Dear Father: Please Stop It

[Nihil Obstat]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. I am pretty unfamiliar with the process by which rites are created / authorized thorughout the Church - but I suppose my question here would be, were those rites authorized by the church in Rome at some point in time, and then later suppressed? Or are these rites that had never received approval from "On High" in the first place?

Just briefly, the Gallican Masses were authorized by bishops and later suppressed by Rome. For the Mozarabic Mass in question it was assembled much like the Novus Ordo was, by an authorized committee, then later suppressed by Rome and reverted to the older books which were more authentic and objectively superior.

[Amppax]

@Peace if you want some really good reading on liturgical reform, I would suggest Dom Alcuin Reid. His book The Organic Development of the Liturgy has been very helpful for me in reading about this topic. Pope Benedict wrote the forward (while he was still a Cardinal). It traces the historic development of the Liturgy, and outlines various principles of genuine development. 

[Peace]

Thanks. I actually went to Mass this morning and remember feeling kind of like "this is kind of weak". But perhaps that has more to do with my own disposition more so than the Mass itself.

[Cam42]

On 2/6/2016, 1:44:22, Peace said:

Hmm. The NO Offertory is not really a simplification of the EF Offertory is it? It is not as though they took the EF and said "OK how can we cut this down and make it simpler for people to understand". I do not think that was the point or what they were trying to do.

At least according to this document:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/catechetical-sunday/eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-pitre-roots.pdf

the NO Offertory was based off of ancient Jewish table blessings that were given at the passover meal. The point seems not to be to simplify the EF, but rather to make more of a mental connection between the Jewish Exodus / Passover and what follows next in the liturgy on the altar.

Whether or not that is a good thing I will leave it up to the good judgment of the Church.

That isn't a document, that is a paper by Brant Pitre.  And I happen to disagree with it.    It is the oversimplification that I am speaking about.  The Mass is the organic DEVELOPMENT of ancient practice.  To revert to this is what was deemed to be archeologicalism.  This view is akin to the mandate that Mass "must" be facing the people, because the early Church did it.  That has been proven false and this view, which we are not bound to accept, is wrought with the same innuendo.  The oversimplification is clear.

If the NO offertory is based off of ancient Jewish table blessings and connect with the Jews, I would ask, "why?"  What's the point?  Didn't Christ fulfill the Jewish tradition?  Didn't the Last Supper and the Sacrifice at Calvary complete the Passover?  So, if this is the case, the development of the Offertory isn't a harkening back to Jewish tradition, it is rather the establishment of the complete action.  Again, my view, which isn't negligible, BTW, isn't based on any sort of simplification, but rather a completion of and an enrichment of the entrance to the Mass of the Faithful/Liturgy of the Eucharist.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

On 2/6/2016, 2:20:46, Peace said:

But at a more basic level my question for you is this. How can one form of the Mass (properly conducted) be better than another form of the Mass, when Jesus is the Head of the Church, and when Jesus is the principal priest at Mass?

How is it that Jesus would allow his Church to fall into authorizing a Mass that is inferior to the EF (as you seem to suggest with your citicisms of the NO)?

Jesus doesn't allow sinful action.  Man does.  IF the Mass is properly celebrated (not conducted; it's not a piece of music), then it is equal.  However, man has interfered.  Is what we have in the Novus Ordo what the Council Fathers intended?

There are many, including Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus, who don't necessarily agree that is was.  There are a growing number of Systematic Theologians who don't necessarily agree that it was.  What the Council Fathers intended is most likely the modifications made in what has become known as the 1964 Missal.  However, even a cursory study will show that the Novus Ordo that we have today was ramrodded down Paul VI's throat.  It would take years to have the conversation that you're asking.

My criticisms of the NO don't deal with validity.  It deals with licitness.  That is a huge distinction to make.

[Cam42]

On 2/6/2016, 7:55:22, Peace said:

Thanks. I am pretty unfamiliar with the process by which rites are created / authorized thorughout the Church - but I suppose my question here would be, were those rites authorized by the church in Rome at some point in time, and then later suppressed? Or are these rites that had never received approval from "On High" in the first place?

The suppression of the other Rites happens here:

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding."   (Quo Primum Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570)

Edited February 8, 2016 by Cam42

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Cam42 said:

That isn't a document, that is a paper by Brant Pitre.  

Exactly what definition of "document" are you using? In case you are unaware of the meaning of the word, here is one simple definition for you:

Document: Any written item, as a book, article, or letter, especially of a factual or informative nature.

Quote

And I happen to disagree with it.    

 And plenty of people happen to disagree with you. That does not get us very far now does it?

Quote

The Mass is the organic DEVELOPMENT of ancient practice.  To revert to this is what was deemed to be archeologicalism.  This view is akin to the mandate that Mass "must" be facing the people, because the early Church did it.  That has been proven false and this view, which we are not bound to accept, is wrought with the same innuendo.  The oversimplification is clear.

I don't recall having seen any of that in the Catechism.

Quote

If the NO offertory is based off of ancient Jewish table blessings and connect with the Jews, I would ask, "why?"  What's the point?  Didn't Christ fulfill the Jewish tradition?  Didn't the Last Supper and the Sacrifice at Calvary complete the Passover?  So, if this is the case, the development of the Offertory isn't a harkening back to Jewish tradition, it is rather the establishment of the complete action.  Again, my view, which isn't negligible, BTW, isn't based on any sort of simplification, but rather a completion of and an enrichment of the entrance to the Mass of the Faithful/Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Why don't you use your 15 years of Latin and research the issue? I bet there must be some "documents" lying around somewhere that go into the reasons for the changes in the NO. I am willing to bet that you aren't going to find anything that just says "We just felt like making it simpler and changing parts of it for no reason."

Quote

You're missing the forest for the trees.

So sayeth the man who spends half of his post nit-picking over the use of the words "document" and "conduct".

Quote

Jesus doesn't allow sinful action.  Man does.  

Thank you for the profound insight. That clarifies everything.

Quote

IF the Mass is properly celebrated (not conducted; it's not a piece of music), then it is equal.  

Shall I pull out the dictionary again? You really should consider investing in one. They are quite useful.

Quote

However, man has interfered.  Is what we have in the Novus Ordo what the Council Fathers intended?

Finally. We reach something of substance in your post. You obviously believe that it is not what they intended. I choose to follow the judgment of the Popes and Bishops who have decided not to revert back to the EF (and for quite some time now I might add). But I can understand where you are coming from I think. Perhaps you believe that it is your duty to assist the Church in recognizing the errors of some of the people within it. That is totally cool by me. Go for it. Writing a letter to your local Bishop expressing your concerns with the NO might be a good place to start. And if that does not work you can write Pope Francis himself. Best of luck to you in that fruitful endeavor.

Quote

There are many, including Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus, who don't necessarily agree that is was.  There are a growing number of Systematic Theologians who don't necessarily agree that it was.  What the Council Fathers intended is most likely the modifications made in what has become known as the 1964 Missal.  However, even a cursory study will show that the Novus Ordo that we have today was ramrodded down Paul VI's throat.  It would take years to have the conversation that you're asking.

Hmm. Has Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus stated that the NO goes beyond what the council intended? "Don't necessarily agree that it was" is not exactly a convincing statement my friend. Arguments from silence generally tend to fail . . .

Quote

My criticisms of the NO don't deal with validity.  It deals with licitness.  That is a huge distinction to make.

I am glad. Because I would not want to have to report you.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Peace

[Cam42]

18 hours ago, Peace said:

Exactly what definition of "document" are you using? In case you are unaware of the meaning of the word, here is one simple definition for you:

Document: Any written item, as a book, article, or letter, especially of a factual or informative nature.

 And plenty of people happen to disagree with you. That does not get us very far now does it?

I don't recall having seen any of that in the Catechism.

Why don't you use your 15 years of Latin and research the issue? I bet there must be some "documents" lying around somewhere that go into the reasons for the changes in the NO. I am willing to bet that you aren't going to find anything that just says "We just felt like making it simpler and changing parts of it for no reason."

So sayeth the man who spends half of his post nit-picking over the use of the words "document" and "conduct".

Thank you for the profound insight. That clarifies everything.

Shall I pull out the dictionary again? You really should consider investing in one. They are quite useful.

Finally. We reach something of substance in your post. You obviously believe that it is not what they intended. I choose to follow the judgment of the Popes and Bishops who have decided not to revert back to the EF (and for quite some time now I might add). But I can understand where you are coming from I think. Perhaps you believe that it is your duty to assist the Church in recognizing the errors of some of the people within it. That is totally cool by me. Go for it. Writing a letter to your local Bishop expressing your concerns with the NO might be a good place to start. And if that does not work you can write Pope Francis himself. Best of luck to you in that fruitful endeavor.

Hmm. Has Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus stated that the NO goes beyond what the council intended? "Don't necessarily agree that it was" is not exactly a convincing statement my friend. Arguments from silence generally tend to fail . . .

I am glad. Because I would not want to have to report you.

You don't need to define anything for me, thank you.  I am entirely capable of discerning a definition for myself.  QED.

Really, many people disagree with me?  Can you name more than 10?  Don't speak out of turn.

There is a good reason you haven't read that in the Catechism.  The Catechism doesn't deal with liturgical law.  That is not the intention of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You do realize that you have to use other source materials, other than Sacred Scripture and the Catechism to find answers.  smh....

I already did that.  You just don't like what I had to say about it.  Geez o Pete.  Go back and read the thread.  Wow!  If you would like a primer on what I'm talking about, I would have you look at Chapter 11 of "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Rev. Anthony Cekada.  You can also look to "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Alcuin Reid, OSB.  You can also look to Chapter 7 of "Recovery of the Sacred: Reforming the Reformed Liturgy" by James Hitchcock.  You can also look to Chapter 6 of "The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform" by Laszlo Dobszay.  There is more, but this will keep you busy for awhile, assuming you take the time.

I have written letters and I have had conversations with several bishops.  My own Ordinary thinks enough of my view that he has seen fit to make me one of his episcopal Master of Ceremonies.  So, while that doesn't mean much to you, I'm sure...it does to the rest of Christendom.

Yes, as a matter of fact, Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus has.  I would point you to two of his books.  The first, "Milestones."  The second, "The Spirit of the Liturgy."  Again, the impotice is on you to read it through.  I've already read these and posted on both some years back.  I don't need to re-post what has already been posted.  You can search, if you so wish.

You'd be better off, liturgically if you did have to report to me.  Not a matter of arrogance, simply a fact.  When I am Master of Ceremonies, you can be rest assured that I do not deviate nor do I allow the priest to deviate from the Mass, whether it be the EF or the NO.  Yes, I am a Master for both.

 

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Cam42 said:

You don't need to define anything for me, thank you.  I am entirely capable of discerning a definition for myself.  QED.

OK. Fair enough. But I reserve the right to set forth my own definition, or to ask for a definition of a term that you are using, when such a definition would advance clarity and effective communication.

Quote

Really, many people disagree with me?  Can you name more than 10?  Don't speak out of turn.

I cannot name 10 off of the top of my head. Victory is yours. But based off of a very brief Google search I was able to find a few:

1) Brant Pitre. I have already posted a link to the document in which he asserts that the NO Offertory is based off of Jewish table blessings (and as he states, if you just review the language of the two the similarities are quite obvious).

2) The webmaster at the USCCB Website, who decided to post the article on the UCCSB Website with the title "Catechetical Sunday September 18, 2011 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops".

3) Mr. Say the Black Do the Red himself, Father Z (hardly a liberal you might agree):

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/04/ask-father-using-the-traditional-offertory-prayers-in-the-novus-ordo-wherein-fr-z-rants/

The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers are based on the Berekoth in the category of “enjoyment blessings” or B. HaNehanin (again with variants): HaMotzi said when eating bread and HaGafen for wine.  They are among the most frequent uttered and are used during the Sabbath meal Kiddush.  After washing his hands the head of the household raises two loaves of bread, challah, and says the HaMotzi blessing.  Two loaves of challah are used because the Lord’s manna didn’t fall on the Sabbath when the Israelites wandered in the wilderness.  Instead, a double portion fell on Friday (cf. Exodus 16).
The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers were cobbled up from these Berekoth:

“Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam ha-mo-tzi lechem min ha-aretz … Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth” and “Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam bo-ray p’ree ha-gafen … Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine.”

These blessings are perhaps inspired from Ps 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (cf. 1 Cor 10:26) and also Ps 115(114):16: “The heaven of heaven is the Lord’s: but the earth he has given to the children of men.”  Humans make bread and wine, but ultimately they came from God.

I suspect the liturgists who assembled the Novus Ordo of Mass under the aegis of the Consilium and Fr. Bugnini, et al., hoped these prayers, obvious innovations, would remind us of our “Jewish roots” so to speak, and inspire a mental connection with the Passover and Exodus which foreshadowed the Paschal Mystery of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

4) Father John Brucciani SSPX (again, hardly a liberal you might agree):

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/critiquemissae.htm

In the new rite of the Mass, the Offertory has been completely changed. In the same way that the Tridentine Offertory provides a clear explanation of the Church’s beliefs concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the new Offertory brings with it a new explanation of what is supposed to take place during the New Mass.

The following prayers figure in the new missal.

The prayer that has replaced the Suscipe, Sancte Pater is a modified Jewish table grace:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all Creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

In place of the Offerimus Tibi, the New Mass offers the chalice with the following prayer:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Though your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

I trust that with a little research of your own you will be able to find numbers 5 to 10 (or whatever number it is that you deem sufficient).

Quote

There is a good reason you haven't read that in the Catechism.  The Catechism doesn't deal with liturgical law.  That is not the intention of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You do realize that you have to use other source materials, other than Sacred Scripture and the Catechism to find answers.  smh....

I figured that you might say something like that. To clarify - I did not read anything like that in the Catechism or any other source that I have read. The point was that in a discussion where there is an area of disagreement, it is not effective to simply state what you believe to be the truth. You need to demonstrate it.

The point that we were discussing was whether the NO Offertory is based on Jewish table blessings, or was meant to be a mere simplification of the EF Offertory. I have posted several sources above that indicate that it is based on Jewish table blessings. And again, if you compare the text you can see the obvious similarity.

You, on the other hand, have posted nothing other than your opinion or your conclusion. Your opinion or conclusion may very well be based on "other source materials" that you have read, but unless you post them here so that they can be evaluated it is quite irrelevant to me. Again, I have made it clear that your credentials (as impressive as they may be) are not something that I weigh as an important factor when discussing an issue.

So, from among these various other sources, if you have something that states that the NO Offertory is not based on Jewish table blessings, please post it. I will consider it. What I will not do is simply bow down to your assertions based on various qualifications that you assert you have and which I have no concrete means of verifying.

Quote

I already did that.  You just don't like what I had to say about it.  Geez o Pete.  Go back and read the thread.  Wow!  If you would like a primer on what I'm talking about, I would have you look at Chapter 11 of "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Rev. Anthony Cekada.  You can also look to "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Alcuin Reid, OSB.  You can also look to Chapter 7 of "Recovery of the Sacred: Reforming the Reformed Liturgy" by James Hitchcock.  You can also look to Chapter 6 of "The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform" by Laszlo Dobszay.  There is more, but this will keep you busy for awhile, assuming you take the time.

Do you have Bugnini's book? I do not, but I would be willing to bet that in the book he explains the basis of the NO Offertory. Perhaps not. But it would seem that would be the best source to go to in order to determine the reason for that change. If you do have it please post up the relevant section so that we can all see it and evaluate it.

But as a general matter "If you read the same books that I have read you will realize that I am correct" is not a very effective form of argument. Again - if you want to post specific information that relates to the specific question that we were discussing I will be glad to consider it. But all the evidence that I have come across so far indicates that the NO Offertory is in fact based on Jewish table blessings (as Father Z and others above have also concluded).

Quote

I have written letters and I have had conversations with several bishops.  My own Ordinary thinks enough of my view that he has seen fit to make me one of his episcopal Master of Ceremonies.  So, while that doesn't mean much to you, I'm sure...it does to the rest of Christendom.

I have no idea who your Ordinary is and the process by which he decides to make a person his episcopal Master of Ceremonies.

And I would not be so be so fast to assume that it matters to the rest of Christendom either. Do you have some ability to read the minds of millions of people? Such an ability is usually attributed to God, and even given the great extent of your ego, I doubt that even you would be so brazen to put yourself on that plane.

Quote

Yes, as a matter of fact, Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus has.  I would point you to two of his books.  The first, "Milestones."  The second, "The Spirit of the Liturgy."  Again, the impotice is on you to read it through.  I've already read these and posted on both some years back.  I don't need to re-post what has already been posted.  You can search, if you so wish.

 Thanks. I did search. Here you go:

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=684

Second, while in office, Pope Benedict XVI has made his approval of the Novus Ordo clear. He has also made clear that his serious criticisms do not apply to the rite itself but  to the false interpretation of the Missal of Paul VI as something that requires constant experimentation and innovation, as if priests are to superimpose their own improvisations on the official liturgy and, in so doing, frequently substitute the banal for the sublime.

Benedict made these points in explaining his decision to widen the use of the Tridentine Mass (the Missal of Pope John XXIII) in his 2007 Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. Readers will recall that the Pope issued an accompanying Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of Summorum Pontificum to explain his decision. In that letter he recounted why he wanted to expand the use of what he now called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and, in so doing, he deliberately responded to the fear that this expansion was somehow intended to demote the Novus Ordo or undermine the Second Vatican Council’s call for liturgical reform.

Let us listen to Joseph Ratzinger as Pope:

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Benedict went on to explain that many have continued to long for the older liturgy (which is one reason for making it more widely available, the other being to try to reconcile those who have fallen out of full communion with the Church over it), but he also explained what the real problem was:

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. [emphasis added]

Finally, the Pope ended his discussion of the Novus Ordo by stating that the key to its use in unifying the Church is a reverent fidelity to the actual rubrics of the missal itself, and he closed by expressing his fundamental judgment of the value of this normal form of the rite:

The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the Ordinary Form. Combat abuses of the Novus Ordo where you can; the Church will thank you for that. But do not denigrate the rite itself, as if it is something unworthy or profane, and never imply that the billion Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their Faith.

It is possible to debate the merits and demerits of any liturgy, but it is not possible to cite either Pope Benedict XVI or the mind of the Church as being anything less than in favor of the prescribed use of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Finally, no approved liturgy of the Church should ever be treated with disrespect, nor its adherents stigmatized if they are not disobedient, for it is a sacred thing.

You might make a special note of the portion in blue.

Quote

You'd be better off, liturgically if you did have to report to me.  Not a matter of arrogance, simply a fact.  When I am Master of Ceremonies, you can be rest assured that I do not deviate nor do I allow the priest to deviate from the Mass, whether it be the EF or the NO.  Yes, I am a Master for both.

I have to admit it that I do enjoy how you so blithely assert to be fact what is obviously opinion. You amuse me.

But I am glad that you take your responsibilities seriously. That is definitely a good thing. Peace be unto you.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Peace

[Cam42]

23 hours ago, Peace said:

OK. Fair enough. But I reserve the right to set forth my own definition, or to ask for a definition of a term that you are using, when such a definition would advance clarity and effective communication.

I cannot name 10 off of the top of my head. Victory is yours. But based off of a very brief Google search I was able to find a few:

1) Brant Pitre. I have already posted a link to the document in which he asserts that the NO Offertory is based off of Jewish table blessings (and as he states, if you just review the language of the two the similarities are quite obvious).

2) The webmaster at the USCCB Website, who decided to post the article on the UCCSB Website with the title "Catechetical Sunday September 18, 2011 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops".

3) Mr. Say the Black Do the Red himself, Father Z (hardly a liberal you might agree):

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/04/ask-father-using-the-traditional-offertory-prayers-in-the-novus-ordo-wherein-fr-z-rants/

The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers are based on the Berekoth in the category of “enjoyment blessings” or B. HaNehanin (again with variants): HaMotzi said when eating bread and HaGafen for wine.  They are among the most frequent uttered and are used during the Sabbath meal Kiddush.  After washing his hands the head of the household raises two loaves of bread, challah, and says the HaMotzi blessing.  Two loaves of challah are used because the Lord’s manna didn’t fall on the Sabbath when the Israelites wandered in the wilderness.  Instead, a double portion fell on Friday (cf. Exodus 16).
The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers were cobbled up from these Berekoth:

“Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam ha-mo-tzi lechem min ha-aretz … Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth” and “Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam bo-ray p’ree ha-gafen … Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine.”

