The Excellence of the Latin Novus Ordo
July 15, 2011
Richard Upsher Smith, Jr.
As a convert to Roman Catholicism from old Prayer Book and High Church Anglicanism, I resolved to tolerate the current translation of the Novus Ordo (the Latin Mass as revised after Vatican II) because it was the Church’s, not because it was edifying or beautiful. After recently translating the Ordo Missae for use at Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville, I have become convinced that the Novus Ordo contains much that is beautiful and edifying.
The language of the Novus Ordo is robust, the rhetoric persuasive, and the theology a complement to the “revitalization” of Catholic thought aimed at by the theologians of ressourcement before Vatican II. All this despite the fact that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini’s “euchological pluralism and rubrical flexibility” (his prodigality with forms of prayer and his leniency with liturgical rules), advocated over a supposedly rigid “fixism,” displaced the traditional collects from the Mass, promoted a radically simplified ceremonial that tires the eye and deadens the imagination, and introduced a three-year lectionary that contains too much spread out over too long a period to shape a pious memory effectively.
A paragraph from the Third Preface of the Nativity of the Lord illustrates these points.
Per quem hodie commercium nostrae reparationis effulsit, quia, dum nostra fragilitas a tuo Verbo suscipitur, humana mortalitas non solum in perpetuum transit honorem, sed nos quoque, mirando consortio, reddit aeternos.
Translated:
Through whom flashed forth today the transaction of the healing of our nature, because, when our frailty is received by thy Word, not only does human mortality pass across to everlasting honor, but it also, by a wonderful fellowship, renders us eternal.
The first clause in this passage is particularly striking, as commercium, a commercial term, is a jarring word to apply to our salvation. Effulsit, too, is vigorous, and in combination with commercium—“the transaction flashed forth”—creates an impressive concept for the mind. At the end of the passage, too, the phrase mirando consortio—“by a wonderful fellowship,”—implying as it does a community of goods, reinforces the notion of exchange that gives this passage its vitality.
Nor is the rhetoric of the passage unsophisticated. The placement of humana before its substantive mortalitas makes it slightly emphatic, and anticipates the more emphatic placement of honorem at the end of the clause with its separation from the adjective perpetuum. A dramatic “sandwich effect” is achieved with the wide separation of nos from its adjective aeternos. The phrase nos quoque also displays assonance, internal rhyme, which adds to the vividness of the clause. Further, this passage employs the “cursus,” a set of standard stress-meter clause-endings used in good late-antique and medieval prose. (The clause-endings reparatiónis effúlsit, tránsit honórem, and réddit aetérnos contain the cursus planus or plain ending—a dactyl and a trochee—while the ending Vérbo suscípitur contains a cursus tardus or slow ending—two dactyls.)
As to the theology of this passage, the application of a term from the world of buying and selling to Christ’s restoration of the human race is patristic. St. Augustine, for example, develops the notion vividly in On the Gospel of John 13.14 (translated by John Gibb and James Innes):
But what shall I say, brethren? Let us see plainly what He purchased (emerit). For there He bought (emit), where He paid the price (pretium dedit). Paid it for how much? If He paid it only for Africa, let us be Donatists, and not be called Donatists, but Christians; since Christ bought only Africa: although even here are other than Donatists. But He has not been silent of what He bought in this transaction (in commercio suo). He has made up the account (tabulas): thanks be to God, He has not tricked us. Need there is for that bride to hear, and then to understand to whom she has vowed her virginity.
There, in that psalm where it reads, “They pierced my hands and my feet, they counted all my bones;” wherein the Lord’s passion is most openly declared; the psalm which is read every year on the last week, in the hearing of the whole people, at the approach of Christ’s passion; and this psalm is read both among them and us; there, I say, note, brethren, what He has bought: let the bill of merchandise (tabulae commerciales) be read: hear ye what He bought: “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship in His sight: for the kingdom is His, and He shall rule the nations.”
Such a revitalization of a patristic metaphor fits well with the aims of the ressourcement theologians. As Fr. Henri de Lubac has written, “[T]he renewal of Christian vitality is linked at least partially to a renewed exploration of the periods and of the works where the Christian tradition is expressed with particular intensity.”
