I would say all of these are examples of ways that the missal of 1970 decreases humility, contrition, and requests for God's mercy relative to the missal of 1962.
The next key difference is a decrease in requesting the intercession of the Saints. The Confetior (I Confess…) in 1962 mentions several Saints by name twice
"Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, et tibi Pater: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes Sanctos, et te Pater, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum Nostrum."
(I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the angels and saints, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed. through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.)
in the missal of 1970, the Blessed Mother is the only Saint named individually.
"Confiteor Deo omnipotens et vobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, omnes Angelos et Sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. "
(I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.)
The final offetory prayer in the missal of 1962, which is missing completely in the missal of 1970, also asks for the intercession of Saints by name
"Suscipe sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem, quam tibi offerimus ob memoriam passionis, resurrectionis, et ascensionis Jesu Christi Domini nostri: et in monorem beatae Mariae semper Virginis, wt beati Joannis Baptistae, et sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, et istorum, et monium Sanctorum: ut illis proficiat ad honorem, nobis autem ad salutem: et illi pro nobis intercedere dignentur in coelis, quorum memoriam agimus in terris. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "
(Accept, most Holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to You in remembrance of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, Our Lord; and in honor of blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of (name of the Saints whose relics are in the Altar) and of all the Saints; that it may add to their honor and aid our salvation; and may they deign to intercede in heaven for us who honor their memory here on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.)
While the Missal of 1970 retains the Roman Canon with a few modifications (aka Eucharistic prayer 1) as an option, it is rarely used; I am using (as I did above) Eucharistic prayer II for the missal of 1970 since it is what is most commonly used (at least in the US). Looking at Eucharistic prayer II, the only time Saints are mentioned is after the commemoration of the dead
"Omnium nostrum, quaesumus, miserere, ut cum beata Dei Genetrice Virgine Maria, beatis Apostolis et omnibus Sanctis, qui tibi a saeculo placuerunt, aeternae vitae mereamur esse consortes, et te laudemus et glorificemus…(Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory)";
the only saint mentioned by name in the missal of 1970, again, is the Blessed Mother. Contrast this with the Roman Canon, the only option in the missal of 1962. After the commemoration of the living,
"Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genitricis Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi: sed et beati Joseph ejusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Jacobi, Joannis, Thomae, Jacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis, et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Joannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani, et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen."
(In the unity of holy fellowship we observe the memory, first of all, of the glorious and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Next we observe the memory of Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin, and of Your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all Your Saints. By their merits and prayers grant that we may be always fortified by the help of Your protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
After the commemoration of the dead, the Canon continues
"Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam, et societatem donare digneris, cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus, cum Joanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasis, et omnibus Sanctis tuis, intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meritim sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. "
(To us sinners also, Your servants, trusting in the greatness of Your mercy, deign to grant some part and fellowship with Your Holy Apostles and Martyrs with John Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all Your Saints. Into their company we implore You to admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely granting us pardon. Through Christ our Lord.)
A myriad of saints are mentioned by name. After the Pater Noster (Our Father), the Missal of 1962 continues with
"Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis, praeteritis, praesentibus, et futuris, et intercedente beata et gloriosa semper Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria, cum beatis Apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo, atque Andrea, et omnibus Sanctis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut ope misericordiae tuae adjuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi, et ab omni perturbatione securi. Per eumdem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum. Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen. "
(Deliver us, we beg You, Lord, from every evil, past, present, and to come; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever-Virgin, Mother of God, Mary, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of Andrew, and all Saints. Grant of Your goodness, peace in our days, that aided by the riches of Your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all disturbance. Through the same Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, Who lives and reigns with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, world without end.)
the Missal of 1970 replaces this with,
"Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut, ope misericordiae tuae adiuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi et ab omni perturbatione securi: exspectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi."
(Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.).
I would also contend that the horizontal (communal meal) aspect was increased at the expense of the vertical (or sacrificial) aspect. That would probably require a whole other post, though (and I have procrastinated on getting this one out long enough). However, feel free to discuss that in the comments.
As I said earlier, "repetition is the mother of learning". While the Missal of 1970 retained the triplet nature of the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God…), the repetition of Saints in the Confetior (I Confess…) was eliminated, it reduced the Kyrie (Lord have mercy…) to three couplets rather than three triplets, and the Domine non sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy…) was reduced to being said once before Communion from being said three times before the priest's Communion and three times before the people's Communion. Repeating these things reinforces them. Notice the things that are reinforced by repetition in the Missal of 1962 are the same things I was discussing earlier: need for the Lord's mercy, humility, and contrition as well as the intercession of the Saints.
Finally, as was mentioned in a comment on a previous post, "you don't get what you don't ask for". In the Missal of 1962, we ask for the Lord's mercy, humility, contrition; we ask for the intercession of the Saints; the Sacrifice is emphasized. In the Missal of 1970, none of these things are asked for to the extent they are in the Missal of 1962. I contend they are all good things; how can we expect the Missal of 1970 to be as efficacious as the Missal of 1962? Yes, it is a valid Mass, but why eat roast beef when you can have steak? Sure, roast beef still provides the nutrients and still satisfies, but not the same way. (The irony of the analogy.)
I could write an entire post on the roots of why the Missal of 1962 is so much better, but I will just say that it had a millenium and a half of organic development and leave it at that. It has grown like a flower rather than a collage. Again, people can hash that out in the comments.
Finally, if you would like to attend a Mass celebrated according to the Missal of 1962 with the permission of the Ordinary (Bishop) and are in the greater Pittsburgh area, St. Bonafice has low Mass at 8am and high Mass at 11am Sundays as well as low Mass at 7pm on First Friday and 9am First Saturday as well as high Mass at 7pm on Holy Days of Obligation. If you do not live near Pittsburgh, please check for the Mass nearest you.
Let the comments begin….
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 an