The Kyrie (Lord have mercy) is shortened to three couplets rather than three triplets. The following is eliminated from the prayer before the Gospel that existed in 1962.
"Munda cor meum ac labia mea, omnipotens Deus, qui labia Isaiae Prophetae calculo mundasti ignito: ita me tua grata miseratione dignare mundare, ut sanctum Evangelium tuum digne valeam nuntiare. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. Jube, Domine benedicere." (Cleanse my heart and my lips, O Almighty God, Who cleansed the lips of the Prophet Isaiah with a burning coal. In Your gracious mercy deign so to purify me that I may worthily proclaim Your holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Lord, grant me your blessing.)
The 1970 missal only contains:
"Dominus sit in corde meo et in labiis meis. ut digne et competenter annuntiem evangelium suum. Amen."
(The Lord be in your heart and on your lips that you may worthily and fittingly proclaim His holy Gospel. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen)
The 6 offetory prayers (which included prayers asking our Lord to accept the host offered by His unworthy servant, asking the Lord to allow us to share in His Divinity, humbly begging of His mercy that the chalice would arise befor His Divine Majesty, asking for acceptance by our Lord in a humble spirit and contrite heart, invoking the Holy spirit, and asking for the Lord to accept our offering) were replaced by a single prayer based on the Hamotzi prayer out of Berachot 36 of the Talmud, while retaining part of the prayer asking the Lord to allow us to share in His Divinity. The Lavabo me (prayer when the priest washes his hands), which is Psalm 25(6):6-12, was replaced by
"Lord, wash away my iniquities and cleanse me of my sins."
The only audible words of the Canon of the missal of 1962 are "nobis quoque peccatoribus (to us sinners)" whereas these words aren't mentioned anywhere in the most commonly used Eucharistic prayer (Eucharistic prayer II). Before the Communion of the priest, he says:
"Perceptio Corporis tui, Domine Jesu Christe, quod ego indinus sumere praesumo, non mihi proveniat in judicium et condemnationen…"
(Let not the partaking of Your Body, Lord Jesus Christ, which I, though unworthy, presume to receive, turn to my judgment and condemnation…)
Additionally, he says the "domine non sum dignus" (Lord, I am not worthy-Matthew 8:8) 3 times with those first 3 words being audible. Before he consumes the chalice, "Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? (What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given me?-Psalm 115(116):12)" Before the people receive Communion in the missal of 1962, everyone says the "domine non sum dignus" 3 times. This is only said once in the missal of 1970. Additionally, in the 1962 missal, the priest prays
"Placeat tibi, sancta Trinitas, obsequium servitutis meae: et praesta, ut sacrificium quod oculis tuae majestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit acceptabile, mihique, et omnibus proquibus illud obtuli, sit te miserante propitiabile. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "
(May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to You, most Holy Trinity, and grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered in the presence of Your Majesty, may be acceptable to You, and through Your mercy obtain forgiveness for me and all for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
Edey
Comments 48
There are no prayers before the incensations in the New Mass. So you may as well include in your consideration those prayers from the Old rite.
+0
Posted 09 Feb 2006 at 5:56 am ¶Initially, I thought that I just couldn't find them online. However, after your comment, I asked around. You are correct. Thanks. I will update the post accordingly tomorrow.
You know, I'm disappointed. I was expecting a long rant from you.
+0
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 2:20 am ¶Nah, I think you captured the substance of my opinion anyway.
If you ask for more graces, it stands to reason that you'll get more.
Hence, it seems that the ancient Roman Rite is more successful at winning graces for the faithful than its 1960s counterpart.
Other things about the reform may be undesirable, and we can argue about that, but this is, I feel, the most important point.
+0
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 4:44 am ¶"it seems that the ancient Roman Rite is more successful at winning graces for the faithful than its 1960s counterpart."
Interesting thought, Tom and Edey. How do you think one might go about determining that??????
+0
Posted 11 Feb 2006 at 1:17 pm ¶Hrm…It's not like there's an empirical scientific test for such a thing.
I'd go with the notion of "Ask and you shall receive". The old mass seems, from what I've seen and read, to ask for more. On the other hand, Jesus did warn against multiplication of prayers.
*shrug*
+0
Posted 11 Feb 2006 at 2:38 pm ¶Or perhaps a better question might be, "What view of grace is being put forward with such a thought?"
+0
Posted 11 Feb 2006 at 8:56 pm ¶I would say that, although it's probably indemonstrable, the simple principle of "what you don't ask for, you don't get" applies. Prayer for prayer, the old Mass, I contend (feel free to disagree and correct me), asks for more graces, blessings, etc. So it seems logical that the old rite results in more grace bestowed upon people.
As to what view of grace this presupposes or implies. . . the right one, of course! Just kidding. I would say that, as long as we understand the grace in this discussion to be actual, rather than sanctifying, grace, this hypothesis operates independently of any particular conception of the nature of grace.
What view of grace do you think this puts forth?
+0
Posted 12 Feb 2006 at 4:47 am ¶I don't know. But it could be seen as an overly quantified and impersonal view - a view that sees God's grace as some magical thing strangely manipulated by formal prayers and sacramental gestures - a view that looks at Catholic life apart from personal involvement.
+0
Posted 12 Feb 2006 at 11:46 am ¶As has already been said by Tom Smith, I would have to state that the Missal of 1970 is significantly deficient in the area of grace. First, DSA's concern about grace is valid. We must determine what it is that we mean by grace. In this discussion we speak only of actual grace, that gift of God which is ordered towards perfection of human actions, not sanctifying grace, which is the state of the soul when not cut off from the Divine life. Grace is an objective reality, which means it exists "apart from personal involvement", insofar as it can be conceived without conceiving the person in whom it exists, but as grace does not exist independently from individuals, this personal involvement is quite important to the manner of its existence. Now St. Thomas defines grace, "as a quality, [acting] upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just." (S.th. 2a.110.2) Now a quality is that which answers the question "What sort of thing is it?" (in Latin, Qualis est?). Grace is that which when present makes a thing holy, that is, like God in some respect. We can also say that grace exists objectively in the soul itself (Aquinas says, "[Grace] is in the substance of the soul"). Because grace exists in the soul as a quality, it can be quantified and compared (like all qualities). We know this because we can say that one person is holier than another or that a person increases or decreases in holiness, that is, in grace, over time. This, far from denying the interpersonal nature of grace, strengthens it. Grace becomes not a universal commonality, but the measure of the bond of love between the individual and God. If we can quantify our love for people and things, why not our relationship with our Lord? Now, it is not a simple matter to actually determine the comparative quantities of grace, but it is indefensible to say there never are theses differences.
Now, it is the error of Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius to say that grace is given independently from human action. God gives grace freely, but not unconditionally. God's grace is given in by virtue of meritorious actions, while at the same time implying no necessity for God to act thus. There are two conditions upon which God gives grace, and as this discussion concerns a Sacrament, both are at work: first, as the result of the actions of Christ, God and man, and second as the result of individual human actions. The first sort produces grace ex opere operato, that is, from the performance of the Sacrament. The second, ex opere operantis, produces grace according to the disposition of the one receiving it.
Grace ex opere operato does not differ with regard to Liturgy. So long as the Mass is valid, grace accrues to those who communicate. This can occur in a Solemn Pontifical Mass or as part of an interpretive clown dance; it is immaterial. The performance of the Sacrament effects grace on its own. However, in Communion (as conceived apart from the Mass of which it is a part) there is also an ex opere operantis component. The disposition of the communicant results in more or less grace depending on the spirit in which our Lord is received.
Yet, grace is communicated not only through Communion, but also through the Liturgy itself, which grace is received ex opere operantis, according to the participation of the individual in the sacred act. It is my contention that the Missal of 1962, and for that matter any Catholic ritual excepting the liturgical books of 1970, prepare the soul more effectively than the Novus Ordo Missae can, regardless of the solemnity involved. In a Mass according to the 1970 Missal, it is almost impossible for one to pray, due to the lack of silence. Instead, the greater number of people merely listen to the priest. Far from active participation of the laity, this is completely passive, and unmeritorious. At the same time that the act of mindlessly allowing the words of the priest to pass through one ear and out the other obtains no merit, it likewise fails to provide the soul the time necessary to build a foundation upon which Christ forms the edifice of grace. The priest can, and many do, take time for silent prayer, but because this time is not uniform the congregation is set in a state of anxiousness, awaiting the continuation of the Liturgy. Because the communicants must walk single file in a constantly moving line for Communion, there is a limit to the preparation afforded those who receive our Lord, as once again the focus is on the passage of time not the preparation of the soul. For these reasons (and others), the faithful neither receive the same amount of grace from their participation in the Liturgy or from their reception of communion that they would under the same conditions with the Missal of 1962, or any other Catholic Liturgy. They do receive the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, but they cannot effect grace beyond what God gives apart from human cooperation.
