Jeff tried to attend Mass at a Novus Ordo parish this weekend with disasterous results - see here .
I was very adamant in comments at El Camino Real and here that the Novus Ordo is not inferior to the Traditional Mass (which I also have a great fondness for). I continue to believe this is the case. However, I am not naive. A proper Novus Ordo can be very, very hard to find. While for some, this makes the case for abandonment of the Novus Ordo - I differ. A Traditional Mass is hard to find in many dioceses also. Both are gems to be cherished when found.
An Anglo-Catholic youth (later converted) in the 1930's describes his first experience at a Catholic Mass, - "where the Latin was, when audible, badly pronounced; the music was ghastly, and the religious art was utterly vulgar. As for the priest, he appeared bored by the whole performance, except when he delivered a brief sermon ..." - Fr. Paul Van K. Thomson, "Plus Sign on the Roof".
My point is that the "happy, holy, reverent, thriving days" of old were not always so happy and holy.
I am sorry that Jeff and his family had these troubles this weekend. I have been through them myself so many times that my heart aches. While Jeff was almost exposed to "Gather Us In" this weekend, at least he didn't have to endure, "Sing Hey to the Carpenter" - (more on this later.)
From the small holding in Bethune...
Oremus pro invicem!
3 comments:
Like Jeff, I do not avoid the NO absolutely and like him I also think it is inferior to the trad Mass. Please forgive me if I seem curt or rude, but this format forces you to compress.
The sacrifice, of course, is of infinite value but the rite that contains and conditions our perception of it makes a difference. The rite is not like a box that contains a jewel, or we could simply swap the jewel from one to another. The rite is more like a living body that contains a soul; it is distinct but inseparable from what it contains. You have to bring it about naturally. The trad Mass developed. The NO was constructed. Still, the sacrifice is there and maybe God will allow the NO to grow into something beautiful. But as for now the trad is better.
Could I ask you to reconsider one thing? You try to make a point about the trad Mass by pointing out the difficulties pre-Vat II. This isn't a struggle between the 50's and the 60's. Both the trad Mass and the NO are post Vat II now. If people were ghosting through the Latin Mass before they aren't now: we learned to appreciate what we almost lost. We are practicing participatio actuosa even if we aren't clapping hands.
Kevin Fogarty
kfogarty@kc.rr.com
Kevin,
Thanks for your comment. I am in a difficult position, as I defend the Novus Ordo and then read a article like the one presently headlining at Seattle Catholic by Peter Miller and I recall anew some of my own frustrations with 'Novus Ordo' parishes - but I continue, until it can shown to me otherwise to defend the thesis that in essense that the NO is not inferior:
NO was not 'simply constructed',as you say - unless I am misunderstanding what you mean:
1. NO is heavily based on the Tridentine Mass. In Latin, the Roman Canon of the NO is almost identical to the Canon in the Tridentine Mass. Many of the other prayers (in Latin - that is before translation) are also identical.
2. The other Eucharistic Prayers of the NO have basis in history. I think it is EP II which is the oldest one known - used in the first centuries AD.
You are very correct when you say, "You (referiing to me, JimC) try to make a point about the trad Mass by pointing out the difficulties pre-Vat II. This isn't a struggle between the 50's and the 60's. Both the trad Mass and the NO are post Vat II now."
I apologize. Many of the articles I have read and conversations/discussions re Tridentine Mass vs. NO try to make the point that everything was rosy before Vatican II. But you are very correct - as you say that is not the issue in our discussion. My experience is that most of the priests saying the Traditional Mass are devout, reverent, intelligent, and holy men.
However - this is not always the case now and certainly will not always be the case in the future. The situation of the poor Latin, etc. etc. I quoted will return - Just as the abuses in the NO have been declining - slowly but declining none the less. The clergy has historically been corrupt - there are exceptions in time and in persons, but since apostolic times, it is a fact that it is most often the clergy who corrupt things, either introducing heresy, immoral living, or profaning the Mass. Thus you can not look at the way either Mass is celebrated at any given time. You must look at the Mass the way It should be celebrated.
I grant that I wait in great anticipation for the new translation of the NO. I expect it to be better.
Finally (although I guarantee I will be on this again soon) when we discuss whether the NO or the Traditional Mass is inherently superior - from whose eyes and by what criteria are we judging? Assuming both are said properly - within the rubrics, without innovation, without poor translations etc. - one over the other does not inherently prepare a soul better to receive the Eucharist. That is because God works with what we give Him to work with. There are many valid charisms in the Catholic Church. While not a charism, by way of example, I like reading the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible - many others have a hard time understanding the more archaic language - therefore they don't get as much out of the reading the Word of God in this translation, they do better with the RSV (Catholic). Having the Holy Sacrifice in the vernacular makes a big difference to some people.
In the eyes of God? I do not propose I am qualified to answer this last.
Thanks for your comments. I have been long-winded, but hope to continue this discussion. I want to see where I am wrong, or possibly where I am correct.
Oremus pro invicem!
Jim
Jim:
I'm over my head here already. Don't take what I say to be the best argument for the trad Mass.
As far as Eucharistic prayer II, Msgr. Gamber says yes, it's ancient but there's no evidence that it was ever used as a consecration formula. It's not the fact of ancient origin that makes the difference; it's continuity of use. That's what tradition means: that which is handed down. Otherwise we could concoct a prayer from the Moralia of Epictetus.
Besides the idea of multiple canons don't make sense. Canon (from the word for staff) means the standard. It should be the most unchangeable part of the Mass.
I won't go on. I don't trust that I am really convincing and the last thing I want to do is to get in between anybody and Jesus. I go to some trouble to stick with the trad Mass and I recommend it but if the NO is what gets you or me into Heaven then I'm all for it.
Kevin Fogarty
kfogarty@kc.rr.com
Post a Comment