These blessings are perhaps inspired from Ps 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (cf. 1 Cor 10:26) and also Ps 115(114):16: “The heaven of heaven is the Lord’s: but the earth he has given to the children of men.”  Humans make bread and wine, but ultimately they came from God.

I suspect the liturgists who assembled the Novus Ordo of Mass under the aegis of the Consilium and Fr. Bugnini, et al., hoped these prayers, obvious innovations, would remind us of our “Jewish roots” so to speak, and inspire a mental connection with the Passover and Exodus which foreshadowed the Paschal Mystery of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

4) Father John Brucciani SSPX (again, hardly a liberal you might agree):

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/critiquemissae.htm

In the new rite of the Mass, the Offertory has been completely changed. In the same way that the Tridentine Offertory provides a clear explanation of the Church’s beliefs concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the new Offertory brings with it a new explanation of what is supposed to take place during the New Mass.

The following prayers figure in the new missal.

The prayer that has replaced the Suscipe, Sancte Pater is a modified Jewish table grace:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all Creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

In place of the Offerimus Tibi, the New Mass offers the chalice with the following prayer:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Though your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

I trust that with a little research of your own you will be able to find numbers 5 to 10 (or whatever number it is that you deem sufficient).

I figured that you might say something like that. To clarify - I did not read anything like that in the Catechism or any other source that I have read. The point was that in a discussion where there is an area of disagreement, it is not effective to simply state what you believe to be the truth. You need to demonstrate it.

The point that we were discussing was whether the NO Offertory is based on Jewish table blessings, or was meant to be a mere simplification of the EF Offertory. I have posted several sources above that indicate that it is based on Jewish table blessings. And again, if you compare the text you can see the obvious similarity.

You, on the other hand, have posted nothing other than your opinion or your conclusion. Your opinion or conclusion may very well be based on "other source materials" that you have read, but unless you post them here so that they can be evaluated it is quite irrelevant to me. Again, I have made it clear that your credentials (as impressive as they may be) are not something that I weigh as an important factor when discussing an issue.

So, from among these various other sources, if you have something that states that the NO Offertory is not based on Jewish table blessings, please post it. I will consider it. What I will not do is simply bow down to your assertions based on various qualifications that you assert you have and which I have no concrete means of verifying.

Do you have Bugnini's book? I do not, but I would be willing to bet that in the book he explains the basis of the NO Offertory. Perhaps not. But it would seem that would be the best source to go to in order to determine the reason for that change. If you do have it please post up the relevant section so that we can all see it and evaluate it.

But as a general matter "If you read the same books that I have read you will realize that I am correct" is not a very effective form of argument. Again - if you want to post specific information that relates to the specific question that we were discussing I will be glad to consider it. But all the evidence that I have come across so far indicates that the NO Offertory is in fact based on Jewish table blessings (as Father Z and others above have also concluded).

I have no idea who your Ordinary is and the process by which he decides to make a person his episcopal Master of Ceremonies.

And I would not be so be so fast to assume that it matters to the rest of Christendom either. Do you have some ability to read the minds of millions of people? Such an ability is usually attributed to God, and even given the great extent of your ego, I doubt that even you would be so brazen to put yourself on that plane.

 Thanks. I did search. Here you go:

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=684

Second, while in office, Pope Benedict XVI has made his approval of the Novus Ordo clear. He has also made clear that his serious criticisms do not apply to the rite itself but  to the false interpretation of the Missal of Paul VI as something that requires constant experimentation and innovation, as if priests are to superimpose their own improvisations on the official liturgy and, in so doing, frequently substitute the banal for the sublime.