It is, however, not only that the grace attendant with the Liturgy is limited, but also that grace which the Liturgy seeks from God. As St. James says in his epistle (Js 4:2-3): "You do not receive because you do not ask. You ask, but you do not ask rightly." The majority of the texts of the 1970 Missal (especially in English translation) neither ask for God's gifts, nor do they ask in that humble and contrite spirit that God demands. Most of the prayers remove references to the soul, Hell, purgatory and other spiritual matters of which man stands in great need, but only ask for general happiness and peace (often conceived in the sense of worldly good). The spirit of the prayers is not one of humble supplication, but of friendly request. The Missal of 1970 fails to approach our Lord as God and King, but instead as Friend and Brother. While God is these things to us, He is much more. God does not give to those who approach Him without humility, as the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican shows us. Certainly, God is mercifully and stands ready to give, but He will not give without our asking it rightly. To speak otherwise is to deny the entirety of Catholic Ascetic and Soteriological Theology.
+0
Posted 12 Feb 2006 at 10:21 pm ¶I do not presently have time to respond to the whole of your comment, Steve, but I will point out flaw.
You say:
"In a Mass according to the 1970 Missal, it is almost impossible for one to pray, due to the lack of silence."
and
"Because the communicants must walk single file in a constantly moving line for Communion, there is a limit to the preparation afforded those who receive our Lord, as once again the focus is on the passage of time not the preparation of the soul."
Are these really problems with the missal or its execution? Is there more silence explicitly called for in the Tridentine missal? Also, is the McDonald's drive-thru communion required by the Novus Ordo missal or could communion rails still be used?
+0
Posted 12 Feb 2006 at 10:51 pm ¶1. While the missal does not forbid the use of altar rails, the American Bishops frown upon their use. This isn't the case in every country, but I don't know of any Novus Ordo church that still uses the altar rail.
2. All of the times for silence in the Missal of 1970 are optional. If the silence is at the priest's discretion we run into the problem of the average person simply staring at the priest waiting for him to continue. In the 1962 Missal there are a number of occasions where not only is silence mandatory, but it has signals to warn when silence is ending. Also, because these silent periods are linked to set prayers said by the priest, the amount of silence is more or less set.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 4:33 am ¶This is Achbishop Lefebvre. I'm sorry that so many of my disciples sound like Christian sophists. I'm also sorry I'm in Purgatory. This hurts real bad. I'm just glad that Dante was wrong about all schismatics going to Hell.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 7:06 pm ¶LOL
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 7:17 pm ¶I guess my concern was not simply with one's clarity about the nature of grace, but with the spirit in which one evaluates the liturgy of the Church and makes judgements about its efficacy in the life of the faithful.
You say, "the spirit of the prayers is not one of humble supplication, but of friendly request. The Missal of 1970 fails to approach our Lord as God and King, but instead as Friend and Brother." From where does such a judgement about the spirit of such prayers arise? It is certainly not my experience of the prayers of the liturgy; nor do I think that it is an accurate evaluation of the content or intention of those prayers.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 7:41 pm ¶I'd like to thank the participants in this discussion for their contributions. I believe that clearly articulating one's assumptions, biases, and subjective impressions facilitates more fruitful dialog between different liturgical factions by giving a more human face to academic arguments. We all stand to learn a great deal through this process.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 7:52 pm ¶I would have to do an in depth comparison between the texts to give a better appraisal. I think a comparison of the offertory prayers would show some of this. Also, I should clarify that I don't mean that the prayers are such that the prayers of the New Mass CAN'T be prayed humbly, I mean only that the old prayers MUST be prayed humbly (that is, if the priest means what he's saying; always a pro viso that no missal could completely overcome). The prayers of the 1970 Missal easily allow for an erroneous interpretation of the nature of our relationship to God.
Also, for the record, neither am I a Lefebvrist, nor any sort of schismatic. I am, in fact, a Catholic in good standing with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, and soon to be member of the (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. To question the value of a missal does not constitute schism. If it did all those people calling for a new missal in the '50s and '60s would have been schismatics. And that would be bad, as I like Bl. John XXIII.
I am, however, most certainly a sophist.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 8:05 pm ¶Regarding this earlier question:
Also, is the McDonald's drive-thru communion required by the Novus Ordo missal or could communion rails still be used?
I'm reasonably certain that the communion rail is used for all Masses at St. John Cantius back home, including those said according to the 1970 Missal (they offer the Sacrifice of the Mass according to both Missals daily). Granting you that SJC is far from a typical church, the home parish of at least one other CMUer also continues to use its communion rail. Such parishes still exist, and perhaps more priests would encourage their use if more churches actually, I don't know, still had altar rails. Then again if, as Steven points out, "the American Bishops frown upon their use," perhaps not.
Either way, I'm not sure what bearing this matter has on a comparison of the merits of the two different Missals (though I'm well aware of how much people like to rant on it). Steven's comments on mandatory silence in the 1962 Missal are more interesting, but I can't get to that right now.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 10:27 pm ¶"Either way, I'm not sure what bearing [the use or non-use of communion rails] has on a comparison of the merits of the two different Missals (though I'm well aware of how much people like to rant on it). Steven's comments on mandatory silence in the 1962 Missal are more interesting, but I can't get to that right now."
