Posted by: Joe of St. Thérèse | June 27, 2010

Commenters on other blogs…

You know what makes me sick? (Well, besides for THAT), most commenters on other blogs…I’ve been reading the comments over at Fr Z’s blog

I’d put my comments there, however, it’s going to be as long as a blog post, and I don’t post super long things on anyone’s blog.

1. The NO is NOT a protestant Missal. For if it were the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ would NOT be present AT ALL. Now, are there deficencies with the Missal? Of course, Heck, we’re finite creatures expressing the infinite, of course there are going to be deficiencies in Theological expression. God is a mystery (CCC 234, 237) and reason alone can not comprehend such.

2. Did we forget about ex opere operato? The Sacraments operate independent of the state of grace of the minister, independent of any theological deficiencies. Why? It is Christ HIMSELF, through the person of the priest. Nothing happens on the priests own merit. Christ is not dependent on our own weaknesses, whatever they may be. He is God, lest ye forget.

3. If we’re not willing to die for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we ought to look at ourselves more closely. The good archbishop is correct.

4. The instability is with the Ordinary Form of the Mass (let me explain), the abuses, the sacrileges are going on the OF, The Holy Father is absolutely right in focusing on the one lost sheep in the Liturgical shipwreck, rather than the 99 who are safe from the shipwreck. He must first bring sobriety and reverence back to the OF before even getting to celebrating the EF in public. (Which as I’ve mentioned on here is something that is very complex to pull off), don’t anticipate a Solemn Papal Pontifical High Mass, anticipate a Papal Low Mass if you’re expecting the EF to be celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI. How about praying for our Holy Father that he not get attacked by the wolves?

5. I’ve seen my fair share of liturgical abuses, but I’ve never seen these clown Masses, we don’t know if these pictures were taken from actual Catholic Masses. Henry is right, when the photographic so called evidence isn’t enough, we don’t have absolute certainty.

**Most of what people have problems with in the NO, from what I’ve seen is the externals. Those can be fixed 😉



  1. Most of what people have problems with in the NO, from what I’ve seen is the externals. Those can be fixed

    Actually most traditionalists who are attached to the old rite of mass do not go because of the “externals”. They go because the traditional mass expresses the beliefs and tenets of the Eucharist in a more theologically precise and unashamedly Catholic way than the Novus Ordo. Just look at the offertory prayers and see the difference. It is not surprising since Archbishop Bugnini clearly admits in his memoirs that one of the chief goal of the liturgical reforms was ecumenism: to make the mass more palatable to Protestants. Don’t believe me? Read it from his own book.

    “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” – L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

    The problems with the NO go much deeper than whether Latin, ad orientem altars or nice baroque vestments are used.

    • Sirian, thanks for commenting…

      I speak these points as someone who agrees with the criticisms (in general). There are many things that are in the NO that are foreign to the Roman Rite as traditionally expressed. Of course it doesn’t mean that these things are intrinsically evil, or because of these things that it’s protestant, let me explain.

      For example, the prayers of the Faithful, or the general intercessions are done in the Eastern Rites of the Church, they pray for the Holy Father, the Church in general, the governments, the local parish, and for individual intentions. It’s structured (cf. Liturgy of St John Chrysostom)

      Another example is the words of institution, the Roman way has always been direct, and not necessarily a drama so to speak as in the Eastern Church (cf hoc est enim corpus meum” (TLM) to “hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur (1 Cor 11, 27)

      Lastly the sign of peace, in Rome the tradition was between servers at solemn celebrations of Mass, never to the congregation. This extension to the congregation again foreign to Rome, but doesn’t make it less Catholic

      I think the thing that we fail to realize by accident the NO reflects an Eastern understanding. There is no denying what Burgini said, I will not defend him.

      That said, I agree we need to go back to our identity as Roman Catholics in the Latin Church. How this is to be done, actually apply the real reforms of the 2nd Vatican Council, and not what’s been done in the name of the council or the so called spirit of Vatican II, i.e. the praying of Holy Mass, participation in the responses proper to them, too many people sit at Mass like spectators, Mass is not a theatre prerformance, where we sit back and watch with popcorn, we are to be fully engaged in the Liturgy, body, mind, soul. I like the blog, they express some of my viewpoints on the Holy Liturgy, and the Holy Father’s himself.

      The Church is growing in Africa and Asia, and we don’t see this longing for the TLM (though there are some that do) in these countries. Why? The Abuse of Liturgy is far less, and it’s Christ himself that’s being made manifest at Holy Mass. Jesus is the Truth, the Way, and the Life, and transcends any Rite of the Holy Church 🙂

      Again, thanks for commenting

      Joe of St Therese

  2. Your points are well made by I have to take issue with this:

    “I think the thing that we fail to realize by accident the NO reflects an Eastern understanding…”

    I think many Eastern rite Catholics as well as the Orthodox will resent having their liturgies being compared to what is in effect banal and pedestrian. The TLM was much closer to the Eastern rites in all respects and hence the approval from some Orthodox news agencies, when Summorum Pontificem was released. The NO was (and is) designed to be as far accessible as possible to an average Protestant, who would otherwise be scandalised by the numerous references to “sacrifice” and “transubstantiation” in the TLM. It is also undeniable that the NO carries the agenda of the reformers, who wished it to be generally more ecumenical and agreeable to other world faiths. Take example to the new Good Friday prayer for the Jews, that were artfully re-engineered and come close to confirming the dispensationalist argument, which is an out and out heresy.

    In a nutshell the liturgical reform has been a disaster. But it would wrong to think that it is all the second Vatican council’s fault. The process of reform (or deform) goes much further to previous revisions such as the Holy Week overhaul in 1956 by Pius XII or the psalter changes of 1945. These were incriminating steps towards the NO by are admitted so by Bugnini, in his memoirs. Anyone who wishes to get into the real mind of the reformers should read his memoirs The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-75. He enjoyed the complete confidence of the Paul VI and it is shocking to see how much he was allowed to get away with.

  3. Right, I agree with you, i’m not denying that it was created to appease an agenda, by accident some of the wording sounds more Eastern Catholic (not all, some of the wording, it wasn’t the intent of the Liturgical terrorists to sound that way)

    I agree what we see in average everyday parish is an abject disaster, swat teams, might need to be called in with some of these parishes.

    At this point, what the Holy Father is doing is a good thing, we saw what happened with wholesale changes back in the 70’s, iconoclasm, archaism, and destruction were all allowed to run loose. Learning from the mistakes of last time, things are slowly being put into place as to greater reflect the Tradition of the Church. Now is not the time to leave those in the liturgical wasteland of the average OF, not celebrated by the Norbertine’s at St Michael’s abbey abandoned. Rome should come out with clear directives on how the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered (or rather priests should start following the letter of the law and interpreting things in the mind of Tradition…for example, no responsorial psalm (gradual), no congregation sign of peace, EP I, and gradually bring them to the TLM…as the old saying goes, Rome was destroyed in a day, but not rebuilt in one. Likewise for the Liturgical situation.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: