A Candid Reply

[Amator Veritatis]

What follows is my response to the preliminary points made in the article offered by Miles Christi in the thread entitled [i]Which Mass do you hear?[/i], which response is actually addressed to Cam, as said article appears to be of his scholarship.


[quote]Novus Ordo Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Entrance Antiphons.
Tridentine Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Psalm 42.

--The only difference is that Psalm 42 was elimnated [sic] and the Introit was moved to replace it.

--In reality they are about the same length if you take into account that (i) in the Pauline liturgy, the priest after the greeting usually takes about thirty seconds to explain the significance of the mass that day - usually a theme from one of the readings or if it is a feast day something pertaining to the feast - and (ii) in the Tridentine liturgy the priest and server usually alternate Psalm verses at low volume and quickly in a manner whereby if they said them aloud it would sound rambling. (I have served at many a Tridentine mass and in every case the priest recited Psalm 42 as if he was [sic] in a hurry.)[/quote]

We should begin by saying that, as a general principle in this or any exchange concerning the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], one ought to be at least impartial in his observations. If one feels inclined to discuss the rubrics of the Mass, he ought to do so strictly, rather than introducing the manner in which these rubrics are most oft-followed. If he feels inclined, however, to discuss both the rubrics themselves and the manner in which the rubrics are generally followed, he ought to do so not merely where it suits his purpose but objectively. If one wishes to point out, e.g., that the priest offering the traditional Mass often says the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar at a rushed pace, he ought also to mention that the priest offering the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] often says the words of the Mass in a disinterested manner or that he often introduces innovations by omitting or adding words or phrases at his fancy. While this manner of speaking is objective, I think it too damning against the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] to be introduced into this discussion, as it is certainly offered more irreverently than the traditional Mass. For the purposes of this discussion, it would seem more appropriate to focus solely on the rubrics of the two Masses rather than on the manner in which they are offered by some. One could, perchance, offer arguments as to the inclination toward which a priest might tend based on the rubrics of a Mass, i.e., that the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] allows for the prayers to be recited [i]ad lib[/i] by the priest, thus naturally tending toward other parts being abusively corrupted. It would be beneficial, however, to examine strictly that form of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] which, in its texts, resembles most closely the traditional Mass. In this manner, the genuine distinctions between the essence liturgical of the traditional Mass and that of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] might be made. If this is agreed upon, we should proceed thus.

As to the points actually offered, we answer that the omission of a psalm be no small matter, especially regarding the fact that a purported goal of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is an increase of references from biblical texts, though, as shall be discussed later, the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] actually fails in presenting the sacred texts in a manner edifying and significant to the faithful insofar as it presents the texts either in a disorderly or meaningless fashion. A most relevant point is seen in that the two principle psalms recited in the Mass have been omitted. N.B., this number increases to three in Solemn Masses or Masses in which incense is permitted. These three psalms are the following: Psalm xlii, [i]Judica me, Deus[/i], recited at the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (themselves altogether omitted in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]), the latter half of Psalm xxv, from the words [i]Lavabo inter innocentes[/i], recited while the priest washes his fingers at the Offertory, and, when applicable, the three verses from Psalm cxl, from the word [i]Dirigatur[/i], recited at the incensation of the altar during the Offertory. N.B., Psalm cxl actually follows Psalm xxv chronologically, but because it is only present in Solemn Masses or those in which incense is permitted, we have placed it last in our enumeration of psalms.

The argument posed that the time is of equal duration seems irrelevant to the matter at hand. Regardless of the length of the Mass, our purpose is to discern the differences between the two Masses as regards the rubrics of the Mass, so long as my initial principle is agreed upon by consenting parties to this debate. Further, the very fact that the priest addresses the faithful here regarding the epistle or Gospel of the Mass or regarding the Saint whose Feast is celebrated diminishes or at least confuses the proper time of the Mass for which this exercise is suited. The proper time for such allocutions is at the sermon, following the Gospel.

I should add, that, properly speaking, the first part of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were omitted, not merely Psalm xlii, which includes the antiphon of sorts using the primary verse of the Psalm, i.e., [i]Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam[/i], which is said before the Psalm and after the [i]Gloria Patri[/i] which follows the Psalm, as well as the [i]Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit coelum et terram[/i], which follows this verse. This is, of course, a rather minor detail, but I thought it proper to mention it in the interests of veracity.