I very much agree.
+0
Posted 13 Feb 2006 at 11:06 pm ¶I see that the title on the post has changed…wasn't it something about a liturgical soapbox?
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 12:28 am ¶Aye, it was. The original title was an inside joke. It was changed prior to submission to the Catholic Carnival.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 12:59 am ¶well it wasn't really a joke, per se.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 2:18 am ¶If all it takes to be a Christian "sophist" is to make informal debate on a blog, where does that leave people who publish theological papers? Are they hyper-sophists?
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 3:16 am ¶Perhaps there is no difference between professional theologians and people who publish in blogs. Neither group seems to be held accountable by their peers for lapses in logic. Saying that "If you ask for more grace, it stands to reason that you'll get more" is dumber than dirt. I guess it "stands to reason" that we ought to make mass 12 hours long and make it consist of the priest begging for grace over and over untill he turns blue. How does praying for grace over and over compare to receiving the Eucharist? When I last checked people who go to the Novus Ordo still do that. Does it change anything to know that much of the praying of the priest during the Tridentine mass is of private devotion, intended for his own holiness and not for the people? He isn't praying that the people receive grace(s), he's asking that he receive grace(s) so he can offer a worthy sacrifice. The people are on their own. I think that ought to be kept in mind when thinking about the difference between the merits of attending one or the other type of mass.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 3:00 pm ¶"dumber than dirt"
That's a fine insult to be lobbing from the safety of anonymity.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 4:02 pm ¶"Saying that 'If you ask for more grace, it stands to reason that you'll get more' is dumber than dirt."
Well you're just a doo-doo brain, and I'm telling the teacher on you.
How about engaging the argument?
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 5:14 pm ¶I'm sick of half-cocked Traddies. And if the shoe fits…
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 5:15 pm ¶ArchbishopLefebvre, I would be more than happy to find any errors in logic that I have committed. DSA has already pointed out a few, and I have clarified my position. I think this helps both sides of the debate. The issue with which we are dealing is quite complex, and there is room for legitimate disagreement on some points in the argument. This doesn't mean that the other side is "half-cocked". It means that they have different biases and assumptions than you. By bringing these assumptions (yours and ours) out in the open, we come to see the merits of our respective positions. This is the Socratic method at work.
As far as the position on amount of grace received, what is being argued is not that repetition of itself gains more grace (in which case, a 12-hour Mass _would_ be better), but that one receives from God according to what one asks of Him. Ask a lot, get a lot; ask a little, get a little. It is our contention that the 1962 Missal asks for graces not requested by the 1970 Missal. Its quality, not quantity.
Its easy to assume the irrationality of your opponent (a fault I commit, too), but its hard to actually see the logic in their argument. If you don't look for the over all logicality, you won't be able to see the holes.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 6:44 pm ¶ArchbishopLefebrve, I'd appreciate if you'd stop using my email address as though it were your own.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 7:33 pm ¶DSA:
"I guess my concern was not simply with one's clarity about the nature of grace, but with the spirit in which one evaluates the liturgy of the Church and makes judgements about its efficacy in the life of the faithful."
As long as this spirit is one of charity and humility, I don't think that it's inappropriate to offer constructive criticism about the Mass, as it's of the same nature as the criticism which led to the reform of the Mass in the 1960s. Obviously, not all of those who believe that the introduction of the New Mass was a step back exercise charity in voicing their opinions, but I make an effort to. If you think that my opinions are inappropriate or uncharitable, I invite you to point out to me exactly what you think I should change.
Abp. Lefebvre,
I'd like to hear your opinion, since you think mine's wrong. What have you got to lose? You may convince me that I'm wrong. And even if you don't, then you've had a chance to voice what you've got to say.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 8:18 pm ¶I'm so lucky to have someone like Steven Kesslar to give me lessons in thinking; a self proclaimed Socrates, no less. Well, Socrates, it's especially easy in this case to "assume the irrationality" of my opponent, because in this case he actually happens to be irrational. Tom Smith said, "If you ask for more graces, it stands to reason you'll get more." There was nothing about quality here, and this ludicrous statement went unchallenged. "Edey" gave her consent and even expressed regret that TS didn't provide more of his penetrating insight.
Your little line about the new liturgy approaching God not as king but as friend and brother is a real hoot.
Socrates was a philosopher. A sophist is a two-bit sloganeer.
Funky Dung: I'll stop using your email address when you learn to spell my name right. A mispelled name is an indignity an Archbishop cannot abide. Isn't my being in Purgatory punishment enough? Ouch! %$#&! An angel just speared me for taking a break from my penance of reading internet blogs.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 8:41 pm ¶Our responsibility, it seems to me, is not only to engage in intellectual discussion and debate over an issue but to think with the mind of the Church. To hold forth the liturgy of Church as somehow defective (not simply poorly celebrated)is in my view an erroneous and poorly formed opinion. To speak of it as failing to provide enough grace for the faithful or seeking to quantify grace in the way that has been put forward here, or to describe the Novus Ordo as "crap," as it has been on this blog once before(although removed after the objection was noted), clearly falls short of seeking to think with the mind of the Church or what could be construed as appropriate or charitable.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 9:09 pm ¶OK, this discussion has long ceased to be acceptable Christian discourse.
To Abp. L.: You are being a troll. I traced your IP and I know you're commenting from the Newman Center. If you want to be a pompous ass and insult people rather than discuss matters rationally, I invite you to approach any one of us in person to do so. Continuing to do so anonymously is a mark of cowardice.
To the rest: I deplore censorship, so I am loathe to silence this gormless git. In lieu of censorship, I ask other commenters to please not feed the troll.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 9:14 pm ¶DSA, your comment is very fair and worth considering. I will endeavor to keep it in mind should I get the urge to write, or ask a contributor to write, another litrugy post. I think it's worth noting, however, that the spirit of this discussion (until interrupted by a troll) was one of people seeking to understand each others' points of view.
I have a naive question for you, and I mean no flippancy. How does one think with the Church when one disagrees with Her in matters not dogmatic or doctrinal? That is, in areas where disagreement is permitted, how does one engage in such disagreement in a manner consistent with thinking with the Church?
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 9:22 pm ¶By loving Her. R. Cantalamessa wrote a work called "Loving the Church." In these reflections on the Letter to the Ephesians, Fr. Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household, asks a critical question: How can we read, "'And Christ loved the Church' [Eph. 5:25], without asking the question, 'And I? Do I love the Church?'" The last half of a century was a time of theological ferment focusing attention on the nature of the Church and therefore of her liturgy. But, the author wonders, "Was there a proportionate growth in love for the Church?"
Do we love the Church? Do we understand its nature? Do we weep over its sins or merely criticize? Are we building up or tearing down?
Some good and important questions I think.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 10:01 pm ¶"Our responsibility, it seems to me, is not only to engage in intellectual discussion and debate over an issue but to think with the mind of the Church."
I'm not sure exactly what it means to think with the mind of the Church — I take it that this means we should always make an effort to think in a way truly informed by Catholic principles; if this is the case, I agree. However, I don't think that it applies in this scenario — I would say that, because this isn't a matter of doctrine (and ultimately truth), but rather one of prudential judgment, one cannot appropriately appeal to "the mind of the Church." (Then again, since I'm not sure exactly what you mean, I may be all wet.)
"To hold forth the liturgy of Church as somehow defective (not simply poorly celebrated)is in my view an erroneous and poorly formed opinion."
I don't think I've used the word "defective" to describe the New Mass on this blog. (Have I?) I think a better description of my opinion would include, instead of the word "defective," the word "lacking." The difference being that "defective" implies something incorrect or out-of-place, whereas "lacking" indicates only that there isn't as much good content as there could be. I believe that it is permissible for one to hold this opinion.
"To speak of it as failing to provide enough grace for the faithful…"
How much is "enough" grace? Enough for salvation? As much as the BVM received in her Immaculate Conception? Because God always provides for the Church, I believe that the New Mass, by virtue of its validity, provides enough grace for the salvation of the faithful, as well as their continued sanctification, but that doesn't mean that the situation is as good as it could be.
"…or seeking to quantify grace in the way that has been put forward here…"
In your opinion, what is the mind of the Church on the topic of the reception of grace? I think it is fair to say that St. Paul, in his conversion, and the Blessed Mother, in her Immaculate Conception, received more grace than, say, Judas ever did. In this way, I think it's possible to describe actual grace as something that can be spoken of in relative (though not absolute) amounts.
"…or to describe the Novus Ordo as 'crap,' as it has been on this blog once before…"
I apologize for implying, in my comment on that post, that I thought that it was okay to refer to the liturgy as crap. I agree that this was inappropriate and uncharitable.
***
Anyway, I think that I could benefit from your explaining what is meant, exactly, by "the mind of the Church" — I think that it may prove to be the source of much of our disagreement.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 10:14 pm ¶"Do we love the Church? Do we understand its nature? Do we weep over its sins or merely criticize? Are we building up or tearing down?
Some good and important questions I think."
