I wish I had Dr. Pristas' brains. She's incredible. The extrinsicist question is precisely the right one to be asking.
This problem that Pristas is addressing is made even worse by the fact that we English-speakers don't really pray the collects or any other prayer of the revised Missal, only a loose approximation of the prayers. Hopefully the new English translation in the works will finally repair that spiritually dangerous fact of English-speaking Catholic life, which would be a big step in the right direction -- then it might be easier to address real or perceived weaknesses of the revised Missal.
Fr Cekada, in his little bombshell of a book, "Problems of the Prayers of the Modern Mass", offered objective evidence of the extent to which the NO Corp of Engineers deconstructed those prayers -- far more than was claimed at the time. It sounds like Pristas, and maybe others, are starting to explore the trails he blazed. Good.
My question is whether ANYONE will welcome a return to these prayers. On the spirit of Vatican II side we have the Rahnerian-Kantian universe that hates to have God too close. And on the Orthodox Catholic side we have a hatred of anything less than utterly formal, distant reverence. Whereas the prayers are all about intimacy.
From the Holy Father's homily at Sunday Mass at World Youth Day in Cologne (actually a long ways out of Cologne, in the mud, with poorly planned bus transportation, but who's complaining, because Kolsch is a truly super beer):
"We all eat the one bread, and this means that we ourselves become one. In this way, adoration, as we said earlier, becomes union. God no longer simply stands before us as the One who is totally Other. He is within us, and we are in him. His dynamic enters into us and then seeks to spread outwards to others until it fills the world, so that his love can truly become the dominant measure of the world.
I like to illustrate this new step urged upon us by the Last Supper by drawing out the different nuances of the word "adoration" in Greek and in Latin. The Greek word is proskynesis. It refers to the gesture of submission, the recognition of God as our true measure, supplying the norm that we choose to follow. It means that freedom is not simply about enjoying life in total autonomy, but rather about living by the measure of truth and goodness, so that we ourselves can become true and good. This gesture is necessary even if initially our yearning for freedom makes us inclined to resist it.
We can only fully accept it when we take the second step that the Last Supper proposes to us. The Latin word for adoration is ad-oratio - mouth to mouth contact, a kiss, an embrace, and hence, ultimately love. Submission becomes union, because he to whom we submit is Love. In this way submission acquires a meaning, because it does not impose anything on us from the outside, but liberates us deep within."
"And on the Orthodox Catholic side we have a hatred of anything less than utterly formal, distant reverence"
An utterly silly presupposition, Ms McGoo.
Oh goodie! I was hoping I was mistaken about that, Mr. R.-D.
Perhaps I am also mistaken about the Rahnerian-Kantian realm, eh, Fr. O'Leary?
No, actually you were quite right about that.
SAAAAAAAYYYY -- are you trying to impart an IMPORTANT LESSON to me in a gently subtle way???? You wily females!
Alas, it does not pay to be subtle with a man named Roister-Doister.
Wily? Moi?
kathy, your point is a little obscure. Maybe that's because I'm on my second Guinness. Elaborate please. (sincerely)
"we have a hatred of anything less than utterly formal, distant reverence"
Is this a description of traditionalists or of people the traditionalists call neo-Catholics?
Sometimes it seems that the gospel of grace gets drowned in a kind of semi-pelagian do-goodism in many parishes and dioceses. This seems to be related to the theological drift of the revised collects.
Kathy, you are certainly mistaken about Rahner who is not a Kantian as regards divine intimacy. Did you never read his spiritual classic "Encounters with Silence"? Rahner was a true Jesuit and a man of the Holy Spirit. When Rahner speaks of the unfathomable mystery of God he does not mean a Kantian aloofness but a mystery which envelops our entire being in Christ (read him on the Sacred Heart). My friend Fr Heinrich Dumoulin, the historian of Zen, said to me, as regards his own personal theology -- "I follow Rahner -- the unfathomable mystery of God". This was a great merit of many of the older, somewhat sentimental hymns I quoted (notable Soul of my Savior) and also of the chants of the Charismatic Movement ("Spirit of the Living God, Fall afresh on us" etc.) -- they brought a sense of the immediacy of divine presence. We are sorely in need of such a simple spirituality of presence today.
