Fr. Pacwa is a brilliant man and he has a clear understanding of the philosophical currents that resulted in the situation that we are in. Fr. Robinson does this in The Mass and Modernity also, though that book was fairly complex in structure and very heavy in content, compared with Fr. Pacwa's clear and concise summary.
Thanks for posting this Shawn. I particularly liked his comment on the current translations being "ideologically driven." They are. Tom
I have always had the highest respect for Father Pacwa; he is a shining example of what the Societ of Jesus use to produce...men of orthodox faith who can express themselves simple and clearly.
I recommend many buy Fr. Kocik's book, Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate. In the appendix is a brilliant piece by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. on what concrete forms the RoR could take. His comments further this important dialogue.
oh, yes. The link to that book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido...ASIN/
0898709466
An excellent, sensible, and irenic letter from Father Pacwa. I'm curious about his assertion about the Moslems converting to Christianity. I assume that they are converting to Pentecostal/fundamentalist sects.
I always liked Fr. Pacwa. I think he's brilliant writer, and a genius with biblical languages. Some people think I am impressive with languages (Japanese, Korean, Italian,Spanish, English), but considering my ethic backround, the first two are relaly no big deal. Fr. Pacwa is awesome. I have afew EWTN dvd's of his shows and specials.
It's impressive that 10 million Musilims a year become Christians, but whe have to question....what kind of Christian? Catholic or Orthodox, then that's an A+, but if it's to the thousands of fundamentalist evangelical groups...then that's not really Christianity.
I saw so many Protestant type sects and other lunatic groups in Mexico that it was nauseating. They're more like cults than religions. One group has a leader who is called the "Grand Pastor", and hands his office down to his son, and his son, etc. like a little king. The closest thing I can think to it is the kind of dynastic system in Hasidism...the Grand Rebbe of let's say... the Satmar sect of Hasidism passes it down to his son, the same of the Lubavitch Rebbe.
Thsi "grand pastor" wears robes like a king, and is very much treated like a king....even though the people live in brick houses. His house is much more substantial. Everyone bows to him from the waist. For people who live pretty below poverty level in this village in the hills...He and his immediate circle are very well off (air conditioning, etc.)
Then there are the thousands of little store front bible Churches...mostly funded from the USA with USA "missionaries". Really annoying people.
Kenjiro, I like you.
Father Mitch Pacwa is such a good, kind, scholarly, orthodox man and priest.
What I particularly love about Father is that he is that rare and lovely blend of orthodoxy and compassion, of scholarship and being down-to-earth, of professing the necessity of orthodoxy without being brutal or priggish.
His, I think, is a voice of calm amidst so many who suffer from reactionary tendencies. I believe our Church desperately needs one like Fr. Pacwa.
Bob: That is an excellent description of Fr. Pacwa. I had the privilege of being his student for several classes (when he taught for the U of Dallas IRPS program), and he was my spiritual advisor for a year or so. He is, first and foremost, holy. He is also incredibly down-to-earth, accessible, and attentive. I've been with him in public on many occasions, and he will talk to anyone at anytime about anything, always with a palpable sense of charity. He is also brilliant, as several have noted, being able to read and/or speak some 12 or 13 languages.
He and I have not spoken much about liturgical issues (we usually talk about biblical studies and related issues), but he is very, very fond of the Eastern rites, often celebrating Divine Liturgy at a Maronite parish in Alabama. I have attended a Byzantine Catholic parish since 2000 (having entered the Church in 1997), so we have that in common. When I've been at a Mass celebrated by Fr. Pacwa, it is very reverent and solemn. And he always give fabulous homilies.
All that to say, I love the man. He has been a tremendous blessing to me, my family, and to the Church.
Perhaps what we all respect in Father Mitch is the same quality that is so lovable in Fr. Benedict Groeschel: authenticity, wit, and humility. Both Fathers have been nurtured and love the Eastern Liturgies, and convey a profound respect for these various customs. On some blogs I read comments that are not so kind nor insightful.
I'm glad you are back Hieromonk Gregory. I always find your comments insightful.
Thanks Alexander.
Dear Carl,
How lovely! I'm so glad you are able to know and love Fr. Pacwa. A man I used to work with also knows Father, and is likewise very happy to know him.