Indeed…
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 10:17 pm ¶DSA, those are important questions I will pray over. I'd love to say that I truly love the Church and seek to build her up, but that's quite an easy thing to say, and quite difficult to put into practice.
Also, sophism is an Ancient Greek philosophical school which pragmatically seeks the best argument for a given position. It is maligned in Plato, et al. because Sophists don't always believe what they say. In my case, I tend to, but if I hold private doubts about fairly common Catholic positions I voice the opinion of the Church (even when not dogmatic) unless I have very compeling reason to do otherwise. In this case, I feel my position is warranted, even if it runs counter to the majority opinion among Catholics.
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 10:19 pm ¶To get back on track (feel free to skip to below the line on this exceedingly long comment):
While charity is not one of my strong suits, I dont believe that my discernment concerning the missal is uncharitable. I look at the matter objectively, which is to say, I dont judge the people involved, but I judge the result of their labors. That the missal produced in 1970 seems to me deficient in many respects is not to say that the men involved were in any sense evil, or that those who prefer it lack holiness or are somehow not Catholic. As I said earlier, this is a complex issue, and deciding to simply go with the majority on this one is a mark neither of cowardice nor of stupidity.
I think that Paul VI was quite holy, usually astute, and I entertain no doubt of his eternal beatitude. I do believe that he allowed too many people to voice opinions he should have silenced, and that he allowed bishops and cardinals too much leeway. He feared, however, that acting as I would have had him act would crush any hope of the Council producing a good effect. He felt that if there was to be growth in the Church there would have to be freedom. I disagree, but I understand. As far as the editor of the missal, Abp. Bugnini, I dont have an entirely high opinion of him. A priest I know quite well, who studies liturgy and says the Novus Ordo unhesitatingly, once told me that Bugnini lacked the historical and liturgical knowledge to properly accomplish the task he was given. I suppose his opinion is better formed than mine. In the end, I know too little about the man to truly form a legitimate opinion of him, nor do I need to. His work stands on its own without any judgment of him. St. Peter Celestine was a wonderful man, and a fairly poor pope. Boniface VIII did some great work, but wasnt that great of a guy. Being holy doesnt always produce good results.
As far as grace goes, a distinction is quite important. It must be that grace is quantifiable. That we could know with even faint certainty the amount of grace a given act provides is quite another matter. I think we can at least compare the efficacy of certain actions (in fact I think we have to, so that we might decide, e.g., whether we should give up chocolate or soda for Lent. Which one will help me grow in holiness more?). I might, however, be wrong. It seems that many of the saints whose works I have read talk in this way about less controversial matters than a missal, but instead about discerning between different good actions, but as I cant think of specific examples this too might be incorrect.
I say grace must be quantifiable because if it is a reality, not just a metaphor, it must be either infinite or finite. If it is finite it is measurable (by God, if not by us), and if it is infinite it is God, and turns out to be a metaphor after all. I understand why one might be hesitant to consider grace in this fashion. It seems to make grace into something you can put into a test tube and poke and prod until you know everything about it. Perhaps it actually does this. Nonetheless, we do judge the amount of grace that various things will give to us all the time. Its why we choose to say certain prayers or perform certain works, as opposed to saying other prayers or doing other works. If we are incapable of this kind of discernment, God can hardly fault us for meriting little grace.
Now, that said, it is a fair criticism to say that Tom Smith and I look at grace as manipulated like a machine (edey, it should be noted, has said little beyond a fairly dispassionate post that started all this, and doesnt deserve to be treated as if she agrees with everything we say; Tom and I are often in agreement; edey does not agree with the same frequency, at least as concerns characterizations). It is true that I tend towards an overly mechanistic conception of salvation and whatnot. This is a tendency of my way of thinking, but not an integral part of the claim that the Old Mass effects more grace. God gives grace in a manner which is unearned, but not unmerited. The difference is that while no act of ours could actually deserve grace, God has set certain guidelines on how grace is to be gained. This is because God is unchanging. What I have done that God found worthy to reward with grace will be the same thing God will be pleased with a hundred years from now. On the other hand, grace is also very personal. God gives grace according to our need, not only according to our deeds. But what we are discussing here is the merited grace that God gives. The Mass also serves as a conduit for unmerited grace. This cannot be quantified by anyone but God, and no missal will affect this grace one way or another. It is only the merited grace, which admittedly is probably the less important of the two, that we discuss here because it alone is affected by the missal.
——————————————————–
That having been said, I would like to know especially DSAs ideas about my point on silence during the Mass. This alone is sufficient for me, at least, to prefer the 1962 Missal. The set periods of silence are obligatory in the old missal, and generally impossible to duplicate in the new. Further, while there are periods of optional silence in the 1970 Missal (which, while optional, are strongly recommended), nonetheless these dont seem to add up to as much silence as the Canon alone in the old missal, and as I said before create not a spirit of prayer but one of anxiousness (at least in those who spend much of their lives not in prayer, i.e., the people who need the grace most, like me). I so often find myself becoming impatient at the Novus Ordo. I almost never experience that at the old mass or Byzantine Divine Liturgy. It doesnt seem that this could stem only from a deficiency in me (my deficiencies do a lot, dont get me wrong, but shouldnt the Mass help with my weaknesses, and those of people worse off than me?).
Id also say that abuse isnt the issue here. Believe me, I know the missal gets abused, and the translation is poor. But, when I go to the Novus Ordo, I dont go with liberal nutjobs. My home parish was fairly good, but more to the point, my Campus ministers are among the most conservative and attentive priests in the U.S. Im not judging based on the worse of the 1970 Missal, but on the best. If those who follow all the rules arent producing the effects that the old missal does, is this not a sign?
In the end, I can only say why I do what I do in the way Plato does. In the Republic, Socrates is asked why he thinks he should live a just life. Would not the life of a tyrant be more lucrative? His answer is to say that he has live both an immoral and a moral life, his interlocutor has lived only the immoral. If he who has seen both judges one better, should not his judgment be respected? I cannot be quite so bold as that. Nonetheless, I have routinely attended Mass according to the 1970 missal, the 1962 missal, and the Byzantine rite (Slavic and Middle Eastern varieties); I have attended the Coptic liturgy and studied the rites of the various Syriac branches of the Church. If, then, I say not only that I see deficiencies in one of these, and furthermore that one stands apart in so many respects from the others, should it not at least be given some small weight?
+0
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 11:38 pm ¶Would it be fair in an "apples to apples" comparision to include the Prayers after Low Mass?
+0
Posted 18 Feb 2006 at 4:02 am ¶No, I don't think it would. As you continue to read "Teaching Truth", you'll find an explanation of the origins of that practice. Those prayers are not properly part of the old mass. We could just as easily append them to the new mass.
+0
Posted 18 Feb 2006 at 4:04 pm ¶they are only after low Mass, so i don't think they would count, particularly since low Mass isn't the "fullest" version of the 62 missal anyways. i also didn't include the asperges because it is only before the principal Mass on sunday. plus, it's not like they are "needed" to make the argument anyways
+0
Posted 19 Feb 2006 at 1:34 am ¶I have followed with interest this conversation. I feel that there are a couple of unclarities about its progression — one concerning the nature of grace, and the other concerning the role of criticism within the Church. The second is easiest to deal with first. DSA seems to fear that criticism of the liturgy of the Church somehow implies a lack of love for the Church. To the contrary, I would assert, while it can certainly imply a lack of love for the Church (and does in many cases I am sure), it can also spring from a deep love for the Church, her Savior, her belief, and her patrimony. I ask her/him whether s/he believes Cardinal Ratzinger to have been suffering from a lack love for the Church when he wrote, concerning the missal of 1970: ".A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our time, defined the liturgy of his day, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a liturgy which is the fruit of development… What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." Thus wrote Cardinal Ratzinger in his preface to a book on the liturgical reform that was written by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, a very vocal critic of the 1970 Missal. The point of this is so: It is by no means a sign of lack of love for the Church to criticize her current liturgy. As Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the present liturgy is not the result of centuries of development by the "mind of the Church." Rather, it is the product of a few years of work by a committee of experts, endorsed by two popes. In that sense, it is entirely possible that the committee did _not_ function entirely with the mind of the Church, and only the march of years, and the slow evaluation of that liturgy by that mind, can show us what its strengths and weaknesses might be. Part of that evaluation involves the discussion, by _faithful_ Catholics, who love the Church, concerning their experience of the liturgy. I happen to hold with Cardinal Ratzinger that even the most reverently-celebrated Novus Ordo is–in its _text_ and _ceremoies_–banal, and quite on-the-spot. Matters of this prayer and that prayer aside, a comparison of the two missals, even in Latin, seems to support this contention that Cardinal Ratzinger feels so confident in making. DSA is right in pointing out that there is no place in this discussion for those who do not love the Church. She or he is wrong, I would contend, in seeming to assume that it is somehow unloving of the Church to call the new rite "lacking" or even "deficient" (as I feel would be an appropriate adjective for something "banal" that is supposed to represent the eternal liturgy of heaven).
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 2:40 pm ¶Mark,
I am certainly NOT saying that criticism of the Church necessarily implies lack of love. Although you are right, I think, in saying that in many cases it does imply such a thing. Be that as it may, I was not trying to suggest that discussion about the liturgy is wrong or out of place. In fact, I am firmly in agreement with many of the comments on this blog, including those you made, about the current state of the liturgy and how it is celebrated.
