The hatred shown for traditional sacred liturgical worship of the Roman Church, and the excuses claimed for its marginalization and extirpation are rooted in more than “Spirit of Vatican II” ideology and it’s companion specter, the papalatrous “Spirit of Vatican I”.
There is something visceral about their efforts that defies reason. It’s a reaction from a triggering, like the striking of a ganglion or reflex point, like the application of a relic to an energumen.
Today’s Collect, for the Feast of the Holy Innocents, provides a clue as to why certain people cannot stand the Traditional Latin Mass and insist on the Novus Ordo.
Remember, that even in Latin the Novus Ordo is massively different from the TLM. It is, in effect, a different Rite, not only by the editing out and swapping around of certain elements, but because of the very content of the orations.
When people say, “Just use the Novus Ordo in Latin!”, do they really know what they are talking about? Mostly, no. Some do, because they know that the content of the prayers was, by and large, radically altered from what the Church prayed for centuries. They claim that because of Vatican II – their super-dogma, their uber-lens through which they seek to reinterpret all of Tradition, the Church no longer adheres to certain things (remember – liturgy = doctrine). It pretty much always concerns morals.
Here is the Collect from the 1962 Missale Romanum for Holy Innocents:
Deus, cuius hodierna die praeconium Innocentes Martyres non loquendo, sed moriendo confessi sunt: omnia in nobis vitiorum mala mortifica; ut fidem tuam, quam lingua nostra loquitur, etiam moribus vita fateatur.
LITERAL VERSION (Vetus Ordo):
O God, whose public heralding the Innocent Martyrs professed this very day not by speaking but by dying; mortify in us every ill of vices; so that (our) life might confess Your Faith, which we speak with our tongue, also by (our) morals.
Look at the not-so-subtle change made to the Collect by the cutters and pasters who glued together the Novus Ordo collect:
Deus, cuius hodierna die praeconium
Innocentes Martyres non loquendo,
sed moriendo confessi sunt:
da, quaesumus, ut fidem tuam,
quam lingua nostra loquitur
etiam moribus vita fateatur.
Notice anything missing?
LITERAL VERSION (Novus Ordo):
O God, whose public heralding the Innocent Martyrs
professed this very day not by speaking but by dying;
grant, we implore, that (our) life might confess Your Faith,
which our tongue declares,
also by (our) morals.
Friends, the issue is not just whether LATIN is being used or the vernacular. What the prayers REALLY say is at issue.
Very often, the content of the LATIN of the Novus Ordo is dramatically different. Certain concepts were systematically expunged from the LATIN orations of the Novus Ordo, the NON-Traditional Latin Mass.
The Traditional Latin Mass (Vetus Ordo) and the NON-Traditional Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) are NOT the same simply because they are both in Latin.
Is the Novus Ordo a bad prayer. Heavens no! But it is a very different prayer, isn’t it. Remove “mortification” in connection with “vice”… very different. And those concepts are not implicit in the petition about morals. Hardly.
Look what was cut out of the prayer for Holy Innocents: a plea to God to mortify us in respect to our vices! What would be involved in GOD mortifying vices in us as opposed to US mortifying vices in ourselves? Greater suffering, surely. If God has to do it, then it’s pretty tough.
Vices are habits. Virtues are habits. Habits are actions that come easily for us. If doing something virtuous is hard, then we don’t have the virtue. It takes time and repetition and, usually, grace to build virtues and it has to be intentional.
On the other hand, vices – bad habits tending to sins – tend to develop easily in us because of the effects of Original Sin. Some vices are worse than others. Some are are light enough that we can make progress against them on our own, with discipline and the willingness to suffer.
Whenever we say, NO! to ourselves, we endure a measure of suffering.
However, some vices are very bad and are deeply rooted. Moreover, they are very much under the influence of the Enemy of the Soul because they concern things that strike at the core of the image of God in which we are made.
While it is true that sins of the mind and heart are worse than merely carnal faults, let it not be forgotten that those lower sins, while they may spring from a carnal appetite, once rooted, can then with tendrils wind into the graver spiritual sins. Think about certain carnal relationships that develop into mutual spiritual abuse.
If we ask God Himself to mortify in us some vice, it is a serious vice. It is the kind of vice that is so dangerous for our salvation that we ask GOD to do it because it is likely that, on our own, we cannot.