These are the elements of the Novus Ordo that ring in my ear and sparkle in my imagination. Moreover, they intrigue and edify my mind. If such passages were few and far between, I would not attempt to justify the ways of the Novus Ordo to frustrated Catholics. However, such passages are found throughout the Latin of the new Mass.
It is reasonable to claim that the Novus Ordo is both beautiful and edifying, despite its novel elements and the banality of its translation. Should the translation that will come into use next Advent be faithful to the Latin and show some literary sensitivity, Catholics will have good reason to rejoice, for delight will be added to the duty of attendance at Mass.
Richard Upsher Smith, Jr. is Professor of Classics and Chairman of the Department of Classics at Franciscan University of Steubenville. His “Vade Mecum,” A Handbook of Terms in Grammar, Rhetoric and Prosody for Readers of Greek and Latin is forthcoming from Bolchazy-Carducci.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.15.2011 | 9:41am
Andrew Haines says:
Dr. Smith: Thanks very much for this unique look into the Mass. It's not often that someone is competent enough to open up theological and linguistic/semantic considerations in the same breath!
7.15.2011 | 12:10pm
Irenaeus says:
Apropos, Martin Mosebach offers some words on the destructive effect of vernacular hymns in the liturgy. Excerpt:
"I am firmly convinced... that vernacular hymns have played perhaps a significant part in the collapse of the liturgy. Just consider what resulted in the flowering of hymns: Luther's Reformation was a singing movement,and the hymn expressed the beliefs of the Reformers. Vernacular hymns replaced the liturgy, as they were designed to do; they were filled with the combative spirit of those dismal times and were meant to fortify the partisans. People singing a catchy melody together at the top of their voices created a sense of community, as all soldiers, clubs, and politicians know. The Catholic Counter-Reformation felt the demagogic power of these hymns. People so enjoyed singing; it was so easy to influence their emotions using pleasing tunes with verse repetition. In the liturgy of the Mass, however, there was no place for hymns. The liturgy has no gaps; it is one single great canticle; where it prescribes silence or the whisper, that is, where the mystery is covered with an acoustic veil,as it were, any hymn would be out of the question. The hymn has a beginning and an end; it is embedded in speech. But the leiturgos of Holy Mass does not actually speak at all; his speaking is a singing, because he has put on the 'new man', because, in the sacred space of the liturgy, he is a companion of angels. In the liturgy, singing is an elevation and transfiguration of speech, and, as such, it is a sign of the transfiguration of the body that awaits those who are risen.
"I am firmly convinced... that vernacular hymns have played perhaps a significant part in the collapse of the liturgy. Just consider what resulted in the flowering of hymns: Luther's Reformation was a singing movement,and the hymn expressed the beliefs of the Reformers. Vernacular hymns replaced the liturgy, as they were designed to do; they were filled with the combative spirit of those dismal times and were meant to fortify the partisans. People singing a catchy melody together at the top of their voices created a sense of community, as all soldiers, clubs, and politicians know. The Catholic Counter-Reformation felt the demagogic power of these hymns. People so enjoyed singing; it was so easy to influence their emotions using pleasing tunes with verse repetition. In the liturgy of the Mass, however, there was no place for hymns. The liturgy has no gaps; it is one single great canticle; where it prescribes silence or the whisper, that is, where the mystery is covered with an acoustic veil,as it were, any hymn would be out of the question. The hymn has a beginning and an end; it is embedded in speech. But the leiturgos of Holy Mass does not actually speak at all; his speaking is a singing, because he has put on the 'new man', because, in the sacred space of the liturgy, he is a companion of angels. In the liturgy, singing is an elevation and transfiguration of speech, and, as such, it is a sign of the transfiguration of the body that awaits those who are risen.