As an additional aside, it should be recognised that if anything is arbitrary it is what ought be considered a rushed pace. While it is too often true that priests offering the traditional Mass may say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar without proper attention, it must be noted that the proper manner of reciting a prayer does not entail necessarily grave pauses between words or phrases. Quite the contrary, it is prescribed in the rubrics of the Mass that the priest not pause at the recitation of the words of the Consecration. If such be the case for the most sacred time of the Mass, certainly there should be no obligation at other parts of the Mass, especially when a response is merely a sentence or phrase in length. It is, of course, necessary to pause during the recitation of the epistle, Gospel, & al. It is not necessary to pause during the actual recitation of Psalm xlii, though it is necessary to pause during some part or multiple parts of the [i]Confiteor[/i].

[quote]--As far as the usage of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass, it was added at around the eleventh century. Therefore, it cannot be considered an "essential" part of the rite as if going without it somehow made the Pauline rite in any way deficient. That is the primary point to be made here, not whether it is better to have retained it or not. (Such views are purely subjective though subjectively the author if a choice was [sic] to be made would prefer the older sequence.)[/quote]

Before even considering the historical veracity of these statements, two important distinctions ought be made. Firstly, the time at which a certain part of the Mass was added has no bearing regarding its degree of essentiality, for by its very definition this entails its inherency. Those parts of the Mass inherent to its nature are those strictly necessary for its validity. By this standard many parts of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] ought be considered superfluous, e.g., the Sign of the Cross or any form of introductory prayers. Nonetheless, it ought also be stated that the time at which a certain part of the Mass was added in nowise disqualifies it as a fitting and necessary part liturgically speaking. Certainly, all parts of the Mass not instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper are additions of some sort during some time period. In this manner of reasoning, one might argue that any part of the Mass not recited by Our Lord at the Last Supper has no baring as to the essential parts of the Mass. Clearly, this position is folly, at least as regards liturgical essentials. Secondly, it must be recognised that a rite of the Mass may be deficient in matters liturgical but not matters essential to the nature of the Mass, e.g., a Mass having solely the Mass of the Faithful would suffice as to the nature of the Mass itself, having all those things necessary for validity, in keeping with the standard above defined, but such a Mass is certainly deficient in its liturgical sense, rendering it inferior to a Mass having both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. In this manner of speaking, one can distinguish between those matters necessary as to the validity of the Mass and those matters--if not strictly necessary--so strongly rooted in tradition as to be determined necessary as to the liturgy of the Mass.

With these distinctions made, we proceed with our arguments. To call the retention or omission of Psalm xlii subjective or arbitrary would undermine the very nature of the discussion. This debate seeks to compare the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], but to categorically dismiss any opposition to a given change as arbitrary would annul the very basis upon which the opposing position might be argued. To assert that any change to the Mass be a legitimate modification, so long as it infringe not upon its validity, would render further discussion futile. Should the discussion continue, points as to the benefit or detriment of the retention of Psalm xlii--and any omitted portion of the Mass, for that matter--ought be offered. The arguments in favour are so overwhelming they seem but self-evident. The Psalm itself is most fitting at the commencement of the Mass, imploring the light of God and preparing to approach his holy altar. The words of Psalm xlii immediately raise one's thoughts to heavenly things and the ritual which evokes them. Reference to the altar and thus, naturally, to sacrifice is a most fitting way to illustrate the connexion between divine grace and the ritual used by the Church to call down this grace upon her children. This connexion is the very principle upon which Sacramental theology is based, namely that God administers supernatural grace through corporeal means. The fact that Psalm xlii has tremendous liturgical merit ought be reason enough to assign it as the obligatory prayer at the commencement of the Mass, though this position is all the more reasonable when its place is the Mass becomes one merely of retention and not of addition, i.e., it seems clear enough that reciting Psalm xlii to begin the Mass is a fitting practice but when its appropriateness be reinforced by tradition, its retention becomes a matter compelling to the frank inquirer.