Might I suggest that your own Latin hymn, beautiful as its language it, does not really conduce to this effect? It is hardly the Veni Creator.
Spirit, I find the intimacy I'm looking for in the subjunctive and the conditional. Subjunctive: "May we sing new songs, Lord, to You." After we've been made new through pardon. It's through God's indwelling grace that we can hope to praise. Conditional: "O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim your praise."
Rahner had a lot to say and I shouldn't paint it as all bad. I've read some interesting things in TI, for example. But what remains with me is the "Horizon" idea in Foundations of the Christian Faith, which he intended of all things to be a seminary textbook. That's a Kantian scheme of the world,in which there is such tremendous unknowability of an incredibly distant God.
Kathy, don't let anybody fool you about Rahner. You're right about your specific claim. "Spirit" may be correct as to Rahner's intentions in the realm of subjective lived experience. But that is another matter.
Rahner.. "The unfathomable mystery of God..." Yes, that is indeed his take, and he incarnates it himself by producing such an ocean of illusive prose that is impossible for anyone to get through or effectively present his theology in anything but double-speak. Sounds an awful lot like contemporary Catholicism in so many quarters. And it sounds like someone else here has taken him as his inspirational model as well.
I studied the two Rahners in div school. Give me Hugo any day of the week.
Ms. Kathy:
Re "we have a hatred of anything less than utterly formal, distant reverence,utterly formal, distant reverence," this seems to be an unfair and overly broad comment. I know many Catholics attached to a traditional form of liturgy (as opposed to the NO, which is barely a form of liturgy at all) who are seeking to have a close, personal relationship with our Lord, especially in the reception of the Eucharist.
Is it your position that the pre-Vatican II Mass was only filled with "utterly formal, distant reverence." ? Apparently, looking at the many canonized Saints that were unfortunately (in your world) limited to such a sterile liturgy, it must have been in despite of the Old Mass. If the form of the pre-Vatican II Mass can be criticized, then a fortiori the NO can be criticized as a liturgy which hardly acknowledges that we worship God in its secondary aspects.
Hi, Miguel. Wow, I'd never seen that before. First the radtrads call the current Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass "the Novus Ordo," instead of "The Mass," which it is properly called. But now the disdain goes even further. The NO? I think you should show much more respect than that for the Church and its liturgy.
I think that the prayers of the Tridentine Liturgy are probably superb. But I think that some (not all) people go to Tridentine Liturgy because they are in their hearts schismatic. If people are at Mass for such an irreligious reason, it seems that they've reached the point where reverence isn't just a very important category, but the only one. That leaves out charity--which in Catholicism is partly expressed by unity.
(Sorry, Ephrem is my pen name.)
KathyEphrem?
Thats very "tran" of you. I meant no disrespect for "the Mass" as you stated by my use of NO as shorthand for the Novus Ordo Mass. It is just being in a hurry and being pulled in several different directions at once that caused me to use shorthand. As far as disrespecting the New Order Mass, I grew up with the N.O. Mass, I attend it most Sundays, and I consider it to be a valid Mass which is normally conducive to one's faith to attend. I am not a radtrad actually, just a Christian, belonging to the One. Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church (or in other words, a Christian in the fullness of the Faith).
