Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) It has come to my attention that there are some people with more traditional leanings who hold the belief, and are posting in such a way as to assert, that the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is a "New Rite" of the Catholic Church. This assertation is blatantly false. There is no such thing as a "Vernacular Rite" that is set in opposition to the "Latin Rite." Such notions have no backing in the Magisterium and come exclusively from sources with extreme bias. Moreover, it appears to me that the driving force for stating such blatantly falsities is nothing less than a genuine distaste or even abhorrance for the [i]Ordo Missae[/i]. I would call all catholics who hold even the pretense of being orthodox and true to the Magisterium and to Rome to stand up to such assertations if they rear their ugly head in the future. Its really sad to see statements like "a priest of the new Rite" or "Novus Ordo Churches" slide by without even a comment. "Novus Ordo" should never be a bad word, and we should never be too scared to stand up for the decisions of the Magisterium and Holy Father. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Edited July 13, 2004 by JeffCR07
qfnol31 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I had a friend who suggested that a new rite should be made such that it would have the Tridentine Mass as its main Mass, a Tridentine Rite of sorts I guess. Your title made me think of this idea he proposed.
theculturewarrior Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 As someone who is a fan of the Novus Ordo, when properly celebrated, and as somebody who can sympathize with your assertion, I wonder at the veracity of the above post. Novus Ordo means "New Order." I believe you are right that it does not constitute a separate rite, but I see no need to split hairs. I think much of what I dislike about extreme traditionalism is the result of people taking the internet and forum opinions too seriously.
qfnol31 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 Personally, I don't think it's splitting hairs. It's important that people realize that the Novus Ordo and Tridentine co-exist in the Roman Rite.
ladybug Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:22 AM'] It has come to my attention that there are some people with more traditional leanings who hold the belief, and are posting in such a way as to assert, that the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is a "New Rite" of the Catholic Church. This assertation is blatantly false. There is no such thing as a "Vernacular Rite" that is set in opposition to the "Latin Rite." Such notions have no backing in the Magisterium and come exclusively from sources with extreme bias. Moreover, it appears to me that the driving force for stating such blatantly falsities is nothing less than a genuine distaste or even abhorrance for the [i]Ordo Missae[/i]. I would call all catholics who hold even the pretense of being orthodox and true to the Magisterium and to Rome to stand up to such assertations if they rear their ugly head in the future. Its really sad to see statements like "a priest of the new Rite" or "Novus Ordo Churches" slide by without even a comment. "Novus Ordo" should never be a bad word, and we should never be too scared to stand up for the decisions of the Magisterium and Holy Father. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Could you explain the Ordo Missae for those who are not familiar with the term?
catholicguy Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) It's hilarious that Masses that are NEVER (or one in literally 1000 or more) said in the vernacular are still called the "Latin Rite." Does this make sense to anyone? The reason it is called the Latin Rite is that Latin is the language of the Mass. It seems to me that the Eastern Rite[u]S[/u] all have different rites based upon [i]language[/i]. Why, then, would you be opposed to calling a spade a spade? What's more, if the Church actually deemed that these were all "separate rites," then that would be the term that "must be used" because the Magisterium "defined it," as if it is some declaration about doctrine or something. That kind of thinking rules out logic. If these rites use different languages, they [i]should[/i] have different names. They could, instead of all being included under the "Latin Rite," could be under the "Western Rite," which would parallel the "Eastern" Rites. It only makes sense that the Rite is called by what it uses. That was never really considered, though, because the use of the vernacular in the Latin Rite was considered absurd from the first Mass until Vat II, so no one spent the time to reason through a logical "naming system." To get upset about the use of "new rite" instead of "Novus Ordo version of the Latin Rite" or whatever else is politically correct is basically the same as getting upset if someone says "black" instead of "person of color" (do other races not have color? do whites have no color, when in actuality white is the presence of all color and black is the absence of color, wouldn't this be contradictory) or "African American" (how many blacks in the US have ever been to Africa? and how many African Americans are not black, such as John Kerry's wife). Political correctness is ridiculous. Edited July 13, 2004 by catholicguy
conservativecatholic Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I am watching the Daily Mass on EWTN right now and it is a Novus Ordo Mass. It is beautiful! Gregorian Chant, Latin, and bells are all integrated into the Novus Ordo Mass on EWTN. This is what Vatican II intedned the Novus Ordo Mass to be like. Never in Vatican II did it say to eliminate Latin and chanting. I hope future Bishops correctly interpret Vatican II and stop their ridiculous liberal ways. May God Bless! I LUV EWTN!!!
theculturewarrior Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I hear you, CC. EWTN is the bomb. Everytime I see mass there I think, "why can't it be this way everywhere?"
conservativecatholic Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 [quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:22 PM'] I hear you, CC. EWTN is the bomb. Everytime I see mass there I think, "why can't it be this way everywhere?" [/quote] Exactly man! I look forward to watching the Daily Mass everyday after I run. Today I ran 7 miles so I missed a little. I did manage, however, to see some chanting and Latin action! EWTN is truly the bomb! [color=green][b]ATTENTION ALL CATHOLICS OR PEOPLE WANTING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FAITH: ASK YOUR CABLE PROVIDER ABOUT EWTN!!!!![/b][/color]
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 catholicguy, your basic premise is flawed, due to the fact that it hinges on your following quote: [quote]It seems to me that the Eastern RiteS all have different rites based upon language[/quote] This is not, in fact, true. A great majority of the Eastern churches use the same language, many use very similar rituals and their Divine Liturgies are markedly alike. What, then, makes a Rite? The answer is exactly what I asked proponents of the "Vernacular Rite" idea to provide: Magisterial distinction. Without distiction given by the Magisterium, it is merely a liturgical variation that is allowed for within the Rite. This is precisely the case that exists now. All of the bishops in communion with the Holy Father acknowledge not a "Vernacular Rite" but a Latin Rite that has two acceptable forms of liturgical worship, those being the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] and the Tridentine Mass. None of the Bishops, let alone the Holy Father, claim that a "Vernacular Rite" exists, so where do any of the laity get off saying that it does?
conservativecatholic Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I love the fact that the Eastern Churches have preserved many ancient traditions and use them regularly. I do not doubt that the Latin Rite does not preserve traditions. All I'm saying is that the Eastern Rites use their beautiful traditions and customs regularly. I would like to attend Mass at an Eastern Rite Catholic Church one of these days, but none are in the area. I like that Byzantium Chant.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I've been to a Ruthenian Church Divine Liturgy and it is truly beautiful. Everyone there appeared a model of reverence and humility.
conservativecatholic Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:15 PM'] I've been to a Ruthenian Church Divine Liturgy and it is truly beautiful. Everyone there appeared a model of reverence and humility. [/quote] JeffCR07- Here is a link that speaks about the history of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. It is very interesting! [url="http://www.dreamwater.org/edu/passaic/history.htm"]What is the Ruthenian Catholic Church?[/url]
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 they're all wonderful, thanks a ton for the link! - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff
conservativecatholic Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:59 PM'] they're all wonderful, thanks a ton for the link! - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] No problem! I enjoy researching other rites within the Catholic Church. In Houston, they recently constructed a new Maronite Catholic Church. Looking at pictures, it is a pretty awesome House of God!
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 yea, I think its really important that us Latin Rite catholics be taught about the other Rites. So many people don't even know that they exist...its sad
catholicguy Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 One of the problems with EWTN is that it is facing the people, which Vatican II did not allow. Also, they permit hand Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. Further, they stand for Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. These are all the post-conciliar changes that have been legalized as a result of disobedience (at least in most cases). It has gotten so bad that the new GIRM says facing the people is "preferable" (but definitely not obligatory). In America hand Communion is permitted and standing is the normative posture (the faithful who do not stand are to be instructed why they should stand, but no good reason has been given, so the Priests that I have asked about this issue have said "I would love to tell the faithful why, but I do not know any reason!"). We have to recognize that the Novus Ordo as a Mass is a departure from Vatican II and that Vatican II is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. This is explained in a book that Pope Saint Pius V recommended before he was suspended (N.B., the book is approved by Cardinal Ratzinger).
