Dear Father: Please Stop It

[KnightofChrist]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I am going to bow out of this thread for a while. I am quite enjoying the discussion, but I do not want to run the risk of saying something Dust or our moderators object to.

I am going to bow out of this thread for a while. I am quite enjoying the discussion, but I do not want to run the risk of saying something Dust or our moderators object to.

I will follow. I respect both the N.O. and the T.L.M. both are legitimate and authentic and I didn't even really want to get involved with this thread again.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

In my opinion some of the changes made to the Mass were not faithful to the Mass as an organic whole, especially taking into account the principle articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."

As it happens, I do believe that some changes could have been made to the Mass which would have remained faithful to liturgical tradition, and some previous changes and developments to the old Mass certainly could have been discarded as inauthentic. However we are dealing with a major difference in scale as well. Like orders of magnitude different.

Absolutely. There are also other parts in that same document that talk about the need for flexibility and adaptability within the liturgy. You can certainly debate about whether the changes were faithful. Some might say the changes were faithful. Some might say the changes were not faithful. I am OK with leaving up those considerations to the judgement of the people in the Church that are directly responsible for them. I am not saying that your criticisms are wrong. I just trust the Church's judgment here. Maybe the NO will be changed again and your views will be vindicated. And if and when that happens I will go to the reformed rite. As it is now we have two forms of the rite given to us by the Church and I am perfectly happy with both of them (notwithstanding various abuses).

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

“It is a long established principle of the Church never to completely drop from Her public worship any ceremony, object, or prayer which once occupied a place in that worship.” — Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

The quote of Ven. Sheen comes from a documentary on the TLM. A TLM lasts just about as long as the N.O., 45 mins to an hour. So the Church can keep many traditional treasures without abandoning them for the sake of a short duration.

That works perfectly fine for me. Let's bring back the Sign of Peace at every Mass as nothing can ever be completely removed.

But to clarify, I don't particularly care about whether the Mass is 45 minutes or an hour. The Church I went to as a child had us in there for 2 to 3 hours every Sunday.

Quote

What do you believe these significant changes to have been and were they as major as the changes in the N.O.?

I really have not researched them all but you can take one example of the priest facing the away from the people. It appears the early Church was versus populum but then changed. So if the change to versus populum in the NO is a big deal I do not see why the change to ad orientem in the first place should not also be a big deal.

As for whether the changes to the EF that were made over time were as major as the changes to the NO - I think you can argue about that until the cows come home. Again - I am comfortable leaving it up to the people within the Church that are responsible for the liturgy.

Quote

Organic growth or development over hundreds or thousands of years is ideal in comparison to abrupt and sudden drastic changes by a select few.

OK by the same token then organic growth or development over 10,000 years is better than a change over 1000 years or 100 years. Shouldn't the Church have waited until the year 10,000 until She instituted all of the changes that are now found in the EF?

You see the point - ultimately it is a judgment call as to what changes are appropriate and when those changes are appropriate. And again - I am perfectly find leaving those judgements to the people within the Church who have direct responsibility over them.

Quote

What do you believe are examples of where the EF changed for the worse?

I do not believe or assert that there are any examples where the EF has changed for the worse.

Quote

Why do you think the priest turning his back on God is better than facing God with his flock?

 Do you walk backwards out of Church when you leave? I don't think that "turning your back on God" is a very fair way to describe it.

For the record, I do not assert that versus populum is better than ad orientem or vice-versa. I think that they are both good but in different ways. Versus populum seems to give more emphasis to the fact that the priest acting in persona Christi, for example.

Quote

Why should we trust the Church now with the N.O. and all its major and drastic changes if it was so wrong with the E.F. for so long?

I do not assert that there is anything wrong with the EF. The point was that if you criticize the NO because changes were made, the EF also is open to criticism because changes were made to earlier forms of the Mass, which resulted in the EF.

So it is not change in and of itself that you have a problem with, it is the fact that you do not like the particular changes that were made. But that is just a matter of your own personal preference for one over the other. And like I said, for anyone that likes the EF better by all means attend it.