7.15.2011 | 4:27pm
Jerome says:
I agree with much in Mr. Smith's piece. I'm afraid, though, I don't quite see the point of what's becoming a common criticism of the new three-year lectionary in some circles. Yes, if you want to memorize Scripture verbatim, there's probably too much of it there. But if you want to memorize say, the parables and actions of the Lord themselves, the new lectionary is ideal, or at least I find it so! The memory in meditation "automatically" begins to add the different details found in other Evangelists' accounts having heard them the year or two before, or even more often, for daily Mass attenders. Personally, had it been up to me, I would have just augmented the old lectionary with some extra readings and not changed the whole thing (it was one of the most venerable parts of the Roman Rite), but that is quite a separable issue from the actual value of new one.
@Irenaeus. Of course, Mosebach is exaggerating. Venacular singing was used at Mass in Mosebach's native Germany centuries before Luther. Although the practice was not without some controversy, even then, I don't think it necessarily spoiled the Mass as a transfiguration of language for Germans, whose native language was quite far from Latin, unlike, say Italians!
@Irenaeus. Of course, Mosebach is exaggerating. Venacular singing was used at Mass in Mosebach's native Germany centuries before Luther. Although the practice was not without some controversy, even then, I don't think it necessarily spoiled the Mass as a transfiguration of language for Germans, whose native language was quite far from Latin, unlike, say Italians!
7.15.2011 | 6:04pm
Matthew Matuszak says:
Regarding the three-year lectionary: I attend an Eastern rite (Ukrainian Catholic) parish. There's no question that I love the Liturgy and would not want to attend a standard Roman Catholic Mass every Sunday, because the way it is usually celebrated, at least here in the Chicago area, is not spiritually inspiring.
However, I do appreciate the variety of Scripture readings offered by the three-year lectionary. Unfortunately, in the Byzantine rite, most Marian feasts have the same reading. I certainly would welcome some variety.
And I also think it is wonderful that Roman Catholics always hear an Old Testament reading at Mass. Byzantine rite Catholics usually only hear them during Vespers or other non-Eucharistic celebrations. I think, unfortunately, extreme familiarity might breed some "contempt" for Scripture readings heard too often by Byzantine rite Catholics.
However, I do appreciate the variety of Scripture readings offered by the three-year lectionary. Unfortunately, in the Byzantine rite, most Marian feasts have the same reading. I certainly would welcome some variety.
And I also think it is wonderful that Roman Catholics always hear an Old Testament reading at Mass. Byzantine rite Catholics usually only hear them during Vespers or other non-Eucharistic celebrations. I think, unfortunately, extreme familiarity might breed some "contempt" for Scripture readings heard too often by Byzantine rite Catholics.
7.15.2011 | 10:44pm
Gail F says:
I like the 3-year cycle of readings and don't see what there is to complain about. I enjoyed the article but I am curious about the opening, in which the author said he was translating the N.O. "for use" at the church at Steubenville. I thought priests (or others) were not allowed to translate the liturgy themselves for use in a church. Of course, anyone can translate it anytime to read or study it. But liturgical texts have to be approved before use. Is that wrong?
7.16.2011 | 7:55am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
@Iranaeus: Martin Mosebach's ideas on hymnody in the vernacular are just nonsense.
7.16.2011 | 10:44am
Father Anthony Cekada says:
It's all very well to go on about the Latin style of the Mass of Paul VI — I participated in the Latin Novus Ordo, decked out with the full complement of Gregorian chant, daily for two years in the 1970s — but the much touted "ressourcement" in the new rite was a typical modernist bait-and-switch act.
The revisors ruthlessly excised from the texts of the then-existing Missal, as well as from the ancient texts they supposedly "restored," concepts at odds with what they called "the mentality of modern man" — hell, retribution for sin, the evils of heresy, miracles, divine wrath, contempt for earthly things, etc., etc.
In the case of the new Prefaces, the ancient texts were not restored integrally, but "adapted to the modern mentality," said Consilium's Fr. Dumas. For even "the better texts, reproduced in their original form, would have been unbearable, if not defective."
"Ressourcement" did not apply when the ancient sources expressed theological notions at odds with the données of the new — read "modernist" — theology. Restoration had its limits.