I remember the Maronite liturgy televised at the Friary in Birmingham.
You know, I wish we had more of a presence of the Eastern Catholic Churches in my home town; we have a Maronite Parish and a Byzantine one up north. I'm so glad you've found a spiritual home in the Byzantine Tradition!
And thank you for your words today!
Dear Mr. Tribe:
I appreciate very much your input on Fr. Pacwa's piece because you raise issues that many traditionalists such as myself have always raised about the novus ordo. Our view, of course, was not that the mass was not broken. So why fix it? Whateve was wrong was due to our own brokeness, our own sin. Many priests refuse to face the doubts that the changes arouse in the hearts of faithful such as myself as to whether the novus ordo is an adequate representation of what the Church has always believed about the mass. These doubts bring about a skepticism that has driven many to seek communion in Church's run by the SSPX. Until the Church can answer the research of people like Lauren Pristas, the ad-libing by priests who clearly have deviant ideas about the Eucharist doubts will remain concerning the validty of the mass celebrated according to the novus ordo. The problem is not abuses. There were clearly abuses with the ordo antiquior. But the novus ordo did not correct those abuses. Rather, it allowed for their multiplication
I wonder where Fr. Pacwa gets his statistics on Muslim conversion to Xtianity? Is it from the protestant sectarians and is the conversion to them or is his source Catholic reflective of conversion to the Church?
You know they all talk about the problems with the Novus Ordo, but they (priests) don't do a thing about it!!. And even though Fr Mitch seems like a very good priest. He wouldn't have the stardom he has if it wasn't for EWTN and the mass media.
Bob K,
That's not really a fair critique, because at the end of the day, what can they really do on that deeper level?
The best they can do right now is try to celebrate the modern missal using the most traditional options they can, while promoting the writing and research we have spoken of, hoping the Church will instigate a reform of the modern Roman missal.
In addition, they can now also add teh celebration of the usus antiquior to their liturgical endeavours.
And even though Fr Mitch seems like a very good priest. He wouldn't have the stardom he has if it wasn't for EWTN and the mass media.
Anyone who knows Fr. Mitch knows he doesn't give a damn about "stardom." He loves preaching the Gospel (because he loves Jesus Christ and His Church), and that's what he does on EWTN. I know that he would actually prefer in some ways to be teaching at a university, but he has been called to other places for now. I've stayed at Fr. Pacwa's home several times, I've had numerous conversations with him, I've taken several classes from him, and he couldn't care less about recognition, fame, money, and such. And what "mass media" is holding up Fr. Pacwa as a "star"? Really, your comment is both silly and ignorant.
Shawn, I agree with your initial criticism of Fr. Pacwa’s treatment. But still... the logical conclusion that we should all come to... well, just isn't.
Fr. Pacwa and many other “Adoremus” Catholics seem to draw the right conclusions about the philosophies (a version of modernism) at work in the Church, but fall short, for some reason, when it comes to the liturgy. Fr. Pacwa is right about the coercive influence of post-war philosophies, and about those who adopted them. However, for the life of me I can’t figure out how he and his confers fail to grasp that it was a group of these people, the people who espoused the post-war version of Modernism, that designed the novus ordo. They placed their philosophies into the liturgy. They created the vagueness and the loopholes that made the Catholic Mass the vehicle by which they spread their errors very effectively throughout the whole Church.
Perhaps it is because they are afraid that if there is a wholesale return to traditional liturgy they will be out of the loop? Maybe they are too comfortable? I think most are turning toward tradition, and are simply not there yet, though I fail to see how someone as brilliant as Fr. Pacwa falls into this later category.
I understand the importance of unity, and accepting an ally when we need allies. However, I also know that if a Latin Catholic approaches the Catholic faith with reason, and strives to practice it to it's fullest, he will, without fail, gravitate toward the the usus antiquior, and away from the novus ordo. To sit on the fence means to lack consistency in some way. One is a modernist, a modernist gravitating toward tradition, or a traditional Catholic.