And if other people prefer the NO better then they should by all means be able to attend the NO without having to suffer the criticisms of traditionalists.

Quote

If the changes are better why has there been such a wide and great abandonment of laity from the Church since the changes?

1) Again I am not asserting there that the NO is better than the EF. I think that they are both equally as good - at least this appears to be the current mind of the Church.

2) If you are suggesting that the NO is not as good as the EF because of lack of attendance at Mass, that lack of attendance could be due to numerous other factors. I think that you will have difficulty demonstrating statistical causation here.

Quote

Why do you object to innovation being called innovation?

I do not object to innovation being called innovation. The point is that if the changes made to the NO are innovations then the changes that were made to bring about the EF can be subject to the same criticisms. If you then go ahead and criticize the NO but do not criticize the EF then the matter seems to come down to a personal preference for one over the other - not that some core principal such as "organic growth" has been violated in one case but not the other.

Quote

Which individuals do you accuse of screaming?

Nobody in particular. People who vehemently criticize the Mass as invalid, illicit, etc.

Quote

Do you like playing 20 questions?

Yes. Very much so.

Quote

I disagree with both of those points. Because you seem to make overly simplistic and stereotypical judgements of those you disagree with on this subject. 

Well. Of course you disagree with me on that point. If you agreed with me on that point we would not be having this discussion in the first place. But nevertheless I think it is a reasonable conclusion for me to draw. That the criticisms against the NO that various people make are based on personal preference or like of the EF as opposed to strict adherence to a principle. As I wrote above - the principle that has been advocated appears to open the EF up to criticisms as well, but nobody here has been critical of the EF. So I think it is reasonable to then conclude that the criticism of the NO has more to do with personal preference than principle.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not agree with you, but you are genuine, and I appreciate that quite a lot.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Well. Of course you disagree with me on that point. If you agreed with me on that point we would not be having this discussion in the first place. But nevertheless I think it is a reasonable conclusion for me to draw. That the criticisms against the NO that various people make are based on personal preference or like of the EF as opposed to strict adherence to a principle. As I wrote above - the principle that has been advocated appears to open the EF up to criticisms as well, but nobody here has been critical of the EF. So I think it is reasonable to then conclude that the criticism of the NO has more to do with personal preference than principle.

I don't get into personal judgements of people that's why we disagree on that point. When that starts it just leads to bull flop drama. So I'm just going to avoid it all together. Good day.

[Amppax]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I really have not researched them all but you can take one example of the priest facing the away from the people. It appears the early Church was versus populum but then changed. So if the change to versus populum in the NO is a big deal I do not see why the change to ad orientem in the first place should not also be a big deal.

I've done some research on this point, and it seems to me that the idea that the early Church celebrated most liturgies versus populum is no longer the favored theory (or at least, there are very good reasons to oppose it). This theory was widespread in the early 20th century, especially the '60s, but new historical study is showing that ad orientem worship was more likely the normative form from the beginning. I believe Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book Reform of the Roman Liturgy does a good job of addressing it (pp. 77-89). Basically, the tradition of building churches facing east was impractical in Rome, and so the priest, in order to keep with the tradition of facing east while offering Mass, would face towards the congregation. But this was not the purpose, it was simply what had to happen so he could face east. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding forms of the Mass being equal or one being better... I think the Church would say that each Mass has infinite intrinsic value, but in terms of how well it helps our dispositions (extrinsic value) of course we would all agree that certain things do that more than others. For example most would find liturgical dancing unhelpful. So its possible there are other variations too... For example regarding the music, reverence for the Eucharist, etc. I think the more external reverence there is the better and in practice, the more reverent Novus Ordo is more rather than less similar to the TLM. I think what is very problematic for peoples dispositions is any sort of thing that makes the Mass seem casual - it easily can lead to a weakening of faith especially in the less catechized. Yes Jesus still acts but to receive grace we need good dispositions too such as humility, reverence, adoration of God, piety, etc.