Thursday, June 4, 2015

CATHOLIC IDOLATERS, TRADITIONAL AND MODERN


There is a silly debate about the two forms of the one Roman Rite. In fact over the centuries in the Latin Rite there have been many forms or rites and after Summorum Pontificum many of these rites were resurrected as a part of what Pope Benedict named the Extraordinary Form. So there is not even uniformity in the Extraordinary Form.

The silly debate is whether or not the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is the Traditional Latin Mass. Former PI is wrong about the Traditional Latin Mass descriptive when he says it also applies to the revised or Ordinary Form of the Mass. The Traditional Latin Mass refers exclusively to the older use Mass, the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite.

However, I do not see calling the Modern Mass, modern, as a negative thing. What is important, unless one becomes an idolater who worships the form of the Mass rather than the true God, is what both Masses accomplish. When properly celebrated according to the books and when those in attendance are properly disposed to the graces that flow from the Mass, what is accomplish identically in both forms, be it traditional or modern, is the salvation of souls through the Real Presence of Christ on the altar offered in an unbloody way for our salvation. We are dismissed from both forms of the Mass to bring Christ to the world by the manner in which we live our lives as followers of Christ in His Holy Catholic Church, thus emphasizing that salvation is an unmerited gift from God that demands that we respond with the gifts of faith, hope and good works (charity, love) and the greatest gift, of course, is love (charity, good works)!

4 comments:

Lefebvrian said...

It isn't necessarily true that the Novus Ordo accomplishes the same thing as the Traditional Mass. For more on this point, consult the writings of Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D.

Also, the idea of a "modern" Mass is antithetical to the very idea of Tradition, and it is based on a faulty philosophical understanding of man. See Fr. Ripperger's writings on these topics as well.

Mark said...

<<<"When properly celebrated according to the books and when those in attendance are properly disposed to the graces that flow from the Mass, what is accomplish identically in both forms, be it traditional or modern, is the salvation of souls through the Real Presence of Christ on the altar offered in an unbloody way for our salvation.">>>

Dear Father, I won't disagree with that.

But I have always found the phrase, "when celebrated properly", interesting when connected to the Novus Ordo.

The statement is usually...the Novus Ordo, "when celebrated properly", can be just as sacred, beautiful and uplifting as the TLM.

Here is the difficulty that I have with said phrase: The Novus Ordo may be "celebrated properly" in various ways.

From what I have seen via photos, the manner in which you offer the Novus Ordo is uplifting and beautiful.

However, there are Novus Ordo Masses that feature Church-approved ugly vestments, altar girls, Communion received in the hand while standing, various musical instruments, "spirit-filled" ummm..."commotion"..., readings in various languages...

...think of Papal Masses that have included Italian, Latin, and readings and Prayers of the Faithful in one language after another (Tower of Babel)...one "instructional" comment after another from the "presider"...

The Church even permits non-Catholics to offer readings during Mass.

A major problem, in my opinion, with the Novus Ordo is that said Mass may be "celebrated properly" in ways that differ dramatically.

Oh...and then we have Church-approved Masses that are flavored according to the practice of "inculturation".

That is why the phrase "when celebrated properly" does not mean a great deal to me in regard to the Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo is legitimate, offers holy graces...but what does meaning does "when celebrated properly" carry?

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Of course there are different Uses of the Roman Rite. However, there was always a centripetal effect in that different regions saw what prevailed in Rome as something to be emulated. Charlemagne sent to Rome for the latest liturgical books so that the liturgy in his empire should follow Roman models. There was of course cross-fertilization; this is what liturgists mean when they refer to 'organic development'.

The 20th century liturgical reformers wanted the opposite, namely a centrifugal effect encouraged by vernacularization, inculturation and the deliberate abandonment of essential Roman elements, in particular the Roman Canon, the oldest anaphora that has come down to us and the constant and unifying element in the Western Church. Cipriano Vaggagini, the author of EP III, was convinced that the Roman Canon had to go and when Paul VI insisted on its retention (in a modified form and as an option) there were howls of dismay.

Benedict XVI could not describe the Novus Ordo as a Use of the Roman Rite because it quite clearly is not, neither in its genesis nor in its content (leaving aside the usual manner of its celebration). So we have the legal fiction of two 'forms' of a single rite which pleases neither progressives who want to see the classic Roman Rite suppressed, nor traditionalists who (correctly as it happens) see the Novus Ordo as a distinct rite sui generis.

Bugnini opined that his new Mass would only become established when two generations knew no other rite of Mass; an exercise in collective historical amnesia which has been almost, but crucially not quite, achieved.

Victor said...

I agree with Mr Nolan and I would further point out that the Novus Ordo was manufactured by liturgical fanatics. Everything possible was done not to offend our Protestant brethren, which really meant one thing: tone down the idea of sacrifice in the Mass and, therefore, of the Real Presence. This can be seen in the smallest things such using the word "presider" instead of "priest" in the instructions since only priests can offer sacrifices. The removal of the sacrificial prayers in the Offertory as a preparation for The Sacrifice is the most obvious. So too are the changes in the lectionary to remove any thoughts of the Real Presence and substitute the symbolic meal idea instead, such as by removing St Paul's admonitions of receiving the Eucharist unworthily in the Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi Epistles. Of course later, even the Reformation idea of Communion in the hand was foisted on the faithful, since the consecrated bread was by then merely a symbol of Christ's presence among the people of God at a love meal. So it surprises me when Fr McDonald says that the salvation of souls through the Real Presence of Christ on the altar is accomplished identically in both forms of Mass, be it traditional or modern; that simply is not the case, and that is what the problem is about, not idolatry.