If I may be permitted a plug (at least it's on topic!) I document all this in my recent book Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, http://www.philotheapress.com/, which recently garned some praise, by the way, from ICEL director Msgr. Wadsworth: http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2011/07/missal-translation-director-praises-cekadas-book-on-the-mass-of-paul-vi/
The revisors ruthlessly excised from the texts of the then-existing Missal, as well as from the ancient texts they supposedly "restored," concepts at odds with what they called "the mentality of modern man" — hell, retribution for sin, the evils of heresy, miracles, divine wrath, contempt for earthly things, etc., etc.
In the case of the new Prefaces, the ancient texts were not restored integrally, but "adapted to the modern mentality," said Consilium's Fr. Dumas. For even "the better texts, reproduced in their original form, would have been unbearable, if not defective."
"Ressourcement" did not apply when the ancient sources expressed theological notions at odds with the données of the new — read "modernist" — theology. Restoration had its limits.
If I may be permitted a plug (at least it's on topic!) I document all this in my recent book Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, http://www.philotheapress.com/, which recently garned some praise, by the way, from ICEL director Msgr. Wadsworth: http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2011/07/missal-translation-director-praises-cekadas-book-on-the-mass-of-paul-vi/
7.16.2011 | 10:58am
David Werling says:
Catholicism doesn't revolve around the aesthetic; rather, the Catholic aesthetic flows from ars celebrandi and ars orandi fashioned by the deposit of faith.
Poetics alone does not justify the strange theological divergence of the Ordinary Form, which can only be seen by comparing the new Mass in Latin with the Old Mass. These divergences reveal a shift away, in terms of theological emphasis, from the more excellent Traditional Latin Mass.
Dr. Laurin Pristas has already done great work in revealing the rather un-excellent divergence of the novus ordo from the Traditional Latin liturgy. After reading these articles, I seriously doubt Dr. Smith will see this "excellence" of the novus ordo in the same light.
Scroll down to click on the mentioned articles:
http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/
Poetics alone does not justify the strange theological divergence of the Ordinary Form, which can only be seen by comparing the new Mass in Latin with the Old Mass. These divergences reveal a shift away, in terms of theological emphasis, from the more excellent Traditional Latin Mass.
Dr. Laurin Pristas has already done great work in revealing the rather un-excellent divergence of the novus ordo from the Traditional Latin liturgy. After reading these articles, I seriously doubt Dr. Smith will see this "excellence" of the novus ordo in the same light.
Scroll down to click on the mentioned articles:
http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/
7.16.2011 | 11:43am
Jeremy says:
It is nice to find someone who feels such a positive influence from the Novus Ordo. It is supposed of course to be a continuation of the Extraordinary Form, not a "New Mass" but alas, the distortions of years of liturgical abuse and the deliberately deformed translations (at least the English versions) have robbed it of much of its quality and for many of us, put it beyond hope of redemption - no pun intended.
Nevertheless, restored to its intended form with accurate translations, if we must use the vernacular, it will seem much better from Advent.
I disagree about the 3 year cycle: it purports to give the Faithful a better grasp of Holy Writ whilst smothering them with so much, none or little of it goes in and any hope of familiarity disappears. It is one of the many paradoxes of the post Vat II reforms: good intentions, poor results.
Nevertheless, restored to its intended form with accurate translations, if we must use the vernacular, it will seem much better from Advent.
I disagree about the 3 year cycle: it purports to give the Faithful a better grasp of Holy Writ whilst smothering them with so much, none or little of it goes in and any hope of familiarity disappears. It is one of the many paradoxes of the post Vat II reforms: good intentions, poor results.
7.16.2011 | 1:06pm
Jerome says:
@David Werling. I have read the article by Dr. Smith on the collects some time ago. I then went and looked at the Advent collects of the Novus Ordo along with the official sources for the same as published in the special volume of the Notitiae (which I strongly recommend), and did some comparison. By and large the NO seemed faithful to the tradition, and changes were minor. One may like Smith complain about the less Augustinian tone all-in-all but even that's arguably in the eye of the beholder. Smith sounds like prosecuting attorney who takes everything out of context to prove his case. Only concerning the collects of feasts of saint, perhaps, arguably is there any merit to Smith's case so far as I can see. Much ado about very little. If anything the Novus Ordo should be praised for bringing many unjustly neglected old collects back into common use.