I think it would be on the whole extremely disruptive though to abandon the Novus Ordo altogether. One needs to bridge the two, even if (and there are good Catholics, who are looking towards a reform of the reform, who appreciate the EF, who disagree with this particular vision of the reform of the reform) ultimately what is aimed for is a kind of colonization of the Ordinary Form by the Extraordinary.
The Novus Ordo is a bit like the 39 Articles in Newman's reading of them (not to take the analogy too far: I am not saying that the people I named were akin to the "Catholics" in England who did not want to follow Rome). It was designed to accomodate people from different backgrounds. The Bugnini mob were not the only people who had to be placated with the creation of the Novus Ordo. There were the Congars, and the Bouyers too, as well as people whose sensibilities were shaped by the first liturgical movement. So, traditional elements can be got out of it.
Kiran,
I agree to an extent, and certainly there are a lot smart people who see it the way you do. I know that Fr. Zuhlsdorf is probably the most outspoken advocate of a consensus (I forget off hand the actual term he uses) between to the two uses, with eventual development of a reformed liturgy coming from the two.
Seems logical… but in an Hegelian way, and I’m no fan of Hegel.
Take for example the things that Fr. Z, for example, hopes the TLM will provide: use of Latin, Christocentric worship in the form of ad orientem posture, placement of the altar furnishings, traditional aesthetics in architecture, vestments and furnishings, reformed lectionary, a return to doctrinal clarity, etc. If these things were to be incorporated into the novus ordo, indeed, the novus ordo would be virtually indistinguishable from the Traditional Latin Mass…
which begs the question…
Why not just go back to the Traditional Latin Mass?!
My position, though, is more nuanced than just a sudden change back to the TLM. That isn’t really a possibility. I think that as more people are exposed to the TLM, more people seriously think about their faith and become doctrinally sound, and (most importantly) live more fully their faith, all these things will coalesce, both in individuals and in our Catholic culture in general, resulting not in a consensus between the two uses, but in the eventual extinction of the novus ordo. It will simply die out because at root it is inadequate.
I hope this clarifies what I’m clumsily trying to convey.
i think that many of fr pacwa's assessments are spot on.
i'm not sure how vociferiously he attacks the abuses of the Mass on his show, but he clearly understands the problem and is favor of its reform. that in itself is a very good start.
fr corapi (another ewtn fave) also speaks to the excesses of the NO Mass, and he constantly preaches against the abuse of the Mass and of the poor state of catechism in the church.
as for the 10 million muslims a year becoming christian, that's great - even if they become evangelicals. they can always be shown the light of truth in due time.
if the catholic church is not getting its share of converts from islam, that is the fault of the church, not of the evangelicals.
as wrong as the evangelicals are on doctrine, they don't sugar coat the fact that jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
too often, the catholic church seems to take an i'm ok, you're ok outlook towards other religions.
prior to VII, we would never have done this, since the great commission calls us to bring all souls to christ - not just lapsed catholics. that means muslims eed to be told that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, and that goes for jews, hindus, budhists and everyone else.
If these things were to be incorporated into the novus ordo, indeed, the novus ordo would be virtually indistinguishable from the Traditional Latin Mass…
which begs the question…
Why not just go back to the Traditional Latin Mass?!
My position, though, is more nuanced than just a sudden change back to the TLM. That isn’t really a possibility.
This is exactly what I have been thinking about lately but haven’t had the time to study. If the reform of reform eliminates all the banal options of the Novus Ordo and inserts Latin and all the traditional forms in it why not just use a TLM? Or at least a TLM dialogue Mass with some vernacular (which, in my opinion I wouldn’t attend but it seems better than the watered down prayers of the New Mass).
Traditional practices, liturgies and even doctrine all have their proper development but the Novus Ordo did not come from a proper development. Its foundation and formation are shaky, men behind it are suspect, it abandons how things should and have developed in the Church and its ability to cover Catholic thought and doctrine in ambiguity (or at least minimizing it) is appalling.
Perhaps then the Novus Ordo will die out slowly and the TLM can resume its path of organic development.
David,
The matter fairly simply comes down to the question of Sacrosanctum Concilium and whether the developments called for by a Council of the Church need to be taken seriously, unless otherwise repealed by the Church.
