I have always spoken up in favour of
the Novus Ordo as being licit and valid: Christ will not allow His Church to
poison His faithful with error (though He does seem to have permitted her to be
left undernourished!) In fact I converted to the Church when the Novus Ordo was
basically all there was to be had; I’d no idea Catholics once worshipped in a
completely different way and did so until just ten years earlier. Having been
well instructed in the Faith by a holy priest, I had no difficulty seeing the
Real Presence or The Sacrifice of the Mass in the words “This is My Body, given
up...My Blood which will be shed for the forgiveness of sins”. The Acclamation
“When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus,”
suggested clearly to me that the Sacrifice of Calvary had just been made
present on the altar, and that we were professing our belief in that reality to
the Lord now Truly Present there.
It was about six months after being
received into the Church that I was asked by Doreen, a great lady of the
parish, to accompany her to ‘another Mass’ as she did not want to go alone. It
was being held in a hotel room in the City centre; it was ‘banned’ by the
Bishop and celebrated by priests who were not pleasing to Rome (priests of the
SSPX). But, she said, it was the way the Mass had always been celebrated and
she was sure I would like it. I was not sure about going; I prized unity with
the Holy See very highly and wasn’t sure what kind of disobedience I might be
getting into. Still, after a couple of requests, I decided to go out of
curiosity.
My first experience of the TLM was not
good. It was held in a small room that weekend, and so silent that I didn’t
know what was going on. I did however, value the fact that the silence allowed
me to do what I always did at Mass: pour out my heart to God: there were no
interruptions in which I was forced to engage in conversation with the priest.
I later came to regard the dialogues at the Novus Ordo as ‘pantomime-style
worship’, as though talking to the priest was more important than talking to
God. Even the consecration seemed to be presented as a ‘play’ as priests ‘acted
out’ the Last Supper by holding the gifts out towards the folk while addressing
them, “Take this, all of you...” Prayer to the Father was out; engagement with
the people was in. Of course the Father was expected to be listening in since
this was ‘worship’, but it was far more important to have priests and people
face and engage with one another. As the years passed I attended the TLM more
frequently, occasionally in a small village Church, said by a Diocesan priest
with permission from the Bishop.
After completing seminary studies and
ordination I celebrated the Novus Ordo with as much reverence as I could, and
stayed faithful to the rubrics. Consequently I was met with some rather
uninformed (but not malicious) comments from brother priests and laity. From
the laity it was “You haven’t read Vatican II”; from the clergy it was “I’m
worried about priests who have no personal relationship with Jesus but are
obsessed with Latin and lace”. Personally, I was never attracted to Latin and
lace: I’m rubbish at languages so Latin was a bit of a barrier for me, and lace
is too effeminate for a guy brought up in a coal mining area where men were
men. Further, my vision was always wider than the Mass: even when attending the
SSPX in the Hotel I was active in the parish SVP because it furnished me with
the opportunity to visit the needy with food, clothing, furniture, etc., and
active in the Legion of Mary because it furnished me with the opportunity to
visit the sick, the housebound and do street evangelisation. To this day I
regret that the bishops did not forcefully promote these two great lay
associations after Vatican II, rather than devise councils for this and
committees for that along with ministries on the sanctuary, because these
committees and ministries focused us on in-house activity and issues, leaving
the SVP and Legion of Mary to die a slow and lingering death -and with them the
stunning local witness and evangelisation via the pastoral work these lay
associations undertook.
What has all this to do with the Novus
Ordo becoming more and more unsatisfying for me? Well, the derogatory attitude
that because one favours the TLM means one is not interested in people or lay
activity is becoming increasingly annoying. The TLM was the Mass which spawned
the SVP, the Legion of Mary, the Handicapped Children’s Pilgrimage Trust, Aid
to the Church in Need, Orphanages, Hospitals, Colleges etc. Further, our parish
today, though we celebrate a TLM, has people active in catechesis, bookkeeping,
reading, visiting of the housebound and hospital, school support, RCIA etc. We
also have a charitable/Justice & Peace coffee morning after Sunday Mass to
support the Missions and life projects; Garden ‘Family Days’ in the summer and
fortnightly Bingo fundraising in the Club. In short, we have all that other
parishes have. But I believe we need a liturgy that lifts us beyond earthly
concerns to an experience of the transcendent, and I find the Novus Ordo too
community-focused to do that –indeed, it all too often deteriorates into
entertainment.