7.16.2011 | 2:02pm
Jerome says:
Correction: I meant to say "One may like PRISTAS complain. . ." My apologies for any confusion!
7.16.2011 | 2:22pm
Father Anthony Cekada says:
@Jerome. Your impression that, as regards the collects, the Novus Ordo "seemed faithful to tradition and the changes were minor" is erroneous. Using the 1970 Latin Missal, Bruylants' "Oraisons du Missel Romain," and the Notitiae volume you mention, I catalogued all the changes and omissions. You can find all the references in Chapter 9 of Work of Human Hands, together with my analysis of the themes the revisors intentionally excised.
The old Missal contained 1182 orations. The revisers (I show) dropped 64% of these. Of what remained, they altered OVER HALF. Thus only 17% of the oration from the old Missal made it unaltered into the Missal of Paul VI.
And as for "bringing many unjustly neglected old collects back into common use," the revisers altered many of these as well, because many texts, Bugnini's assistant Braga said, created “difficulty for the psychology of the man who experiences other problems, who has a different way of thinking, and who lives in a different material and disciplinary situation.” (Boy, I'll say!)
So, whether one is trying to construct a "hermeneutic of continuity" between the old and the new Missals, or portraying the Missal of Paul VI as a great restoration of Patristic liturgy, one is, I think, engaged in an exercise in futility.
The old Missal contained 1182 orations. The revisers (I show) dropped 64% of these. Of what remained, they altered OVER HALF. Thus only 17% of the oration from the old Missal made it unaltered into the Missal of Paul VI.
And as for "bringing many unjustly neglected old collects back into common use," the revisers altered many of these as well, because many texts, Bugnini's assistant Braga said, created “difficulty for the psychology of the man who experiences other problems, who has a different way of thinking, and who lives in a different material and disciplinary situation.” (Boy, I'll say!)
So, whether one is trying to construct a "hermeneutic of continuity" between the old and the new Missals, or portraying the Missal of Paul VI as a great restoration of Patristic liturgy, one is, I think, engaged in an exercise in futility.
7.16.2011 | 5:43pm
Jerome says:
@Father Anthony Cekada,
I will take a look at your book. Your numbers surprise me given the work I've done in the Notitiae volume, although I never attempted the particular kind of global calculation you did. Still in principle, unless I'm missing something, the issue should be not whether the N.O. changed this or that, but whether on the whole the N.O. is consonant with the tradition. Even *some* modern adaptation of outward forms may not be a bad thing. To make a analogy to form of Catholic literature only somewhat related to liturgy, not all medieval Hagiography, even if great in its own terms, is effective with someone with an average modern education. Anyway, unless I greatly misunderstand what the Church is asking us to do, the hermeneutic of continuity is officially endorsed under Benedict XVI. To my mind the question is only the scope and kind of continuity that should be defended
I will take a look at your book. Your numbers surprise me given the work I've done in the Notitiae volume, although I never attempted the particular kind of global calculation you did. Still in principle, unless I'm missing something, the issue should be not whether the N.O. changed this or that, but whether on the whole the N.O. is consonant with the tradition. Even *some* modern adaptation of outward forms may not be a bad thing. To make a analogy to form of Catholic literature only somewhat related to liturgy, not all medieval Hagiography, even if great in its own terms, is effective with someone with an average modern education. Anyway, unless I greatly misunderstand what the Church is asking us to do, the hermeneutic of continuity is officially endorsed under Benedict XVI. To my mind the question is only the scope and kind of continuity that should be defended
7.16.2011 | 5:50pm
Nicholas Frankovich says:
What I miss in the Novus Ordo are the references to Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech and, more generally, to sacrifice. The word "sacrificium" occurs twice (in the same prayer-and-response sequence) in the Novus Ordo, twenty times (by my count) in the Tridentine.