I am pleased to find this site. As a traditional Anglican whose church is seeking full communion with the Church of Rome, I have always wondered if, when contemplating a change to the vernacular if anyone had thought to look at the beauty of the Anglican Missal? When Roman Catholics visit our parish, they often remark on how much the Mass we celebrate is like that (TLM),with which they grew up, excepting that it is in english.
I, too am a fan of Fr. Mitch, through watching him on EWTN. It is interesting to see him celebrating the Novus Ordo there at Hanceville because when he sings parts, it comes out sounding very Eastern Rite, so to speak, which, as a some time Easterner I like.
What was of interest to me here was his remark that there needs to be reconciliation without capitulation. I presume he is referring to reconciliation of the SSPX and others who are known for their fidelity to the usus antiquior. To me, this is a very wise remark and highlights one of the great problems that exists on the ground (laity) level in the matter: the need for folks perhaps on both sides to vindicate themselves by having the other side "surrender." We really need to get beyond this kind of thing.
I can whole-heartedly agree with all of Fr. Pacwa's statements. He is truly an amazing priest and both a HUGE credit to the Jesuits and the Church at large.
He rightly understands translations as being agenda-driven so far. Not that there aren't things that could be adjusted in the missal, as Shawn asserts, but that much is changed when using a more authentic translation of the OF than we have generally been allowed.
Fr. Pacwa's refreshing call to evangelize Muslims is also spot-on, desperately urgent, and brave. We have lagged in evangelism for so many years, and how much of that is due to (often) flaccid Sacred Liturgy and consequently formation?
Now the Church is on the move in an exciting way. I pray this year dedicated to the proto-missionary St. Paul will bear much fruit and thank God constantly for an intrepid pope and priests like Fr. Pacwa.
CARL OLSEN,
Love your writing. Great to hear you chiming in here!
I think one reason more public folks do not advocate for a straight up return to the TLM or an eventual return to the TLM is because such a position is still verboten by the powers-that-be. Also, it is a little too simplistic. Ultimately, we will probably not just "go back to" the 1962 Missal even though we get much closer to it with slight changes (i.e. the new Good Friday prayer, new prefaces, etc.). At least it would be something that could have Quo Primum and the other documents printed in the front pages again. If you want to get labeled as a crazy schismatic who doesn't "think with the Church", one of the easiest ways to do this is to publically criticize the NO or Vatican II. No matter how constructive, reasoned out and non-polemic such a criticism might be, it is just not what most people want to hear-be them nutty progressives or neo-conservative/magisterialists.
It is easy to pontificate anonymously (like I am doing at the moment, so I'm not pointing fingers) but it is a whole other thing to go up to the emperor and tell him he's naked. However, it is a good sign that EWTN and their clerical (and non-clerical) personalities can publically support the TLM and a "reform of the reform". Imagine if such a thing was tried in the 1980s!
Concerning Fr. Pacwa's statistics on Muslim conversion to Xtianity. I read in Times OnlineMarch 31, 2008 that
Islam had overtaken Catholicism as world's largest religionaccording to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
In an interview with the paper according to Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, compilier of the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican yearbook, said "For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us." He said that figures for 2006 showed that Catholics accounted for 17.4 per cent of the world population while Muslims accounted for 19.2 per cent. One wonders what Fr. Pacwas means and how his statistics are significant?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news
/world/article3653800.ece
Reports of the death of the Ordinary Form are greatly exaggerated. The Ordinary Form of the Divine Liturgy is an occasion to affirm loyalty to the Church. An essential mark of a faithful Catholic is his or her obedience to Church teaching. Even though the Ordinary Form has suffered oppression by misguided priests and liturgists lay and ordained the Ordinary Form is, properly celebrated, the profound arena in which the Risen Saviour is encountered. The Church is not invalidated by the obscene behavior of Her abusive clergy. Similarly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Ordinary Form - is not made less holy by the silly antics of badly behaved priests and liturgists lay and ordained. If people reject the politicization of the Liturgy and instead invest an appropriate attention in and deference to the rubrics, to Truth, Beauty and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then the value and supreme worth of the Ordinary Form will finally become known as was originally intended. Although a hijacking lasting some 30+ years has stalled the progress of the Second Vatican Council, we may yet see in our lifetime the Mass in it’s renewed state celebrated as it was intended to be. I, too, support the EF, but the OF (in Latin or English) is an occasion for me to be humble and obedient to the movement of the Holy Spirit confirmed by the Vatican Council and now reset on its course by good Pope Benedict XVI.