When celebrating the Novus Ordo I cannot
help but miss the prayers at the foot of the altar which implore the grace to
enter the Holy of Holies (at the Novus Ordo we stride onto the sanctuary
without as much as a ‘by-your-leave’). I miss the silence of the Canon (in the
Novus Ordo it is prayed out loud as though it were a narrative to be heard -or
a play to be acted out- rather than a prayer to be said). I also miss the
invocation of the angels and saints in the Confiteor and in so many other
prayers of the Mass (the ‘great cloud of witnesses’ spurring us on hardly get a
mention in the Novus Ordo). I miss the Offertory Prayers which specifically
prepare for the Sacrifice (in the Novus Ordo I ‘prepare the gifts’ with no more
than a grace before meals). I certainly miss the genuflections given to the
Lord.
And there are things within the Novus
Ordo I find positively difficult: I find it objectionable to genuflect at the
foot of the sanctuary then going up to kiss a barren altar. Since signs and
symbols should reveal our belief, genuflecting at the foot of the sanctuary
then going up to kiss the altar will leave an uninstructed non-believer
thinking it was to the ‘table’ that I had genuflected. I certainly abhor
turning my back on the tabernacle so that the people can focus on me and I on
them, for which reason I have celebrated ad-orientem at every Mass in my parish
for the last ten years (and I do not like separate chapels for the Blessed
sacrament which remind me of schools putting the naughty, distracting child in
the corner). I dislike the fact that we have (long) extracts from the Old
Testament to demonstrate typology for the reading of the Gospel, with the
specifically Christian writings of the New Testament being relegated to a
sequential, unrelated reading.
We often hear the description of Mass
as given by Justin Martyr paraded as the model of the liturgy in a noble
simplicity. Rather, this Mass is the Mass of a persecuted community who could
not celebrate their principal act of worship in grand solemnity. As soon as The
Faith was made legal and came out of the catacombs it took on all the splendour
and pomp of the Emperor’s court. In other words, it came to fruition.
I will always speak up for the Novus
Ordo as being licit and valid, but I won’t say I find it the best Form of Mass.
When at international Masses we have readings repeated in several languages and
intercessions in several languages I am reminded of the tower of Babel, where
different languages are introduced to confuse and divide. Latin at least
displays us as a Church to be the One, Holy and Universal Mystical Body of
Christ. Sadly, the Novus Ordo comes with so much adaptation that even if
celebrated in Latin from beginning to end one never knows what is going to
happen next: dancing? A mime? A puppet show? A celebrant rushing around to
shake hands with all and sundry as if to show a human solidarity. One simply
cannot relax at a celebration of the Novus Ordo. There was a time when we
thought the former Offertory prayers might be permitted as an alternative to
the Preparation of the Gifts. What a difference that would make to our
understanding of Mass in the vernacular!
BEAUTIFULLY stated Father....i have not one iota to add. Thank you for expressing so ably what so many of us feel viscerally. God bless you.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Susan.
DeleteI'm glad you found the post useful.
God Bless.
"and lace is too effeminate for a guy brought up in a coal mining area where men were men."
ReplyDeleteSTEEL
LACE
Take our churches
Take our pews
Orthodox prelates
Shun, refuse.
Take our schools
Take our kneelers
Fill your space with
P. C. feelers.
Shove Tabernacles
In a room
So bride can play
Without her Groom.
Some will run
Some will hide
Some defend,
“Flow with the tide.”
But like the Saints,
Many laity, before -
Joan, Athanasius,
Thomas More,
You can burn our books
Cast off to waste lands
Cut off His Crowned Head
Plop Him into our hands,
Confuse the weak,
“They’re men of smells, bells,
Not in full-communion”
Their lie impels
These, real men -
In the state of grace -
You’ve tried to shred
But they are steel lace -
“I am the Good Shepherd”
Laced-lambs to Him kneel
And they breed the True Faith -
They…are…celibate-steel!
Thank you, Long-skirts.
Delete"You can burn our books" reminds me that if even if every bible in the world were to be lost we would still have the Faith by Tradition -of which scripture records but part and is not the whole.
God Bless
I grew up in a large Jesuit parish*, with lots of Jesuits many altar boys, a superb choir, all intermixed with Scouts and Cadets and, believe you me, not a hint of hanky panky, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteThe “Mass of Ages” was my background. It was many years later, having been very preoccupied with NS, Uni, job, marriage, travel (on business) and children that I sort of drew breath, looked around, looked back at the sinking ship if you wish, realised what a state it was in, and rowed back to see what could be done.
