among Catholics, layman do not make pronouncement or judgments regarding whether a mass--of whatever rite or however well or poorly constructed and executed--is essentially defective as a sacrament or even deficient to some degree (the Holy Eucharist) including the graces it yields. The Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope have such authority as do priests and deacons when they are acting correctly and authoritatively on behalf of their bishops.
I do not favor the N.O.M. IMHO (and this is not authoritative) it is a rupture in the Catholic liturgical tradition. Others believe similarly. This alone, makes it less desirable to me and to others as a means to worship God.
One could have a Mass with just the words of consecration in a janitor’s closet and still “have the same sacrifice.”
Not true in my opinion (I am not theologian enough to just say so definitively). The words of consecration are not magic words. The priest who utters them must do that which the Church intends for him to do in quickening the Sacrament. He doesn't have to believe in those words himself for the Holy Eucharist to be confected validly, but he must follow a prescribed ritual. Otherwise, a mad priest-monk could walk into a bakery and say "This is my Body" and all the bread in the bakery would be transubstantiated into the Body (and Blood) of the Lord.
Adeo,
I even told them why I was no longer going to subscribe but they have continued to send it to me for years. I, too, get sick of the alkl the whining about abuses in the Letters to Editor becuae the people won't 1) raise holy hell up the chain or 2) just switch to he TLM (although some are unaware if it or its beauty becauze it is withheld from them).
Confiteor,
I agree with more everything you said about the Mass and organic development, etc, but to say it is "not" a Mass (especially when said properly and I have attended a few of them that were quite reverent) I think borders on heresy.
Former Altar Boy -
I was not saying the Novus Ordo is not a Mass per se. I was responding to what I perceive is the point of the article and that is the old neocon cliche that the "Mass is the Mass" period and that all this griping about the details is somehow unCatholic and radtraddy.
The Novus Ordo most certainly is a Mass but the idea that you can just boil the whole liturgical debate down to a stupid cliche that the "Mass is the Mass" is a ridiculous strawman I have seen not a few neocons bash traditionalists with when they have no way of debating the facts of liturgical history and tradition.
I have seen not a few neocons bash traditionalists with when they have no way of debating the facts of liturgical history and tradition.
I look at Adoremus as a neocon organization. I have nothing against the. I even wish them well, but their "be nice to those who abuse even the most relaxed rubrics of the N.O.M." hasn't worked. It is time to be strident. You don't have to be insulting, but you have to tell the offending cleric in so many words that he is "full of $hit."
Adeodatus49 wrote:
Extrinsic grace? This is not a Catholic theological term for grace, but IIRC the term arises from the Reformation. It is related to the Calvinist conception that sinful man's sins are not wiped out, but are covered over by God's grace. Hence, extrinsic grace is inappropriately applied to the Catholic mass.
Incorrect. Superior prayers and ritual are more pleasing to God than watered down ones. Combined with the proper dispositions one can yield more grace from Mass because of this. It has nothing to do with Calvin.
And if it is the same sacrifice (of the Cross made present on the altars of the world until the end of time), how then can one mass be more grace-filled than another?
Because we’re not talking about the grace from the Sacrifice.
Finally, I am going to guess that you are a layman. Among Catholics, layman do not make pronouncement or judgments regarding whether a mass--of whatever rite or however well or poorly constructed and executed--is essentially defective as a sacrament or even deficient to some degree (the Holy Eucharist) including the graces it yields.
I am not talking about Sacraments.
Not true in my opinion (I am not theologian enough to just say so definitively). The words of consecration are not magic words. The priest who utters them must do that which the Church intends for him to do in quickening the Sacrament. He doesn't have to believe in those words himself for the Holy Eucharist to be confected validly, but he must follow a prescribed ritual. Otherwise, a mad priest-monk could walk into a bakery and say "This is my Body" and all the bread in the bakery would be transubstantiated into the Body (and Blood) of the Lord.
I am talking about the Church approving of a Mass consisting of only the words of consecration and of course proper intent etc. This would constitute a valid Mass. But a Divine Liturgy, Novus Ordo, TLM etc. would be vastly superior and more pleasing to God. Thus more grace (not from the Sacrament which is the intrinsic grace but from the externals which are the extrinsic).
Actually I take that back, sort of.
I think I am incorrect in as far as using a term that seems to be akin to protestants ("extrinsic grace").
But I don’t think I am wrong in what I am trying to say.
Therefore I should say the TLM is superior in its extrinsic celebration and therefore renders more grace within the realm of proper dispositions of course, instead of using a term that can be confused with Calvin et al.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home