It's not the Latin, stupid!

I have watched, with some fascination over the past few weeks, several bloggers and FB commentators making statements with regard to the Ordinary Form of Mass celebrated ad orientem and in Latin.

They state that such Masses are reverent and inspire one to greater devotion.

I do not deny that.

                         The EF Mass evokes reverence, instils piety

Many years ago at Courtfield (Mill Hill Fathers) we attended the Novus Ordo celebrated in a most reverent fashion.
 If we had not moved to Wales to a parish where Sunday Mass took on all the aspects of a play centre for 3 year olds, we would probably still be (unthinkingly) attending our reverent OF Mass back in Herefordshire.

So I do understand....up to a point.

And that point is that the new Mass, whether said in Latin and facing East, is nothing but a pale shadow of what it should be.

Great chunks of the Tridentine Latin Mass (I still like to call it that) were cut out and ditched by Bugnini's committee and a very hard element of Protestant liturgy was inserted.

A horse designed by Mgr Bugnini's committee

The SSPX like to claim that there are 62 different elements of change between the two forms.

Well, I'm not counting but I do know that the late Fr Hugh Thwaites referred to the Novus Ordo as "water" and the TLM as "milk" and I think that is a very charitable way of describing the distinction.

I might have used the analogy of alcohol free lager and red wine but, there you go!

So it's not just the Latin, it is the structure of the Mass and the words incorporated into that structure that are vital and, just as you cannot serve two masters, so, you cannot, fruitfully, combine the OF and the EF.

The very essence of the Novus Ordo encourages an  indifference to piety and a lack of reverence most commonly portrayed by the lack of respect shown to the Blessed Sacrament.

Yes, the OF Mass can be reverent and certainly, celebrating it in Latin and ad orientem helps but it is not enough - it still remains 'ordinary' and, for the Lord, only the 'Extraordinary' will do.

At last - a well reasoned case in support of the Ordinary Form

So rude to turn your back
on the members of the assembly

There is no shortage of balanced posts and articles on the values and integrity of the Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) on the internet but, apparently nothing in the way of a reasoned argument in favour of the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) of the Mass.
Why, one must ask, are the liberals so coy about producing support in favour of what once was called 'Mass in the vernacular'?

Well, in the interest of fair play I have stepped into the breach and drafted a few words, bullet points, really, that go to prove that the OF Mass is a Mass of depth and liturgical profundity.

Here is my case in favour of the new Mass:-

1. The OF Mass is in English, unless you are in London, Hull, Birmingham or Cardiff in which case it might be in Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog or Welsh.

2. The celebrant faces the congregation (how ill mannered it is to turn your back on people).

3. The congregation has a real role to play (as opposed to praying). They can greet other parishioners, arrange the felt banners, organise the dance routines, take small children out of church so that they may have fun, process up the aisle at the Offertory, saving the sacristan the chore of placing the hosts and the water and wine on the credence table), undertake the readings and, even, distribute Holy Communion and purify dry the sacred vessels afterwards so that the priest does not have to do anything.

4. The OF Mass is so diverse, you never know who is going to say what and the celebrant usually ad libs a bit just to keep things lively and people focused.

5. The priest's vestments are colourful and, invariably, of man made fibres. Polyester rules OK?

6. The bidding prayers in Mass link us right back to the times of the Reformation (only then it was just the Protestants who incorporated them into their liturgy).

7. You do not have to genuflect (or bow) to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle (that's if you can find it).

8. There's no painful kneeling to receive the Son of God, all you have to do is sashay stroll up to the communion rails sanctuary.

9. And you may receive in the hand despite the fact that your hands may not be spotless and, certainly, not blessed by the Bishop as a priest's are at ordination.

10. You may also chat to your neighbours, or those across the aisle, no emphasis on silly acts of reverence.

11. Humility is out the window, it's a dress code that says "Come as you please". God loves us all even if we are bareheaded, mini skirted and sleeveless (women) or in shorts, trainers and T shirt (men).

12.Girls may serve on the altar even though there is nothing for them to do; it's inclusivity, see?

Well, I think you will agree. That proves for once and for all that those who spout on about the beauty and God centred aspects of the old rite Mass are completely off beam. Nutters, in fact.

And here is an appalling account of how a group of young Catholics "stumbled" across a Latin Mass and suffered grave harm as a result....
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/guest-post-1st-traditional-latin-mass-experience-the-highly-pastoral-nature-of-the-extraordinary-form/?

New or Old.......what's the difference?

Purely coincidentally, there appears to be a common theme emerging (is that a thread?) among several bloggers in Wales.

One in which I have been drawn into, not by their excellent posts that appeared, more or less at the same time as my rather less illustrious offerings, but by pure providential serendipity (what those in other churches might term 'chance').

The essence of the matter is the well worn case of EF or OF - is there a difference? Is one better than the other?
 Here, I have to say that I have taken the liberty of trying to paraphrase the context of the posts from Ragazzagallese and Lucas Cambrensis and I hope that I have not mis-judged them.