In the Tridentine, the uniform direction in which priest and congregation face while the sacrifice is being performed may reinforce the understanding that what is being performed is a sacrifice. The "versus populum" of the Novus Ordo reinforces the understanding that this is a meal. Mass, of course, is both, both Calvary and the Last Supper.
I can understand the inclination to tone down how Mass might function as sacrifice. A disturbing (but disturbing in a good way) sense I have at at the canon of the Tridentine Mass is that the priest is working hard and that any moment now we're going to see blood flying off the altar. Worry not, it really is a bloodless sacrifice after all. But it really is a sacrifice.
If the Novus Ordo represents an effort to make the Mass less scandalous to Wittenberg and Geneva, it does so at the cost of suppressing the Mass's family resemblance to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem. In the end, the Novus Ordo strikes me as Mass scrubbed of most of its Judaic character. It's a loss that no beauty of the Latin language alone can restore.
In the Tridentine, the uniform direction in which priest and congregation face while the sacrifice is being performed may reinforce the understanding that what is being performed is a sacrifice. The "versus populum" of the Novus Ordo reinforces the understanding that this is a meal. Mass, of course, is both, both Calvary and the Last Supper.
I can understand the inclination to tone down how Mass might function as sacrifice. A disturbing (but disturbing in a good way) sense I have at at the canon of the Tridentine Mass is that the priest is working hard and that any moment now we're going to see blood flying off the altar. Worry not, it really is a bloodless sacrifice after all. But it really is a sacrifice.
If the Novus Ordo represents an effort to make the Mass less scandalous to Wittenberg and Geneva, it does so at the cost of suppressing the Mass's family resemblance to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem. In the end, the Novus Ordo strikes me as Mass scrubbed of most of its Judaic character. It's a loss that no beauty of the Latin language alone can restore.
7.17.2011 | 9:58am
Father Anthony Cekada says:
@ Jerome.
"Anyway, unless I greatly misunderstand what the Church is asking us to do, the hermeneutic of continuity is officially endorsed under Benedict XVI. To my mind the question is only the scope and kind of continuity that should be defended."
Well, continuity in the doctrinal content of the orations (say) can either be verified by a comparison of the old and new texts or it can't — e.g., hell is either in 'em or not in 'em; the word anima (soul) is either in the prayers for the dead or not, etc.
If the doctrinal content HAS been altered, one cannot make a credible argument for continuity — and the revisors were clear in saying they had to alter "not only form, but the doctrinal reality." (Braga)
"Anyway, unless I greatly misunderstand what the Church is asking us to do, the hermeneutic of continuity is officially endorsed under Benedict XVI. To my mind the question is only the scope and kind of continuity that should be defended."
Well, continuity in the doctrinal content of the orations (say) can either be verified by a comparison of the old and new texts or it can't — e.g., hell is either in 'em or not in 'em; the word anima (soul) is either in the prayers for the dead or not, etc.
If the doctrinal content HAS been altered, one cannot make a credible argument for continuity — and the revisors were clear in saying they had to alter "not only form, but the doctrinal reality." (Braga)
7.17.2011 | 1:35pm
David Werling says:
"To make a analogy to form of Catholic literature only somewhat related to liturgy, not all medieval Hagiography, even if great in its own terms, is effective with someone with an average modern education."
This really is the root of the problem. The assumption is that "average modern education" is in some way better than Tradition and traditional modes of expression. Either what was believed before is true or false. If it is true, then the "average modern education" is wrong to reject it.
If, on the other hand, it is false, what then stops us from questioning even those dogmas defined at the time? Nothing. The whole of Tradition, and Scripture, is subjected to modernity, and we judge even Our Blessed Lord by the prism that is modern man's creation. This is, of course, the heresy of Modernism in a nutshell, and its appearance here only demonstrates how ensconced Modernism now is in the thinking of modern Catholics. (One can only point to the changes in the 20th Century Church, the novus ordo being the most visible and experienced, as the root cause of this crisis.)
There's certainly nothing wrong liturgical adaptations. It has happened and continued to happen in the Western Rite right up to 1969 when it came to an abrupt stop with the promulgation of the ever changing, amorphous novus ordo. The difference between these adaptations and the ever changing liturgical quagmire with which the modern Church has been saddled is that previously the adaptations sought to clarify and make more spiritually impelling the truths of the faiths, such as the development of the feasts of the Sacred Trinity, Sacred Heart, Holy Family, etc.
Today liturgical "adaptations" seek to morph the truths of Tradition to fit the sensibilities of modern man, and those sensibilities are not considered in their own right as being good or bad. They are just the sensibilities of modern man which must be served. Rarely is it considered that the sensibilities of modern man are distorted or evil or in need of being corrected or sanctified.
Lastly, it should be clarified that the Holy Father has called not for a "hermeneutic of continuity", but, rather, for a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity". The previous hermeneutic of rupture has many manifestations, and we should not put outside of the realm of possibility this hermeneutic of rupture included, in whole, the entire novus ordo Missæ project. Perhaps the new hermeneutic of reform in continuity will lead us to the conclusion that the novus ordo Missæ needs be eventually abrogated. In short, the traditionalists critique should not be dismissed out of hand as outside of what the pope has asked.
This really is the root of the problem. The assumption is that "average modern education" is in some way better than Tradition and traditional modes of expression. Either what was believed before is true or false. If it is true, then the "average modern education" is wrong to reject it.
If, on the other hand, it is false, what then stops us from questioning even those dogmas defined at the time? Nothing. The whole of Tradition, and Scripture, is subjected to modernity, and we judge even Our Blessed Lord by the prism that is modern man's creation. This is, of course, the heresy of Modernism in a nutshell, and its appearance here only demonstrates how ensconced Modernism now is in the thinking of modern Catholics. (One can only point to the changes in the 20th Century Church, the novus ordo being the most visible and experienced, as the root cause of this crisis.)
There's certainly nothing wrong liturgical adaptations. It has happened and continued to happen in the Western Rite right up to 1969 when it came to an abrupt stop with the promulgation of the ever changing, amorphous novus ordo. The difference between these adaptations and the ever changing liturgical quagmire with which the modern Church has been saddled is that previously the adaptations sought to clarify and make more spiritually impelling the truths of the faiths, such as the development of the feasts of the Sacred Trinity, Sacred Heart, Holy Family, etc.
Today liturgical "adaptations" seek to morph the truths of Tradition to fit the sensibilities of modern man, and those sensibilities are not considered in their own right as being good or bad. They are just the sensibilities of modern man which must be served. Rarely is it considered that the sensibilities of modern man are distorted or evil or in need of being corrected or sanctified.
Lastly, it should be clarified that the Holy Father has called not for a "hermeneutic of continuity", but, rather, for a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity". The previous hermeneutic of rupture has many manifestations, and we should not put outside of the realm of possibility this hermeneutic of rupture included, in whole, the entire novus ordo Missæ project. Perhaps the new hermeneutic of reform in continuity will lead us to the conclusion that the novus ordo Missæ needs be eventually abrogated. In short, the traditionalists critique should not be dismissed out of hand as outside of what the pope has asked.
7.17.2011 | 6:23pm
Jerome says:
@Father Anthony Cekada
I don't necessarily disagree that traditional wordings in the orations in the Novus Ordo couldn't be brought back verbatim, by the way in a future typical edition. Few would notice, actually, I think. The Novus Ordo orations and readings still have the danger of hell in them quite often to my ear, just somewhat more implicitly and gently so. Whether this implicitness is really a good thing or not for people of our day strikes as a less-than-clear proposition. But that doesn't therefore make the Novus Ordo bad, per se. Earlier in my life when I was not so much living up to snuff, I got the point about hell quite well, more or less from just the Novus Ordo Mass, since at that time I did no other outside spiritual or doctrinal reading (none that was any good, at any rate).