It seems to me that you have less respect for a Christian's legitimate attachment to the traditional form of Mass than John Paul II had - which was expressed in Ecclesia Dei. Why would you even believe that a Christian who attends an indult Mass, as opposed to SPPX Mass, may be at heart schismatic? That is ridiculous. Our present Pope has also spoken of his great attachment and respect for the traditional Mass. He has also said it in the past few years on occasion. You need to be more open to other rites, and less judgmental about other forms of liturgy. There are many different rites, and many other forms of liturgy within the Catholic Church. They are all legitimate, and they cab be quite different from the Novus Ordo Mass, which can be so irreverent at times. To be attached to a more reverent and traditional form of liturgy is not disunity. Otherwise, the Church would not have so many different rites. Charity, indeed!!
Sorry, I am pretty sure I misunderstood you.
What do you mean by this?
the NO can be criticized as a liturgy which hardly acknowledges that we worship God in its secondary aspects
I adnit that it was kind of an obscure and offhand statement. There is no doubt that the Post-Vatican II Mass is a valid and approved Masss of the Catholic Church. What I mean is that it is the New Mass lacks reverence towards God and a sense of the sacred in its secondary characteristics, as opposed to those essential characteristics which make it a Mass. This is in comparison to the traditional form of the Latin or Roman rite Mass, which is neither merely formal nor distant in its worship of God. I am sure that clears things up.
I checked out your hopepage. Interesting. I see you hang out in my old neck of the woods. My wife's 1st home was on Monroe St. NE in D.C. and I used to live close to the corner of 14th St and Monroe when I attend CUA in the late 1980s. A very Catholic neighborhood, but I am having trouble recalling the Poor Clares convent. I used to hang out at the Franc. Monastery and the crypt at the National Shrine, and Colonel Brooks of course.
Ah, you lived in Little Vatican too!
The Poor Clares are at 13th and Quincy, one block straight down the hill from the Fran. Monastery. Which is a very pleasant place to walk around on a summer evening, as you probably know. I don't know if the PCs were there in the late 80s.
Well, about the Rites, I think that the problems with the current rites are a)it is very easy to desacralize through casualness or sloppiness or almost any manner of nonsense, and b) the texts were hastily and not too carefully done, and really badly translated. It was a rush job, but I think that there was a certain theological/ anthropological current that made the wrong seem right. Give it 400 years and we will probably have all the kinks ironed out. 
On the other hand, even as it is, it is possible to do well.
Thanks for clearing up what you meant about the primary and secondary characteristics. I had thought what you meant was something like, "The current rite is missing even the secondary characteristics, so there's no way it has the primary characteristics of a Mass." But you meant it the other way around.
There is no reason for us to tangle. We probably agree more than we disagree. I like a Latin Novus Ordo Mass, with Latin hymn and such. Nothing wrong with good old fashioned Catholic hymns in English also. Nowadays, I sometime attend Ruthenian rite services, although I was married with the Old Mass at an indult mass in D.C. It was beautiful, to say the least. I am really growing appreciative of Byzantine music and worship.. It is wasn't for the New Mass, I probably would not have been exposed to all these different forms of liturgy.
It really bugs me that I can't recall the Poor Clares very well. I know that I've been there for adoration and Mass, but I can't recall where it was. I really liked the Franciscan Monastery and the Shrine, for all the confessions for one thing. I actually have relatives who still live in the neighborhood, although they are getting quite old. It is a beautiful neighborhood, and was a great place to live and study. Labor me vocat (and that isn't "call me at work").
Take care from a wanderer in the desert
If I'm not mistaken, we've traded places. Are you in my old state of New Mexico? I went to college at St. John's in Santa Fe.
Anyways, it's great to go to Mass and very great to go to Communion. Let's pray for one another.
No comment.
Okay. Anyways, nice talking to you.
While the way the reformed missal of 1970 was imposed was the greatest blunder in the history of the Church in my opinion, there is no doubt its substance is rooted in the Tradition:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/genmass4.html
"The Holy Council declares moreover: The Church has always had, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being saved, the power to decide or to modify what she judges better to suit the spiritual utility of those who receive them or with respect to the sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.--- The Council of Trent, Dz 1728; also Dz Herder ed, 1955, #931, p. 256 "
Commenting by HaloScan
