Novus Ordo

“But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?”

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, autobiography, ‘La Mia Vita’ 1997 (Pope Benedict XVI)

IMG_1208

The Fatima Priest is a revealing biography written by Francis Alban and Christopher Ferrara which would be of interest to anyone who seeks to know more about the life of Father Gruner but also anyone who has little knowledge of the Moscow-Vatican Agreement in 1962. From my reading I have gained the impression that this diabolical agreement cast a shadow over Vatican II and its liturgical consequences. Father Gruner was at the forefront of fighting for the Catholic faith despite those who sought to silence him. As we know traditionalists are persecuted by modernists as was Saint Padre Pio in the 1930s and The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate today.

“Yes, the Deposit of Faith would remain intact through it all, as Our Lord had promised; but only a very diligent student of Tradition would be able to find it in the midst of the reigning confusion. For the rest of the faithful there was only a datum of daily experience in the light of which it would be difficult to disprove, to the average Catholic in the pew, the thesis that the Catholic Church had changed in substantial matters. No less than Cardinal Ratzinger himself would be forced to admit years later in his memoirs that the loss of appearances would make it impossible for many to find the substance of the Faith.”

The Fatima Priest; page 170.

 

 

(Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this blog and/or photographs without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Mosaicross] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.)

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Novus Ordo

  1. Well, all I can say, not being sure I understand your post, is that it is not the Form Of the Mass that matters. It is the Substance of the Mass that matters. If a person’s faith and spiritual health is strong, they are quite happy regardless of the form since they grasp the substance. If the priest’s faith is weak, the people will notice, and those of weak faith may fall away. In the Extaordinary Form, it is easy for a priest of weak faith to mask his irreverence or lack of faith – he does not often face the people and many of his prayers are secret or inaudible (we can not judge the tone of his voice). But the Novus Ordo brings his true reverence and faith to light, and the people see and hear well. I think some priests do not like this, and some faithful suffer from the irreverence and lack of faith they see, and blame it on the Form, and do not see that it is not the Form which is wrong. The Novus Ordo is beautiful to me, and it brings all together in unity.

    • Thank you for your comment. How can you say the form does not matter? To say this invites subjective interpretation and, as we know, Novus Ordo is interpreted in a multitude of varieties leading to confusion and irregularities. Malachi Martin estimated that 80% of the new ecumenical Novus Ordo Mass were invalid because of these irregularities. The contrast between The traditional Latin Mass and Novus Ordo is striking. One cannot fail to see the difference in reverence in the congregation. Form does matter, for without due reverence, there is little faith visible. When you attend a political rally or watch a show you will often see a person facing you. The real presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass is what matters and it is to this presence that the Priest turns with his back facing me. For it is not the back of the Priest that is of concern but that we are all facing Christ. How you can judge weak or strong faith I do not know but I would rather listen to the Mass of Ages in Latin than the weak verbiage of a Priest who tries to say all the right things in the latest vernacular. We know where this has led and it has emptied the pews in most towns and cities. The Latin Mass offers an experience of mysterium tremendum et fascinans. The Novus Ordo Mass rarely offers a similar experience. Indeed, there are so many issues regarding Novus Ordo that one hardly knows where to begin. On one website they write of 62 reasons why it is invalid. I am not saying it is invalid although the formation of Novus Ordo was overseen by a committee which I understand involved six Protestants and a Freemason who were concerned with an ecumenical agenda. The Latin Mass continued for about 1500 years until Pope Paul VI sidelined it in favour of Novus Ordo. The results have been catastrophic for the Catholic Church. The way forward is the traditional Latin Mass as endorsed by Pope Benedict in the Summorum Pontificum of 2007. Before this in 1996 Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) in an interview said:

      “I am of the opinion to be sure that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted anymore about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today? “

      • You lost me at “this invites subjective interpretation.” The Mass is what it is. Regardless of Form, if someone is going to choose to interpret something, they will. Form does not control free will.

      • When I state “Form”, I mean either the EF or the OF. I do not mean form in general. Of course, we must use a sanctioned Form. My point is that if the priest or the faithful are without faith or reverence, the form will not change that. Faith and reverence come from Grace and then cooperation with that Grace. Many who reject the Novus Ordo, reject Grace which led the Popes to create and then sanction the Novus Ordo.

  2. And you lost me when you said:

    “Many who reject the Novus Ordo, reject Grace which led the Popes to create and then sanction the Novus Ordo.” ??

    May I suggest you do more reading on the subject and attend another EF Mass. I recommend this book in particular: ‘Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis’ by Peter Kwasniewski. He writes:

    “In direct contradiction of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which advocated a moderate use of the vernacular and warned against needless and inorganic changes, Church authorities imposed a totally vernacular liturgy on the Latin Church with sudden and iconoclastic absoluteness. The result was not the linguistic nobility of Byzantine or High Anglican services but a horizontal, superficial, chatty atmosphere lacking in spiritual savour.”

    (Page 115).

    • Here is a good piece on the matter of the use of the vernacular according to SC. He doesn’t complain or make absolute claims or accuse. He just states facts and some opinions.
      http://catholickey.org/2012/12/07/sacrosanctum-concilium-the-question-of-language/

      As for my statement on the rejection of Grace: when the world witnesses the Popes celebrating Mass in the vernacular of the countries which they visit, why should we resist their leadership and example? With the infallibility of the Pope, in matters of faith and morals, I really do not think we should condemn their liturgical examples. They are using the Novus Ordo predominantly.

  3. You have not addressed any of the points I have made preferring instead to focus on your dubious argument about the attractions of the Novus Ordo Mass. Since the ‘New Order’ or ‘new Mass’ was introduced (by a committee overseen by a Freemason) millions of Catholics have stopped attending Mass on a regular basis. It is written: “By their fruits we shall know them”, and we know the fruits of the Mass you favour. The Catholic Church has been in crisis since its introduction into Catholic liturgy.

    By the way, ‘subjective’ means (more or less) individual. If you cannot get your head round that, then you will struggle to understand any of the arguments presented.

  4. “Grace which led the Popes to create and then sanction the Novus Ordo.”
    “With the infallibility of the Pope, in matters of faith and morals, I really do not think we should condemn their liturgical examples. They are using the Novus Ordo predominantly.”

    Um… no. The office of the papacy does not ensure that any document or liturgy promulgated will be guided by grace (or inspired by the Holy Spirit) the Church does not teach that. Popes even though they are popes can do quite silly things.

    As to papal changes to liturgy let me provide an example. Pope Urban VIII had the hymns of the Divine Office altered (most of them written by saints) “because that’s not how Cicero would have written them” today pretty much everyone thinks that was a horrible thing to do, they were finally restored to their originals after a couple of centuries of use.

    lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi

    • You begin with views that directly concern papal authority so I will quote from Catholic answers for an agreed definition.

      “The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

      Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).”

      See link for more: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

      I may have overlooked something but I do not think your quotes are referenced. Who do they belong to?

      As for the ‘papal changes to the liturgy’ I’m unsure what your point is. Are you saying that the laity ought to wait a couple of hundred years because things will eventually turn out for the better?

  5. The quotes are of “Francis Philip” above. My point was that he seems to have an exaggerated understanding of papal authority such that we must think the nobis ordo is absolutely wonderful (almost as if it is inspired by God) simply because a pope approved it and recent popes use it.
    I Mentioned the example to demonstrate that popes have done imprudent things with the liturgy in the past and it’s ok to recognize the possibility of them doing it now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s