Benedict made these points in explaining his decision to widen the use of the Tridentine Mass (the Missal of Pope John XXIII) in his 2007 Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. Readers will recall that the Pope issued an accompanying Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of Summorum Pontificum to explain his decision. In that letter he recounted why he wanted to expand the use of what he now called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and, in so doing, he deliberately responded to the fear that this expansion was somehow intended to demote the Novus Ordo or undermine the Second Vatican Council’s call for liturgical reform.

Let us listen to Joseph Ratzinger as Pope:

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Benedict went on to explain that many have continued to long for the older liturgy (which is one reason for making it more widely available, the other being to try to reconcile those who have fallen out of full communion with the Church over it), but he also explained what the real problem was:

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. [emphasis added]

Finally, the Pope ended his discussion of the Novus Ordo by stating that the key to its use in unifying the Church is a reverent fidelity to the actual rubrics of the missal itself, and he closed by expressing his fundamental judgment of the value of this normal form of the rite:

The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the Ordinary Form. Combat abuses of the Novus Ordo where you can; the Church will thank you for that. But do not denigrate the rite itself, as if it is something unworthy or profane, and never imply that the billion Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their Faith.

It is possible to debate the merits and demerits of any liturgy, but it is not possible to cite either Pope Benedict XVI or the mind of the Church as being anything less than in favor of the prescribed use of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Finally, no approved liturgy of the Church should ever be treated with disrespect, nor its adherents stigmatized if they are not disobedient, for it is a sacred thing.

You might make a special note of the portion in blue.

I have to admit it that I do enjoy how you so blithely assert to be fact what is obviously opinion. You amuse me.

But I am glad that you take your responsibilities seriously. That is definitely a good thing. Peace be unto you.

Ummmm.....I don't doubt that the NO prayers are based off of Jewish table prayers.  I know they are.  Again, you've missed the forest for the trees, fella.  My point isn't the sourcing, it is the substance.  To over simplify the Offertory is what I disagree with, which Fr. Z (who happens to be a good friend....we were on the phone earlier today, btw; there is a picture of he and I someplace on this site together) and the SSPX priest both agree with me, is what is at question.  Nice try to turn the worm, homeslice.

I do have Bugnini's work, "The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975."  It is an interesting read.  I disagree with the philosophy of it, as it is riddled with theological and philosophical error.  I suppose I could take the time to go through all of it, but I would chew up all of dUSt's bandwidth and that's bad.  So, I'm going to pass.  You could, however, get the book and the other one's, read them and we can have a discussion about them.  I would be happy to do that.  I have copies of all of the books I have listed.  I've actually read them too, sporto.

To be honest, I don't really care if you don't like my arguments.  I can't have a discussion with a brick wall, but you're doing a good job at being one of those, guy.  Perhaps if you would have an open mind and stop being so rigid, you and I could have a meaningful discussion about the liturgy.

So, let's see just what Papa Ratzinger says.  Oh wait, it isn't Papa Ratzinger....it's Jeffery Mirus' opinion.  Well, hello kettle....

So, Peace....the problem here is that you just have a problem with my style.  Fine.  But I'm not about to kowtow to you.  I've been having these discussions since at least 1994.  Not that you care about that either.  But, in the end it all bears out that unless you directly question something I can answer and stop being passive/aggressive about this....we're not going to get very far.

(caveat:  I know I was snarky.  I know I was being difficult.  It was on purpose.)

Have a great day.  I'll pray for you, please pray for me.

[Peace]

What is it that you disagreed with in the Brant Pitre article then?

FWIW - I think that if you go back and see my original question you will notice that I asked about "the source". I did not ask about whether the substance of the changes were good or bad (I indicated that I am comfortable leaving those types of decisions up to the judgment of the people within the Church that are directly responsible for them).

Peace

Edited February 10, 2016 by Peace

[PhuturePriest]

On 2/9/2016, 1:20:11, Cam42 said:

I already did that.  You just don't like what I had to say about it.  Geez o Pete.  Go back and read the thread.  Wow!  If you would like a primer on what I'm talking about, I would have you look at Chapter 11 of "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Rev. Anthony Cekada.  You can also look to "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Alcuin Reid, OSB.  You can also look to Chapter 7 of "Recovery of the Sacred: Reforming the Reformed Liturgy" by James Hitchcock.  You can also look to Chapter 6 of "The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform" by Laszlo Dobszay.  There is more, but this will keep you busy for awhile, assuming you take the time.