During Advent we heard the cry “Make straight the path!” When the Lord comes, He will come by the straight path whether we took steps to straighten that path or not. And in some respects we struggle – often failing – to straighten our paths. Then we cry to God to have MERCY on us and do the straightening now, before He comes as King of Fearful Majesty, the Straightener.
Implicit in the plea that God mortify vices in us, is a willingness to accept suffering.
Those who fight against the Vetus Ordo are viscerally triggered by these concepts, and all the other things systematically excised from the prayers of Holy Mass. They don’t want to hear them. They don’t want to be reminded of things like guilt, sin, expiation, propitiation, judgement, mortification, etc.
Therefore, the TLM, the Vetus Ordo is a reminder of their vices and it is a blockade to their project to re-form the Church into one in which doctrine has been slowly distorted even to the point that what is gravely sinful is called “tolerable” and then “acceptable” and then….
What might be a vicious (adjective for vice) inclination – even if unacted upon – at the foundation of the hatred the main promoters of suppression of the Vetus Ordo suffer from? The sort of vice that cries to heaven, just like the murder of innocents?
In this struggle for the doctrine, faith and morals, of the Holy Catholic Church, let’s make sure our own houses are in order.
GO TO CONFESSION.
Also, pray for those who interpret the cruel documents that have come out.
Loading ...
Pingback: WDTPRS: The Traditional Latin Mass and the NON-Traditional Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) are NOT the same simply because they are both in Latin. Wherein Fr. Z explains also the motives of those who attack the TLM. – Via Nova Media
Benedict was wrong to say One Rite with two forms; the liberals are correct in that it is Two distinct Rites. The Ancient Rite is not compatible with the Modern Roman Catholic Church. It makes perfect sense from their perspective to bring it to an end. Francis is merely enacting the natural consequence of Vatican II alongside the Post Conciliar Church. At least it’s honest and the cards are played. But it will get worse.
The next step will be to isolate further; maybe make the ancient Liturgy part of a Church into itself; like the Orientals. That could be the SSPX being made an independent Church in union with Rome, which would mean RC novous ordo only.
When will the ship be brought back on course. Where is the Roman Catholic Church as it is no longer visible. Our hearts yearn for God; but there is just silence and darkness around. There is a spiritual death taking place.
Another point of comparison that might help some non-trads “get it,” no one, even Pope Francis or Cdl. Cupich, would try and argue that the Novus Ordo in Ukrainian was “substantially the same” as the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian, either of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great. (Yes, I know, those are separate Rites, but my point stands.)
Pope Benedict XVI laid out a path where good sense and devotion would be invited to prevail. People would look at the bad stuff and say, “Hey! Let’s go back to the good stuff!” The bad stuff could be gradually amended, and all the bad changes phased back out, until we really had one form back again (ie, the EF, maybe with slight amendments, including of course the new saints’ days).
In short, he was inviting everybody to mortify themselves and amend the mistakes of Paul VI’s administration.
But now, the meanness and disingenuousness of TC are inviting God to amend things Himself, by mortifying us. Well, that’s what we get. No doubt it will be for the glory of some, and for the salvation of some.
I understand the intent of Benedict but in reality it was never going to happen that way. The Rite of Paul VI is not really reformable; it allows itself to be multiple things to multiple people; it does not provide a universal Liturgy. I agree the Ancient Rite needs organic reform but the two are mot mutually compatible nor mutually encriching.
Benedict was wrong; Francis brutally recognized that reality; the RC church cannot have two forms of the same Roman rite; it is one or the other. In many ways; it is positive as the battle lines are drawn; it is truly one of the other; they both cannot co-exist
They are also right that Priests should not binate; it should be one or the other; why do we allow the ancient to be reduced.
This is why time will go deeper and into the next papacy; they will either fully suppress and oppress Priests; or create an exclusive ancient rite. The society are in a good spot to be a separate but unitedChirch.
@j stark: “ They are also right that Priests should not binate”.
I would be ok with such policy as long as priority be given to the TLM.
@Suburbanbanshee: that would actually make sense. If that was Benedict’s original intention, then that says a lot about his genius because it actually worked. TC or not, I believe the cat has been let out of the bag. There is no going back. Demographics are changing and the youth have spoken: they want solid Catholic tradition (ie. no clown masses, no guitar with tambourine masses, etc.) and they want this now even more now that they have found it. I suspect that TC has brought out a certain aversion to the NO in many, if not all.
I suppose we could consider the other possibilites BXVI had: formally declaring that the two are separate rites, which would be a logistical nightmare, or a sudden ceasing of the Novus Ordo and a complete reversion back to the TLM, which if the NO does indeed produce good fruit in places then this would probably be greatly imprudent.
But if declaring them two separate rites, then which bishops get designated for the old rite? Which dioceses? Which priests? Which churches? Is there a sudden creation of traditional eparchies?
Logistically, the juridical split into two forms was probably the best answer.
I think the logistics is already in place with the SSPX; priests could request to go over. They have the infrastructure in place. Bishops and priests could request to change rites; they would loose a full pension though; and some costs involved. This would be An eparchy
@j stark: “The Rite of Paul VI is not really reformable; it allows itself to be multiple things to multiple people; it does not provide a universal Liturgy.”
But the Rite of Paul VI is eminently reformable, in the sense of maleable, precisely because it is not an organic rite. It has no history or tradition to restrain innovation or to guide reform.
Due to over centralization no truly organic reform is possible in either Roman Rite. However, with enough younger priests practicing the the older rites (I am one), there would have been a gradual change of the Rite of Paul VI, always officially and centrally, and these changes would have been toward the older rite. Changes are unfortunately happening constantly in the Rite of Paul VI. This is something akin to what Father Z called Benedict’s Marshall Plan.
I agree with Suburbanbanshee that Benedict’s end goal was one rite and this would probably, given time, have leaned toward the old rites.
This is precisely what many prelates fear, since any inclination toward the older rites is an inclination away from the theologies that influenced the genesis of the Rite of Paul VI.
Last post was too long:
Benedict was broadcasting the older rite in an attempt to implant its sensibility and spirituality as wide as possible.
This has already born much fruit, and will bear more.
I read somewhere that only 13% of the prayers of the TLM made it into the new rite unchanged, a shockingly small percentage. Most of the prayers of the new rite are made up out of whole cloth or bowdlerized as Fr. Z points out.
But we owe a debt of clarity to the odious TC and these attacks. For years I was walking in a fog, happy to assist at a TLM or NO Mass, avoiding the “liturgy squabbles” Cardinal Brandmüller refers to. I now see things much more clearly.
Brilliant commentary on vices and virtues. Thank you, Fr. Z.
I’ve never participated in a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, but I suspect praying it in Latin would make the distracting fits and starts of the Novus Ordo–lay people taking turns at the pulpit, the musical breaks interrupting the flow of the liturgy, processions of lay people in the middle of Mass–even more distracting. I love the Vetus Ordo because its beauty and tranquility is unlike any other prayer, inside or outside of a church. I have learned to love the use of Latin, but I am still in the process of learning the beauty of the Latin.
To express it in the vernacular, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
Alan Breedlove:
There are churches and places which celebrate the NO, and do so quite well. St. John Cantius and the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Chicago (I am an oblate of the latter), St. Agnes in St. Paul MN (our gracious host’s home parish), and the Oratories of Toronto and London. And there are others. Unfortunately, this is more the exception than the rule.
jstark says: “the RC church cannot have two forms of the same Roman rite; it is one or the other”
Yes, two forms of the SAME Roman rite, but… the Church did have multiple forms of closely allied rites, those of the Orders and various provinces, up to the mid-to-late 1960s, and that was assured by Saint Pius V. The “closely allied” part is the main thing – they differed little from the Roman in essentials. Now, we have centralism (the apotheosis of the much touted “clericalism”) in excelsis, which never historically existed until the last 50 or so years. But that’s a mere burp in the history of our Holy Church. Cold comfort, certainly, for those of us enduring this winter, much as it was for those enduring Arianism 1800 years ago – which was much worse, really. Although, given trends over the last 7 years… hmmm?
Still, who could have thought that we would have so much soundly based traditionalism, even 20 years ago? It’s here to stay, whatever the next 10 years may bring. Deo gratias.
“…They don’t want to be reminded of things like guilt, sin, expiation, propitiation, judgement, mortification, etc.”