I always get a bit nervous when people opine that the Holy Spirit was behind the changes brought in after VII. How do they know this? Was it really the will of the Holy Spirit to have the altars ripped from the walls, to have Communion rails smashed, to have Tabernacles removed and even hidden away, to have dancing girls around the altar, to have clowns presiding over a lutheran pastiche of the once great Holy Sacficice of the Mass?
The NO Mass is a pale reflection of the TLM, with much of the Catholic faith stripped from it to appease Calvinists.
Shawn,
You wrote: “The matter fairly simply comes down to the question of Sacrosanctum Concilium and whether the developments called for by a Council of the Church need to be taken seriously, unless otherwise repealed by the Church.”
I don’t think the novus ordo is a logical progression from Sacrosanctum Concilium. There’s no doubt that Bugnini used SC to justify his innovations, but one does not need Sacrosanctum Concilium in order to advocate the eventual extinction of the novus ordo. In fact, I’m convinced that the introduction of the novus ordo effectively put an end to any legitimate reform that Sacrosanctum Concilium could have brought about. Despite some rather ambiguous aspects of the document it could have had a tremendous positive influence on the organic development of the liturgy. As it stands the document is now a dead letter in regards to the novus ordo.
Warren,
You wrote: “If people reject the politicization of the Liturgy and instead invest an appropriate attention in and deference to the rubrics, to Truth, Beauty and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then the value and supreme worth of the Ordinary Form will finally become known as was originally intended.”
Once again, if you inject in the novus ordo to save the novus ordo that which is inherent in the Traditional Latin Mass (attention to the rubrics is the mainstay of the TLM, an essential aspect, it is immortal Mass of the Church enshrining the Truth and Beauty of the ages), then it begs the question… why not just go back to the Traditional Latin Mass?
As an anonymous poster stated above, if it wasn’t broken why fix it. If what is being lost in the novus ordo is Truth, Beauty, and attention to the rubrics, and this is, how you characterize it, the essence of these liturgical abuses, then we have to conclude that something inherent in the novus ordo cased this lose.
This really is a matter of the old neo-conservative canard that progressive liberals hijacked the novus ordo. This ignores the rather blatant historical fact that it was not. It was created by the liberal progressives, and it is the neo-conservatives that are not attempting to hijack it. The simple fact that the novus ordo can be hijacked to serve the ideological whims of those celebrating it is proof enough that there is a problem in form, not just in praxis, with the novus ordo.
Also, I just because one advocates a return to the Traditional Latin Mass, and expresses displeasure with the novus ordo indicate any measure of disobedience, and least on my part. Blind obedience is one of the virtues of the Blessed Virgin. How many Catholics outside of the circle of traditional Catholicism know the virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Regards,
David
Corrections of two typos in the above post:
…but one does not need TO REJECT Sacrosanctum Concilium in order to advocate the eventual extinction of the novus ordo.
. It was created by the liberal progressives, and it is the neo-conservatives that are NOW attempting to hijack it.
sorry about that, but the typos really did significantly change the meaning of the sentences.
I should explain what I mean by Sacrosanctum Concilium being a dead letter in regards to the novus ordo.
SC is essentially a disciplinary document, which consigns its scope and effectiveness to the circumstances to which it addresses. The circumstance was, of course, the Traditional Latin Mass. The novus ordo is such a departure from the Traditional Latin Mass, it can be reasonably argued that SC does not even address it. Certainly when SC calls for a wider use of the vernacular in the liturgy, this suggestion has nothing to offer the novus ordo. Thus, SC isn’t really a consideration in this debate from that perspective. It’s hard to be obedient to a disciplinary document of an EC when that document no longer addresses the present reality.
Do any of you remember the Latin/English interim Missal, prior to NO? I have used this Missal and find it perhaps closer to what the Holy Father has in mind in reforming the reform. Any thoughts on this?