Cam, out of curiosity, why do you list a sedevacantist priest who believes we haven't had a valid Pope since Pius XII as a trustable resource? Father Cekada has very, very serious issues, and I find it worrying that any Catholic in good standing would recommend his work to others. 

17 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Ummmm.....I don't doubt that the NO prayers are based off of Jewish table prayers.  I know they are.  Again, you've missed the forest for the trees, fella.  My point isn't the sourcing, it is the substance.  To over simplify the Offertory is what I disagree with, which Fr. Z (who happens to be a good friend....we were on the phone earlier today, btw; there is a picture of he and I someplace on this site together) and the SSPX priest both agree with me, is what is at question.  Nice try to turn the worm, homeslice.

I do have Bugnini's work, "The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975."  It is an interesting read.  I disagree with the philosophy of it, as it is riddled with theological and philosophical error.  I suppose I could take the time to go through all of it, but I would chew up all of dUSt's bandwidth and that's bad.  So, I'm going to pass.  You could, however, get the book and the other one's, read them and we can have a discussion about them.  I would be happy to do that.  I have copies of all of the books I have listed.  I've actually read them too, sporto.

To be honest, I don't really care if you don't like my arguments.  I can't have a discussion with a brick wall, but you're doing a good job at being one of those, guy.  Perhaps if you would have an open mind and stop being so rigid, you and I could have a meaningful discussion about the liturgy.

I really don't see how your antagonistic and snobby behavior here is called for, and I don't see how you think it will accomplish any good. Peace has been very charitable with you throughout this thread despite you acting intellectually superior to him, and I think several of your statements are uncalled for.

Whenever you accuse someone of being a "brick wall", sit back and appreciate that it may in fact be you who is the brick wall.

Snobby intellectuals are why so many people hate traditionalists. I know you're a good person, but if you value your cause and want it to grow, please consider a different tone when discussing liturgy. It really does go a long way and opens up people to seriously considering your position.

[KnightofChrist]

13 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Cam, out of curiosity, why do you list a sedevacantist priest who believes we haven't had a valid Pope since Pius XII as a trustable resource? Father Cekada has very, very serious issues, and I find it worrying that any Catholic in good standing would recommend his work to others.

Ad hominem.

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, KnightofChrist said:

Ad hominem.

I didn't intend to attack his character. I was disturbed that he would recommend a resource by a renowned sedevacantist. We can't forget that the people posting are not the only ones reading. People who have little grasp of the Church could end up reading Father Cekada's work and end up sedevacantist. 

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, PhuturePriest said:

I didn't intend to attack his character. I was disturbed that he would recommend a resource by a renowned sedevacantist. We can't forget that the people posting are not the only ones reading. People who have little grasp of the Church could end up reading Father Cekada's work and end up sedevacantist. 

Again, ad hominem. You're dismissing the book or argument because of a character flaw you find in the author. You're committing an logical fallacy. And I believe you are jumping to conclusions, if Cam had posted an Protestant or Orthodox author on the same subject would there be any protest from you?

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, KnightofChrist said:

Again, ad hominem. You're dismissing the book or argument because of a character flaw you find in the author. You're committing an logical fallacy. And I believe you are jumping to conclusions, if Cam had posted an Protestant or Orthodox author on the same subject would there be any protest from you?

I'm not dismissing the work because of the author. I am expressing concern because the author has dangerous theological ideas that lead to apostasy. I don't really care what Father Cekada thinks about the offertory. I care that Father Cekada thinks you and I are modernist heretics and has lead many others to think so as well. I never mentioned the character of Father Cekada. You're the one who is claiming I attacked his character when I didn't. I'm saying he's theologically dangerous and we need to be careful should we recommend a work of his. Nowhere did Cam make a disclaimer saying Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist and to be careful what you read from him. Given what Cam said, you'd think Fr. Cekada were a solid priest in union with the Church. I'm not saying that was on purpose, but I am pointing out that he is a sedevacantist and warning readers to be wary of him. It has nothing to do with the offertory and everything to do with his other positions, which were not warned about. So I'm warning about them.