As to the historical veracity of your comments, it would be proper to cite sources in matters pertaining to disputed historical facts. I submit that Psalm xlii was not found throughout the Roman rite until the eleventh century though it had been introduced locally at earlier times. Besides this, however, it should be noted that the [i]Credo[/i] was added in the same, the eleventh century. Surely no one would suggest the [i]Credo[/i] to be a superfluous facet of the Mass, the retention or omission of which being merely arbitrary. Further, during the same eleventh century the [i]Gloria[/i] was only said by priests at Easter and at ordination, being omitted even on Christmas day, though it was still recited by bishops on Sunday Masses and at those in honour of holy martyrs. Certainly one would not suggest reverting to this practice. Yet another interesting point, this one regarding the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar themselves, is that the Sign of the Cross recited at the beginning of the Mass was not added until the fourteenth century. Needless to say, all these facets of the Mass have been retained in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. The point necessarily discerned, however, is that the antiquity of a given part of the Mass ought not be considered a factor in whether it ought be retained, lest by so reasoning, the value of other parts of the Mass--presumably recognised as liturgically essential by all--be diminished. Having arrived necessarily at this conclusion, it would seem proper to argue the comparison of the Masses from a predominately rubrical perspective rather than an historical perspective.

As an aside, we should add that the theory that a more ancient rite is [i]de facto[/i] superior or laudable is condemned in that famous Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII, [i]Mediator Dei[/i], the relevant sections of which ought be discussed in a separate thread subsequent our discussion on this matter.

N.B., the historical information presented in our response can be verified in [i]Dictionary of the Liturgy[/i], authored by a Father Jovian Lang, OFM, the contents of which, if anything, favour the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though its contents are referenced for this very fact and on account of the convenient timetable located within the book cataloguing the various developments of the Mass throughout history.

This concludes our response to the preliminary remarks of Cam42, regarding the comparison of the traditional Mass with that of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].


Cam, if you feel so inclined, I would be interested to know whether you wish to continue the discussion in this newly created thread and whether you would have me respond to your entire discourse before continuing or whether you would rather discuss each part of the Mass independently, with hopes of arriving at a conclusion. Though I think the former more profitable, it may be overly ambitious and ultimately less fruitful. I thank you in advance for your reply.

[Cam42]

[quote]This concludes our response to the preliminary remarks of Cam42, regarding the comparison of the traditional Mass with that of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Cam, if you feel so inclined, I would be interested to know whether you wish to continue the discussion in this newly created thread and whether you would have me respond to your entire discourse before continuing or whether you would rather discuss each part of the Mass independently, with hopes of arriving at a conclusion. Though I think the former more profitable, it may be overly ambitious and ultimately less fruitful. I thank you in advance for your reply.[/quote]

Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? And if you want to respond, go ahead. I may respond, or I may not. My analysis is accurate and it is unambigious. If you don't like my analysis, ok, that is fine.

I am not really all that interested in playing this little game with you. Who are you to determine how the "rules" should be set, as to how word my posts? Do you know the context in which the original post was written, or to whom it was aimed?

That is your opinion. There is nothing about the Mass (Tridentine or Novus Ordo) that is disorderly or meaningless. Before you go on.....that is EXACTLY what you meant, there is no misunderstanding of position here at all.

I was respectful of both Masses throughout. I was presenting from a practical point of view, albeit accurate. I think that before you get all up about nit-picking my analysis, you should probably read the preceding post to that one and also read the assumptions that are at the beginning of the original post.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43207&hl=psalm+42"]Latin Mass, back then...[/url]

I have a great love the Tridentine as well as the Novus Ordo. If you doubt this, simply read the majority of my posts. I just don't have any respect for the SSPX or sedevacantists.

[cmotherofpirl]

We do not do the Mass vs Mass here at Phatmass. Feel free to continue this as private correspondance.
Thank you.

[Amator Veritatis]

I had been under the impression that this was a legitimate topic, as it had already been discussed on a few threads I have read. I am not able to post now, though I should be on at a later time today.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:13 PM']I had been under the impression that this was a legitimate topic, as it had already been discussed on a few threads I have read. I am not able to post now, though I should be on at a later time today.
[right][snapback]893051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Discussed yes, debated no.

The thread which I posted was in the Apologetics thread, not the debate board.

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? And if you want to respond, go ahead. I may respond, or I may not. My analysis is accurate and it is unambigious [sic]. If you don't like my analysis, ok, that is fine.[/quote]

I recognise this as a condescending remark, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that using the plural number in proper remarks is a noted style found in numerous works. On the same token, I would kindly direct you to a popular thread created today entitled [i]Catholics today[/i], in which are offered various insights to growing in charity and the spiritual life.