Knight of Our Lady wrote : "I always get a bit nervous when people opine that the Holy Spirit was behind the changes brought in after VII. How do they know this?"
I agree. It used to be that if you questioned Vatican II, or anything that came from it, Catholics who knew anything about the Church would look at you with horror and just about label you a "Lefebvrist, Sede-Vacantist", or a heretic.
No more.
Many, many learned Catholics, including some even in the Vatican have spoken about "this or that" of Vatican II needing to be re-examined.
The idea of massive con-celebrations is the latest on the hit list in for scrutiny (about time).
But there are many other issues. It is well know that the Pope and many others are very displeased/dissatisfied with the Vatican II Mass (Novus Ordo). Will there be adjustments, redirections, supressions with regards to the NO? Possibly. Will it be supressed? Unfortunatly, no.
I have read that there are three or four areas of the present Novus Ordo that are under examination in the Vatican.
1). The placement/direction of the altar....with a possible change back to "ad orientam Mass".
2). The selections of Music at Mass, and a movement to outright ban certain kinds of music/musical instruments...and the supression of "Liturgical Dance".
3). a strong restoration of the sense of the Sacred at Mass (gestures, vestments, decor, etc.)
4). Changing some of the prayers and wording of the Novus Ordo to bring back a more sacred "feel" to the Mass, and to eliminate some of the wording anf other junk copied from non-Catholic Protestant groups.
(Communion in the Hand, Sign of Peace, Communion from the Cup, Standing for Holy Communion, etc.).
I myself would like to see #1 and #3 be implemented and restored at Mass. #4 is already happening with regards to wording....and don't be surprised if Communion in the Hand is banned pretty soon.
Will there be outrage from the liberals, yes. Should we care? No.
Hieromonk Gregory, are you talking about the missal that came out oaround 1964-65? I do have one I found in a nearby parish church. Personally, I would love to see that make a return as the normative form of the mass. It preserves the tradition of the roman rite, while also having all the reforms called on by the concilium.
Hieromonk Gregory,
"Do any of you remember the Latin/English interim Missal, prior to NO?"
Yes, that's what I use. I have my missal which my father [RIP] had bound for me in red leather in the mid-60s, with my name stamped on the front.
"My Sunday Missal" published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood has a 1942 copyright. Its a very slim Sunday Missal but is packed with advice, guidance, catechetics, red and black directions, explanations of the seasons and each Gospel and of course, an accurate English translation. This little book shows clearly the rubrics of the Old Mass for priest and laity.
Its the older version, where the confiteor is said before Communion, but I use this missal the most frequently. Its easy to follow.
What is the influence of this father in his own order?
I was born in 1968 and hence, until recent times, the Novus Ordo was all I ever knew. I now usually assist at an EF Mass on Sundays, but every now and then attend a Melkite Divine Liturgy on Sunday. I also attend the Ukrainian Catholic Holy Liturgy on weekdays from time to time.
Courtesy of my researches on Ebay I have a number of 1964 - 1967 hand Missals. I also have a 1964 Altar Missal and a 1967 Sacramentary (ie the Missal minus the Lectionary). The 1967 Sacramentary I obtained through our own Shawn Tribe.
Obviously I have never assisted at Holy Mass according to the 1964 - 1967 Missals. But from my reading of them I believe a good case can be made that they were broadly in line with SC.
From the point of view of my own personal preference, so long as Holy Mass was offered ad orientem and the readings were said in the vernacular, I would be a big fan of the 1964 - 1967 Missals. I would also be OK with the use of the NO A,B,C Lectionary in substitution for the 1962 Missal lectionary (which is the same in the 1964 - 1967 Missals).
I'll make one more comment:
Fr. Pacwa wrote:
I do not think that the Novus Ordo is itself the cause of the problem but rather the occasion for the abuses that have occurred.
This is the main problem with his statement.
The many options in the Novus Ordo, it’s watered down prayers (even in the Latin) and removed symbolisms at least help to spawn abuse as well as the other things he mentioned.