Circa 2001, new priest. I noticed after 3,4 masses no ‘I confess to almighty …’ (didnt know it was the Confiteor. Another 3 mssses go by and no pause to contemplate our sins. Jump right into. “Lord have merc…:
After not hearing it in like 3-4 years I had the chance to ask Father. ‘Its an option’ [broad smile].
I began driving… an hour each way so I could recite it during mass twice (thrice?) I say it while the priest is saying it and then when servers go I contemplate my sins.
Father, was that an innovation giving us time to think about our sins? Just wondering your take.
Fr. Z, that seems likely to be very accurate. One can’t help but wonder what motivates these cruel men. It’s not very hard to imagine what they are protecting and what they are trying to bring about. But it’s got to be more. It can’t be explained by greed. They have enough money to continue to live their luxurious lives. It can’t be explained by an attempt to justify themselves, after all, there are plenty of opportunities for these men to do whatever they want to do after hours, they’ve got better things to do. Many of them are old. So they’ve got money, opportunity, plenty of companions, the cover of travel back and forth to Rome and elsewhere, and a pope who has led the way to the destruction of the Roman Rite. Are they bought out by China or oligarchs to just wreck the church? Some are. Look at Cupich. What is to be gained, for Blaise Cupich, to torment his people and nuke the Roman Rite, to lead the way in this hellish movement. Perhaps Blaise wants to distinguish himself and build up his credibility as a company guy not afraid to put his slipper on throats. Perhaps he is auditioning.
There has to be more than even that in the hearts of any bishop who would do what Cupich is doing. Certainly, a complete contempt for the people of God. And underneath that, what besides the demonic could explain these cold-blooded actions which yes, hurt the people but even more, go against God in a most blatant manner. These men have no fear of God. Do they believe? Or do they just hate Him.
On the topic of Latin (or at least Ad Orientum) Novus Ordo Masses, it would be nice to know where these are, so one is saved the aggravation of Parish shopping (“choirs”, Clowns, ad-libbing of the Eucharistic Prayers, selfish theatrics – that sort of thing) in the hopes of finding one.
The problem is… If a list is kept, it must be up to date. If it is up to date, it can be used by the hierarchy for nefarious purposes. If we go by the Clergy’s dress – does wearing a Cassock or the Clerical Collar automatically equate to an unadulterated Mass?
On the topic of Latin (or at least Ad Orientum) Novus Ordo Masses, it would be nice to know where these are, so one is saved the aggravation of Parish shopping (“choirs”, Clowns, ad-libbing of the Eucharistic Prayers, selfish theatrics – that sort of thing) in the hopes of finding one.
The problem is… If a list is kept, it must be up to date. If it is up to date, it can be used by the hierarchy for nefarious purposes. If we go by the Clergy’s dress – does wearing a Cassock or the Clerical Collar automatically equate to an unadulterated Mass?
Wherein Fr. Z explains also the motives >>> Wherein Fr. Z rants about the motives…
This paragraph is from an old article at NCR. I think it explains why the TLM is being canceled:
“ Although recent portrayals of Benedict XVI play on his white-haired grandfatherliness and his desire to fade into a quiet retirement of books and music, many Catholics with long memories have images in their minds of “God’s Rottweiler.”
During his time at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981-2005), the office became one of the most controversial Vatican agencies. He decried secularization, liberation theology, radical feminism, homosexuality, religious pluralism and bioethics.”
Kathleen10 says “One can’t help but wonder what motivates these cruel men. It’s not very hard to imagine what they are protecting and what they are trying to bring about. But it’s got to be more. It can’t be explained by greed.”
I do think it is something more than greed, it includes one of those “sins crying to heaven for vengeance”. As Fr. Z noted the TLM is diametrically opposed to the tolerance of various carnal sins which seems to be at least winked at by the modern Church in the name of “mercy” and “accompaniment”. We have all heard the rumors of various goings on amongst people in the Vatican. We need a St. Peter Damien to come and clean up the Vatican.
I think that the two are fundamentally different on an even more basic level. The TLM is correctly structure as a Sacrificial Offering of the priest (in persona Christi) to God the Father through the Holy Spirit.
Aside from anything else, the NO (while ostensibly the same Sacrifice as the TLM) is STRUCTURED as an offering to and from the assembly.