As far as your analysis is concerned, I feel I treated the matter charitably and intelligently. If you would like to discuss the matter in greater depth, I would be delighted. I should add, however, that you have quite a reputation as a learned fellow and think it below you to dismiss objective and competent response in such a disingenuous manner.

[quote]I am not really all that interested in playing this little game with you. Who are you to determine how the "rules" should be set, as to how [sic] word my posts? Do you know the context in which the original post was written, or to whom it was aimed?[/quote]

I do not consider intelligent, dispassionate debate to be a type of diversion. It is no game. I had thought you willing and able to engage others in debate from what I had read on these forums. You commented upon my arrival here that you would look forward to seeing what I would offer. I have offered a straightforward reply standing in opposition to certain positions you took in a previous thread. I had hoped to engage in charitable and profitable debate with you. If you are not interested in this, I shall simply present the discussion to a gentleman willing to discuss things further. I never intended nor did I state that I felt it proper for me to instruct you in what manner you should make your arguments, save the standards of logic and objectivity. If my comments were unjust or tendentious in some way, I respectfully ask which comments these were that I might retract them if they were made in such a manner. If you must know, I did search for your original post in order to assure that it was quoted fairly and to read it in its context. The thread consisted of 16 pages if I am not mistaken, so I am sure you will pardon me if I did not read the thread in its entirety.

[quote]That is your opinion. There is nothing about the Mass (Tridentine or Novus Ordo) that is disorderly or meaningless. Before you go on.....that is EXACTLY what you meant, there is no misunderstanding of position here at all.[/quote]

I think it a bit unfair that you characterise my entire response by one phrase in it, used explicitly to describe the manner in which the new cycle of readings for the epistle and Gospel presents the biblical texts to the faithful. Perhaps you did not read beyond this phrase, but if you do, you will find a clear, concise exposé comparing the commencement of the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. Please allow my words to speak for themselves. I choose them more carefully than most, so there is not much need to attempt to decipher their meanings.

[quote]I was respectful of both Masses throughout. I was presenting from a practical point of view, albeit accurate. I think that before you get all up about nit-picking my analysis, you should probably read the preceding post to that one and also read the assumptions that are at the beginning of the original post.[/quote]

Far be it from me to accuse you of disrespect to the Mass. I pray God keep me from any unjust accusations, but as far as I can tell, I made no such charge. While I think your characterisations were quite accurate, I merely warned that such characterisations might be unjust if they remain one-sided. As to reading the preceding post, I had done so prior to my original reply. I have since read the post which began the thread in which your post was originally made, and I continue to offer my arguments and historical support presented in my first post on this thread.

[quote]I have a great love the Tridentine as well as the Novus Ordo. If you doubt this, simply read the majority of my posts. I just don't have any respect for the SSPX or sedevacantists.[/quote]

I am delighted to know you have a great love for the Mass and never doubted it. Whether one should have any respect for the SSPX or sede-vacantists is not pertinent to this thread, so I feel it improper to make a response in that matter.

I should add that the comments made in the thread entitled, [i]Which Mass do you hear?[/i] seemed to indicate something of a debate. If I was incorrect in believing this to be a topic of discussion and--as there is a distinction between the two--naturally, debate, please forgive me. I do believe, however, that, if nothing else, the work I have presented thus far has been candid and scholarly. I do not know if there is a final authority with whom I might speak, but I do believe this to be an important topic, both sides of which ought be presented. If there is someone I should contact to have an authoritative approval or disapproval, please direct me to him.

[Cam42]

We do not debate Catholic v. Catholic here. As I said, I am not interested in debating this topic.

Have a nice day.

[Amator Veritatis]

In that case, I offer my apologies. I had understood that you might be interested in discussing this matter but that you were unsure. I discerned this from your words that you may or may not respond. In any event, I see you have made your decision. I hope you at least had time to consider my arguments. Thank you for your comments.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Cmom posted that this topic is not to be debated yet you insisted on several more replies and long posts. I am closing this topic, kindly do not re-start this debate again. It is not allowed.

[b]
Catholic vs Catholic Debate

A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful.Any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/b]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=boardrules"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=boardrules[/url]