Fr. Pacwa, like many others, correctly identifies the source of abuses and lack of reverence in the Mass by focusing in on the catechetics problem, social turmoil, etc. But what is not admitted is that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically problematic in that its prayers are watered down or ambiguous (a side by side comparison with the TLM clearly shows this) and that it contains so many options which help to cause abuse and the sense of formlessness. This sense of formlessness in worship can spill over to what we believe. We should worship how we believe. A Mass with an enormous amount of options could possibly help to portray the perspective that what we believe has an enormous amount of changing progression and evolution, God is not unchanging etc.
When a prayer is watered down or the Catholic doctrine of sacrifice is not as clear as it is in the TLM the sense of the sacred plummets and the Mass is taken less seriously. Therefore abuses and lack of reverence rise. To a lesser extent the same can be said of the removed symbolisms that exist in the TLM but are lacking in the Novus Ordo. But of course we must admit that other factors are involved which are basically the ones Fr. Pacwa names in his piece – the problems he lists and the problems I list about the Novus Ordo collectively help to fuel this trouble.
However I see here a call to reform the so-called reform. That is the removal of all these banal options and forms.
Further (to echo this once again), if the "reform of the reform" took place, eliminating most of these options and make standard the traditional forums , you might as well use the TLM or at least TLM dialogue Mass with some vernacular. Even if one can argue that the Novus Ordo has something superior contained within it that is not a novel fabrication or a hindrance on Catholic doctrine (like maybe – just maybe – the petitions of the faithful, albeit reformed to where they are read by someone ordained only) these things could be incorporated into the TLM which already has superior prayers, structures, forms and superior symbolisms.
A true reform of the reform would end in with the eventual death of the Novus Ordo and a restoration of the organic developmental process of the TLM.
A report on al-Jazeera reported that 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every year, mostly in Africa.
David, I tend to think that the point about developing the Novus Ordo to the point where it is indistinguishable is simply a good way to gradually bring back the tradition. I also think that there were one or two things that were brought back in the Novus Ordo, which could usefully be reincorporated into the Extraordinary Form, though in a probably much more controlled and limited way, and one or two things done in the Novus Ordo (Gothic vestments most importantly) which can be done much better in the EF, and should be so incorporated. Apart from that, I am probably (probably because I don't want to put words into your mouth) in agreement with you. Note too, though, that even with your argument, while you (and I) may not agree with him as to the goodness of the Novus Ordo, he is still a friend of the tradition, precisely because he and priests like him, act to provide a stepping stone to the EF.
Shawn, not every document put out by a council or a Pope ends up being put into practice. We still eat blood puddings for instance in spite of the Council of Jerusalem (though I am not sure that it hasn't explicitly been repealed but only suspect that this is the case). Also, in other cases, they are withdrawn because they are opposed or antithetical to the spirit of previous legislation that they never do manage to command obedience. I am far from supporting civil disobedience, and I don't think that people should oppose the Novus Ordo or the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (although the equation of the two is to my mind, not adequately demonstrated), but certainly, people can and should be able to vote with their feet against it.
Canon Rivers, I shall keep your congregation in my prayers. I am not sure how much influence the Anglican Prayer Book had upon the development of the Novus Ordo.
Warren, I think (as people have pointed out below) that there are problems with the Novus Ordo celebrated according to the books. Also, there is a problem with assuming that (while councils are infallible in Faith and morals and we are required to obey them) everything that councils do are automatically good. I don't even believe that of Trent, let alone Vatican II, or Lateran V or Florence, just as I don't believe that every act of St. Pius V was good, let alone Paul VI or Urban VIII. No doubt they did their best (all of them), but they are subject to the considered judgement of (that much abused term) the people of God, who accept certain things and reject others.
Hieromonk Gregory, some of the things people object to in the Novus Ordo - the watering down of the Good Friday prayers for instance - began with the interim rite, if I am not wrong.
David,
Sacrosanctum Concilium and the 1970 Missal are indeed two different things. That is a principle of the reform of the reform.
My point however in mentioning it is that you asked, "why not just go back to the 1962 Missal" and my response to your question was that it relates to that.
More generally it relates to the issue of organic development as well.
In reality, even in our present state, our desire is not to of course freeze the 1962 missal, but rather to see proper organic development re-instituted.
The reform of the reform aims similarly, but its starting point is different.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