                                          This renders words superfluous

Both writers are young and present interesting views but, Lucas Cambrensis speculated on the fact that, if all Masses today reverted to the old rite, liturgical abuses would still take place.

An interesting point and one that none of us with any degree of certainty, can comment on.

But, he goes on to state that he suspects such abuses were in place prior to the introduction of Mass in the vernacular.

Aha! Here, at last I can claim some degree of expertise because, of course, I was around in those days. Those were the golden days of my youth.

Let me put some perspective on that last statement.
 I was an altar server from the age of five and, from the age of nine, my family home was less than fifty yards from St Michael's and St Martin's Church, Hounslow.

Now Hounslow, for the geographically challenged, lies at the eastern end of London Heathrow Airport's main runway (Are you still with me? Please hang on for a few minutes more).

Priests arrived in Hounslow from all corners of the world, on a weekly basis. We had many fine American priests, French ones, German ones and so on.

And I was in the firing line for the duties of default server.
 Most mornings I would troop into the sacristy never knowing who the celebrant might be or where he was from.

But, in the midst of all this multi-cultural ministry, never once did the words or format of the Mass differ.

Every Mass was the same.

Why?

Well, of course, because the language and words were constant.

But, also, the priest was invisible. He had no identity.

Well that's not quite true. He had the identity of Christ ( but I didn't fully appreciate that then).

And, with such an identity he was, of course, truly Christ like, diminishing his own presence to act as the link between us, the great unwashed and Almighty God.

I don't think you get such an aura of priestly invisibility at a new Mass but I am open to correction as I never (or hardly ever) attend a new Mass; I am not experienced in the ways of the new other than by distant memory.

Of course, there are many theological distinctions between the OF and the EF but I like the late Father Hugh Thwaites' summary of them.

The new Mass, he said, is like water, while the old Mass is milk.

That is a very apt way of comparing the two in my book.




 

Yet another good case for the Latin Mass....

....where are the well balanced and well reasoned cases for the Ordinary Form?

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/11/19/traditional-priest-humbly-offers-the-holy-sacrifice/

And I agree with the priest who commented on my last post to the effect that the OF Mass, if celebrated reverently and so on, is a thing of beauty. But, diminished beauty when compared with its Extraordinary counterpart.

If it looks Protestant and sounds Protestant......

.....then, logic dictates, it must be Protestant.

I mean, of course, the Ordinary Form of Mass, the Novus Ordo.

This post has been prompted by several comments, made privately, from recent converts who have found themselves in the 'double somersault' position, namely, the first somersault in converting to the Catholic Faith and the second in discovering the Tridentine Latin Mass.

And then comes the process of attempting to reconcile the one with the other - a hard and often painful period of doubt and concern.

And to a certain degree it applies also to Novus Ordo Catholics who, again, 'discover' the Old Rite and then come up against the same problems as their converted brethren.

Now, I stress that, what follows are my own views and I accept that some may be offended by them but, I return to the post heading: "If it looks Protestant and sounds Protestant, then it must be Protestant".

The liturgical case of OF vs EF has been made many times but I would like to focus on the physical, actual signs of Protestantisation in the new Mass.

The elements that make the distinction between old and new as clear as white is from black.

Catholic or Protestant? Hard to tell in today's world

TEN SIGNS OF PROTESTANTISM IN THE NOVUS ORDO:

Again, I pre-qualify what follows by stating that we have many good priests who celebrate both forms. I believe that to be an acceptable but dangerous thing inasmuch that, in many respects, the two represent very different spiritual processes. 
We also have many indifferent priests who only celebrate the Ordinary Form, and that, indeed, is an extremely dangerous thing.

1. The Catholic altar has been replaced by the Protestant table

2. The Faithful stand to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the hand

3. Holy Communion is given in both forms

4. Unifying Latin has disappeared to be replaced with the vernacular

5. The Priestly vestments have morphed into the style of the Protestant pastors

6. Females as altar servers

7. Religious statues, flowers on the altar, candle offerings - all are disappearing in the new order

8. Holy water fonts are, often dry and neglected

9. Sacred music has been replaced by guitars and tambourines

10. Altar servers wear albs

Now, please comment by all means but do not tell me that, in your parish, the water font is full to overflowing.
My points are generalisations and you will always find parishes where the Novus Ordo is celebrated reverently and largely in Latin.

But, every time that I attend an OF Mass (infrequently, admittedly) I see all that is listed above taking place.

That list, of course, is not exclusive. You could add the disappearance of bells, thuribles, dancing and so on to the list (and please feel free to do so in the comment box).

So, on the one hand we have the Mass that organically expanded until, in the 16th century, it was (broadly) ratified and has remained the same ever since, throughout the world, and, on the other, the Mass that was committee designed in the 1960s and 70s, that is subject to constant variations and changes according to the whim of the celebrant and that is allegedly in the vernacular but, in Britain today, is just as likely to be in Tagalog or Polish or Mandarin.

I know which Mass has Catholic Doctrine in its DNA.

I know which Mass I will attend to fulfil my Sunday obligation.


Picture: Infallible Catholic blog