The Church was in a mess and the liturgy was without doubt to blame. We can use the usual terms, banal, self conscious, awkward, contrived, amateurish, feminised confusing,etc., etc., but in an Almighty Mess, and it has got steadily worse ever since.
Occasionally I get to a Vetus Ordo” with excellent choir. Then I again can truly lose myself the Sacrifice of the Mass, be as close to Christ as it is possible for me on this earth to be.
The quicker you priests out there, not just the so-called traditional orders, get back to the Catholic Mass of Ages, the better!
* personally, I have had no problems with the Jesuits at all, in the past.
Thank you, Jacobi.
DeleteThe Mass of Ages takes some beating if, in fact, it can be beaten. The collaborative ministry mix on the sanctuary suggests Mass is the property of the community rather than the gift of heaven, and the post-Vatican II music more pop than sacred.
before Summorum Pontificum I celebrated several Novus Ordo Masses in Latin, but to do so now just makes one more aware of what was hacked out to construct the Novus Ordo. It can be beautifully celebrated, especially if the ancient chants are used with it, but the texts remain bland and while not contradicting the Catholic Faith, they do not always profess (why have a grace before meals before a sacrifice?) Yes the Sacrifice is set in the context of the parousial wedding supper of the Lamb, and you cannot have the sacrificial communion banquet without sacrifice. The Sacrifice (pleaded even now in heaven [Heb.9v11-12] by the Lamb standing as though slain [Rev.5v6]) is the pre-eminent reality of the Mass (Redemptionis Sacramemtum #38).
God Bless
Thank you,thank you for this post.I could not say anymore...you have said it all..
ReplyDeleteSandy Morris.
Thank you, Sandy.
DeleteWe probably could add more, but I hope I have said enough to spark reflection and to edify a few folk.
God Bless.
In his first address as president of the International Federation Una Voce (November 1995), Michael Davies spoke, in part, about the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council - 4th December 1963.
ReplyDelete"Its publication gave little cause for concern even to the most erudite and traditionally-minded Catholics.....In March 1963, in a letter to the Holy Ghost Fathers, of which he was Superior General, Mgr Lefebvre accepted without hesitation that some liturgical reforms were necessary and presented the proposed Constitution in a very positive manner. Archbishop R. J. Dwyer, of Portland, Oregon, USA, probably the most erudite of the American bishops, remarked wistfully in 1973, recalling the day when the Fathers voted almost unanimously for the Constitution, that: 'Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would all be but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off'.'"
This is the root problem of the New Mass: it is not what the Council Fathers voted for. It was high-jacked by a relatively tiny number of people who manipulated the will of he Council Fathers to their own ends. More or less every aspect of the new Mass: abandonment of Lain, fully vernacular, facing the people, Communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, female servers, creativity, etc, etc, is rooted in disobedience and it will not survive. And once the Mass, the cornerstone of the faith, had been undermined then it was inevitable that everything else would collapse like a row of dominoes.
In my opinion, one of the first steps to recovery should be for every bishop and priest to sit down and read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and ask themselves honestly if the 'Mass' they are celebrating bears any relation to the document approved, ordered indeed, by the Council Fathers. This would be merely the first step. The second step would involve courage and this would be the true test. However, all is not lost; in 2007 with the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI restored the traditional Latin Mass as one of two usages of the Roman rite. The cornerstone has been replaced and it is on this cornerstone that the Church will restore its fortunes. Of this I have absolutely no doubt. Deo gratias.
Thank you, Leo.
DeleteThat what we have is not what the Council voted for is clear if anyone reads the document. Article 40 is, however, a grave stain upon it, leaving the way open for great manipulation and disturbance in the liturgy.
God Bless.
Well said, Father...
ReplyDeleteThank you David.
DeleteI do wish people would compare the texts rather than simply go for the language. I'm certain most people think all that was done was change the Mass to English and turn the priest around to face them. Not so!
God Bless.