However, I also realize that intellectualization can be a powerful defense and a very fun one at that. We can spend great deal of time talking about such matters, many very important matters worthy of our consideration, and even point to the astute observations of Cardinal Ratzinger to add weight to our perspective. However, behind all the chatter and along with all the important and even valid judgments can reside a powerful resistance to embracing the far more challenging truth the self-emptying and self-sacrificing love that we celebrate and receive in the Holy Eucharist. It is this love that must form our judgments and precede any criticism we might offer. Otherwise it will not bear the fruit that we imagine. Or worse, it can degenerate into a new form of pharisaism. Someone once said, Remember that in time of Jesus the Pharisees were a renewal movement. They intended to observe the law even more firmly and correctly, yet somehow they lost the passion of faith and degenerated into self-righteousness and even hypocrisy. An important consideration I think. In the midst of all our many discussions we must not let this happen to us. We must take hold of the mystery that we celebrate and receive and live it to the full.
To love the Church does not mean to withhold criticism; just the opposite. Love may demand it. But we must give due care to how we respond to the weaknesses that we see in Her. Is the expression of our love the same as Christs? Do we cherish the Church as he did? Do we offer ourselves for her as he did on the Cross or give ourselves to her as he does in the Eucharist?
In a previous response, I made reference to Cantalamessas book of mediations on loving the Church. It captures the underlying attitude that I have been suggesting is important. Please forgive the lengthy quote. He writes:
Christ has loved the Church, despite the iniquities that she was to commit, so who are we to fin in the Churchs weakness and misery a reason not to love her but to judge her instead? We who are filled with sin? Do we actually think that Jesus doesnt know the sins of the Church as well as we do? Did he not know for whom he was dying? Did he not know that one of his disciples had betrayed him and that another was denying him and that the rest were fleeing? He, however, loved this real Church, not an imaginary and ideal one. He did to make her holy and without blemish, not because she was holy and without blemish. He loves the Church in hope, not just for what she is but also for what she is called to be and will be: the heavenly Jerusalem prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her so that she would be without stain. And the Church would be without stain if we were not a part of it! The Church would have one less wrinkle if I committed one less sin. Martin Luther criticized Erasmus of Rotterdam for remaining in the Catholic Church despite its corruption, but Erasmus answered him: I put up with this Church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that one day I will become better.
We should ask Christ to forgive all our inconsiderate judgments and the many offenses we heap upon his bride, and as a result upon him as well. Try to tell a man who is truly in love that his bride is ugly or a good for nothing and see if you can take his ire. Speaking of his homeland, during one of the darkest periods of the last war, Saint-Exupery wrote:
Since I am one with the people of France, I shall never reject my people, whatever they may do. I shall never preach against them in the hearing of others. Whenever it is possible to take their defence, I shall defend them. If they cover me with shame I shall lock up that shame in my heart and be silent. Whatever at such a time I shall think of them I shall never bear witness against them. Does a husband go from house to house crying out to his neighbors that his wife is a strumpet? Is it thus that he can preserve his honour? No, for his wife is one with his home. No, for he cannot establish his dignity against her. Let him go home to her, and there unburden himself of his anger.
Once you have reentered the house, once you have wept with the Church, once you have humbled yourself at its feet, God can command you as he has done in the past to raise your voice against the wounds of the Church. But not before. The saints have applied to the Church that which Job said about God: . . . Even if God were to kill me, I would still have recourse to him.
It is in light of these sentiments that I have made my previous remarks. I am not assuming that it is somehow unloving to criticize the Church. What I am saying is that we must approach her like Christ. And I dare say that I have rarely seen that on a blog or heard it expressed in any discussion.
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 6:11 pm ¶There is a follow-up of sorts to this post here:
Have Christian Bloggers Lost the Plot?
Some of the issues I address are related to some of the excellent points DSA made. In fact, I might amend my post to include some quotes from his comments.
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 6:32 pm ¶"Since I am one with the people of France, I shall never reject my people, whatever they may do. I shall never preach against them in the hearing of others. Whenever it is possible to take their defence, I shall defend them. If they cover me with shame I shall lock up that shame in my heart and be silent. Whatever at such a time I shall think of them I shall never bear witness against them. Does a husband go from house to house crying out to his neighbors that his wife is a strumpet? Is it thus that he can preserve his honour? No, for his wife is one with his home. No, for he cannot establish his dignity against her. Let him go home to her, and there unburden himself of his anger." — Saint-Exupery
"My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" — G. K. Chester