Good Friday Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 [quote name='conservativecatholic']I am watching the Daily Mass on EWTN right now and it is a Novus Ordo Mass. It is beautiful! Gregorian Chant, Latin, and bells are all integrated into the Novus Ordo Mass on EWTN. This is what Vatican II intedned the Novus Ordo Mass to be like. Never in Vatican II did it say to eliminate Latin and chanting. I hope future Bishops correctly interpret Vatican II and stop their ridiculous liberal ways. May God Bless! I LUV EWTN!!![/quote] Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Vatican II didn't intend the Novus Ordo Mass to be like anything, because the Novus Ordo Mass did not yet exist and Vatican II did not create it. I'm not saying that the Novus Ordo Mass is bad (I'm not a traditionalist), I'm simply saying that it was not created by the Second Vatican Council. It was created afterward. The liturgical renewal spoken of in Vatican II was meant for the Tridentine Mass. Personally, while I like the Novus Ordo and recognize its validity, I think the Church would be far better served by returning to the Tridentine Mass and applying the renewal spoken of in Vatican II to the Tridentine Mass. [quote name='catholicguy']One of the problems with EWTN is that it is facing the people, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote] The Second Vatican Council did not allow it, but it was permitted by Pope Paul VI, who was the Church's liturgical authority. Denying his liturgical authority because Vatican II did not explicitly allow it is conciliarism, and conciliarism is heresy. [quote name='catholicguy']Also, they permit hand Communion, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote] Again, this was permitted by Pope Paul VI. [quote name='catholicguy']Further, they stand for Communion, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote] This was permitted by Pope Paul VI, too. [quote name='catholicguy']These are all the post-conciliar changes that have been legalized as a result of disobedience (at least in most cases).[/quote] Be that as it may, one cannot deny that these are all changes approved by the Pope, who is the Church's supreme liturgical authority. One can perhaps question the prudence of some of these decisions -- for instance, I would rather the priest turned to God [i]with[/i] the people rather than facing the people -- but one cannot deny that these are legal decisions and that they are not liturgical abuses. [quote name='catholicguy']We have to recognize that the Novus Ordo as a Mass is a departure from Vatican II and that Vatican II is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. This is explained in a book that Pope Saint Pius V recommended before he was suspended (N.B., the book is approved by Cardinal Ratzinger).[/quote] No, unless we're going to commit the sin of heresy, we don't need to recognize that the Novus Ordo is a departure from the Second Vatican Council and certainly not that the Second Vatican Council is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. The Novus Ordo is a result of Pope Paul VI's interpretation of the Second Vatican Council's documents on liturgical renewal, and thus valid. The Second Vatican Council is simply valid, and it is heresy to state otherwise. If you're going to persist in this, you'll no doubt be suspended like PSPV. Catholic defiance of the Magisterium is not permitted on Phatmass, you should take a look at the phorum guidelines.
catholicguy Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 I do not claim necessarily that any of these are invalid (not to say that hand Communion is not objectively a sacrilege), but I was just making the point that the Novus Ordo is a departure from Vatican II, and Vatican II is a departure from tradition. I agree completely about applying Vatican II to the Traditional Mass as opposed to creating a Novus Ordo Missae (but I assert that the unadulterated, unchanged Mass, fully developed Liturgy of the pre-1955 Traditional Mass is the greatest Liturgy of the Latin Rite). Concerning this two things are evident: 1) the changes in 1955 mark the first changes made which inhibited the Liturgy (which worked down instead of working up as far as ceremony and ritual are concerned) and 2) the changes in 1955 mark the first artificial changes to the Liturgy (i.e., not developed over time, but specific changes from an exterior force).
Recommended Posts