Another excellent and topical post Fr Gary! I feel embarrassed writing this comment because you must be sick and tired of me plugging Into the Deep.I wrote a letter to the editor explaining why I too like the Ordinariate Mass. By coincidence it seems, you have mentioned most of the things I have touched on in my letter, except to mention that bishops and priests are the ones primarily responsible for turning the Novus Ordo into a circus so to speak. Orthodox Bishops and priests have done their level best to express, manifest and proclaim the traditional doctrine of the Mass as essentially a sacrifice offered by the priest to the Father on behalf of the peoples . It was through these bishops and priests' Masses that people like my wife and I grew to love the Holy Mystery of the Mass and now the Ordinariate Mass. For what it is worth my letter can be read in the current issue of ITD here (page 4): http://stoneswillshout.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015_03March.pdf
ReplyDeleteThank you, Greg.
DeleteI don't mind you plugging 'the deep' but I should warn you that while my readership is very wide internationally and has a steady (and perhaps growing) readership, it is not one with a huge number of readers. It does what I set out to do: ensure the Diocese where I minister can read my views for themselves, rather than get and rely upon misrepresentations from disaffected parishioners.
God Bless.
Dear Father
ReplyDeleteWhen a priest cannot see the approach to the Sanctuary as a pilgrimage to Golgotha (hence the genuflection); nor see the "table" as the tomb and visualise Christ's Body taken down from the Cross and laid on the Shroud as what happens when the priest lays down the Host on the Corporal (hence the kiss) then, something is wrong. And, it is not a simple matter of liturgical preference.
God bless
Sonia
Thank you, Sonia.
DeleteHopefully, and I think it would be true to say that any priest would see the altar as Christ, our Rock and Cornerstone, but would the uninstructed pagan?
I'm not the entrance procession would be seen as approaching Golgotha but rather the heavenly banquet, which is what I was taught in seminary.
Genuflections are to the Person of our Lord, not the place where He is at, hence the new Form of Mass tells us to genuflect only on going onto and off the sanctuary. Even if our Lord is present in the tabernacle, we instructed simply to bow. In the New Form,
God Bless.
PS. In the New Form of Mass Our Lord goes into the ciborium and not on the corporal, but I think this sign would not be understood by many.
Many years ago a priest published a book attacking the New Mass on the ground that as it was a less perfect form than that which it replaced, it was an insult to the Divine Majesty.
ReplyDeleteAs such, technical issues as to its validity were beside the point and it could not be legitimately offered or attended.
Is there not logic to his argument?
AT
Thank you, AT.
DeleteI can see this: we are obliged to give the Lord our best, and even if something is valid and good, if it is not the best then why use it? We would have to come back to saying that since the Person of Our Lord and His Sacrifice are truly Present, both Forms of Mass must be pleasing to God. The question then would be'what is most useful for the formation of the faithful'?
God Bless.
On the fact the Mass is Sacrifice and the fact the Mass is the Divine Banquet, both are correct. This is examined in Cardinal Ratzinger's 'The Feast of Faith' where he shows there is no contradiction between the two notions. That said I'm very much of the opinion that the Sacrificial aspects are seriously underplayed
DeleteTghahnk you Adam.
DeleteIndeed there can be no contradiction; the Mass is a sacrificial meal, as was the supper at which it was instituted. Even in ancient, pagan religions, food offered to the God was then consumed as a communion. but the communion is neither possible nor profitable unless the sacrifice is first offered. When it comes to thee Memorial of Our Lord Jesus Christ, supper and sacrifice are two sides of the one coin, though the Church has consistently taught the pre-eminence of the Sacrifice.
God Bless
Both forms of Mass must be pleasing to God. I would challenge that Father. Both forms must be valid if done correctly but I believe God is infinitely more pleased with the Mass which comes to us from the Apostles. The ordinary form is man-made and produced by committee. I do wonder if it is at all pleasing to God
DeleteThe point of my comment wasn't to promote ITD but to mention the similarities between your current post and the letter I wrote. I'm a fairly regular contributor of ITD and my wife is the editor. My embarrassment lies in the fact that on commenting on your posts, more often than not, I'm referring to It. So please forgive me for advertising. Thanks Father. God Bless.
ReplyDeleteThanks Greg.
DeleteMy point is I don't mind advertising ITD! (I should link to it in the future).
God Bless.
Good observations, Father. Read the Ottaviani Intervention http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteI know of and have read the Ottaviani intervention which is actually a criticism of the New Form in its latin form, not simply its translations or misuses, and Ottaviani was prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the CDF).
God Bless.
As always you have hit several nails right on the head. My worry for some time has been with regard to the Real Presence. How can anyone (including some clergy & religious) pass in front of the tabernacle with (if you are lucky) a very cursory nod of the head. I'm not getting at those who have difficulty making a genuflection (God knows I'm becoming one myself) but on those whose passing barely marks the fact that our Lord & God is really & truly present in the tabernacle.
ReplyDeleteThank you David.
DeleteI believe in my heart of hearts that reception of Holy Communion in the hand has done great damage to belief in the Real Presence, and if our they lose confidence in Our Lord's presence, they also lose belief in His sacrifice at mass, since it cannot be there if He isn't! We are then left with nothing out a community get together.
God Bless.
Agree with everything you say on the liturgy, Fr.
ReplyDeleteYou mention a snide comment that many of us have probably heard before, however: "from the clergy it was “I’m worried about priests who have no personal relationship with Jesus but are obsessed with Latin and lace”."
"What you said" about the lace, but what really irks me about this attitude among some clergy is this face-value acceptance of a false dichotomy between a personal relationship with Jesus and a love for the traditional Mass. I would respond that the two things go together so naturally that it is never a question of one or the other. In my case, it was my personal relationship with Jesus that led me to see the true value of the TLM in actually rendering to God the worship He is due. If people really knew Jesus, why would they settle for giving Him anything less than the best? What I would question is who is it that the detractors think they really know? Is the Jesus they know true God as well as true man?
When some people use the term "personal relationship with Jesus", I think what they really mean is a "familiar relationship with Jesus", which is a different thing altogether. It is perhaps familiarity which lies behind the contempt with which many appear to treat Him, rather than a "personal relationship".
Thank you Deacon Augustine.
DeleteIndeed the dichotomy is false -it is a prejudgement; a prejudice. I think you are probably right about personal relationship indicating familiarity. but how would anyone know how familiar any one else is with Christ? We all read the same scriptures, receive the same sacraments, and strive to overcome sin while increasing in virtue. I don't know what they are talking about, to be honest/
God Bless
I was brought up in the pre-Vat II Church until I was 18 but am still reeling from the changes at age 68. I was taught religion from the 'penny catechism' by devout Catholic teachers. I feel that I am in a different religion and can hardly believe what I hear from priests during homilies. Last Saturday the words of Jesus 'Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect' became, according to Father: 'Be inclusive, just as your heavenly Father is inclusive'. I have never walked out of a Mass in my life (whatever nonsense was being spouted) but I wonder whether I should have at that point. I feel very fortunate to be anchored in another, truer, older tradition but I am heartbroken to be in a situation where those around me seem to accept any stupid opinion spouted by any priest on any occasion. When I was young, I believed that if a priest said something then it was true (in those day it almost certainly was) now we have to listen to Father's considered opinion, contradicting millenia of real truth and knowing that it cannot be so unless the priests of my youth were stupid or were liars.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lepanto,
DeleteI'm afraid we cannot be assured easily these days. i have often told my parishioners not to just believe anything I or any other preacher say from the pulpit but to get a catechism and read it.
God Bless.
Amen. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. Thank you for "feeding the sheep", Father.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lynda.
DeleteSadly, many in the pews do niot like the taste of catholic food any more; relativism in belief and subjectivism in worship rule to day.
God Bless.
Mortal sin dulls the intellect and hardens the heart . . .
DeleteThank you.
DeleteA timely reminder to us all.
God Bless
What about extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
ReplyDeleteCardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html
SSPX 'spokesman' : Theology of Vatican Council II is in agreement with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/sspx-spokesman-theology-of-vatican.html
Vatican Council II (premise-free) agrees with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and non Christians needing to convert for salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/vatican-council-ii-premise-free-agrees.html
Thank you, C.M.
DeleteI think I have to go with the Holy Office on this one as the Holy Roman Church was trustworthy under Pius XII, and gave us the correct interpretation of extra ecclesiam. An interesting word from the SSPX.
God Bless
Fr.,
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in your thoughts on the Divine Office and the changes after Vatican II.
Which form of the Hours do you pray, and why do you pray that form? What are some strengths and weaknesses of each form?
Thank you for your blog.
Thank you, Rich.
DeleteSorry for the late response. At present I am struggling with cataracts, so use if the computer is difficult. I will get to work on a short post on the Divine Office when sight is better than it is right now! I can at least say I use the Revised Office as the older Rite is hard to get and expensive when you can get it, but I am hoping to get my hands on a copy soon. I will speak to weaknesses and strengths in the post when I have better sight, if you will bear with me for a few days...God Bless.