@David Werling. I don't deny the Church could theoretically abrogate the Novus Ordo, but if that's what Benedict XVI wants, he picks a strange way of showing it, doing only the Novus Ordo in his public masses! I did not say, by the way, that the modern mentality was better (apart from science, building a larger scale society, and few other "worldly" things like that), just that it is *different* in some ways that deserve careful attention. Surely, it is unwise for those serious about mission, including mission in formerly Christian countries to forget the mentality of the audience! The great missionaries and patrons of mission from St. Gregory the Great on did not. Arguably, some of the later second millenium developments of the Roman Mass, including elaboration of ceremonial and more silence came from the missionary needs and culture of Barbarian (or imperfectly Romanized) peoples of Northern Europe.
In re of medieval hagiography, no prudent person, it seems to me, would give an average engineer who was perhaps weak in faith, but interested in learning more about sanctity the Golden Legend. Rather it would do much better to direct him to doctrinally solid lives of saints by modern authors. That doesn't mean the Golden Legend is bad, just that it takes a scholar (or guidance thereby) to really understand the spirit and mode of representation of reality used by that kind of work. Either that, or a very simple soul, who could respond to it directly!
Thank you both for a more-profitable-than-usual discussion of these matters!
I don't necessarily disagree that traditional wordings in the orations in the Novus Ordo couldn't be brought back verbatim, by the way in a future typical edition. Few would notice, actually, I think. The Novus Ordo orations and readings still have the danger of hell in them quite often to my ear, just somewhat more implicitly and gently so. Whether this implicitness is really a good thing or not for people of our day strikes as a less-than-clear proposition. But that doesn't therefore make the Novus Ordo bad, per se. Earlier in my life when I was not so much living up to snuff, I got the point about hell quite well, more or less from just the Novus Ordo Mass, since at that time I did no other outside spiritual or doctrinal reading (none that was any good, at any rate).
@David Werling. I don't deny the Church could theoretically abrogate the Novus Ordo, but if that's what Benedict XVI wants, he picks a strange way of showing it, doing only the Novus Ordo in his public masses! I did not say, by the way, that the modern mentality was better (apart from science, building a larger scale society, and few other "worldly" things like that), just that it is *different* in some ways that deserve careful attention. Surely, it is unwise for those serious about mission, including mission in formerly Christian countries to forget the mentality of the audience! The great missionaries and patrons of mission from St. Gregory the Great on did not. Arguably, some of the later second millenium developments of the Roman Mass, including elaboration of ceremonial and more silence came from the missionary needs and culture of Barbarian (or imperfectly Romanized) peoples of Northern Europe.
In re of medieval hagiography, no prudent person, it seems to me, would give an average engineer who was perhaps weak in faith, but interested in learning more about sanctity the Golden Legend. Rather it would do much better to direct him to doctrinally solid lives of saints by modern authors. That doesn't mean the Golden Legend is bad, just that it takes a scholar (or guidance thereby) to really understand the spirit and mode of representation of reality used by that kind of work. Either that, or a very simple soul, who could respond to it directly!
Thank you both for a more-profitable-than-usual discussion of these matters!
7.17.2011 | 10:50pm
Father Anthony Cekada says:
@ Nicholas Frankovich
I would be remiss if I didn't compliment you on the second last paragraph of your 7/16 post. It was like something out of Gihr or Benson!!
And thank you all for an interesting and profitable exchange
I would be remiss if I didn't compliment you on the second last paragraph of your 7/16 post. It was like something out of Gihr or Benson!!
And thank you all for an interesting and profitable exchange
8.14.2011 | 5:37pm
Margo Attia says:
If the doctrinal content HAS been altered, one cannot make a credible argument for continuity and the revisors were clear in saying they had to alter "not only form, but the doctrinal reality." (Braga) If the Novus Ordo represents an effort to make the Mass less scandalous to Wittenberg and Geneva, it does so at the cost of suppressing the Mass's family resemblance to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem. In the end, the Novus Ordo strikes me as Mass scrubbed of most of its Judaic character. It's a loss that no beauty of the Latin language alone can restore.
10.25.2011 | 4:31pm
Robert S. Salazar says:
Some questions as I am bit confused:
Why would Prof. Smith need to translate the Ordo Missae for use at Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville?
Was not the revised and improved translation already approved by USCCB and the Vatican?
Why would a different translation be needed at Steubenville?
Why would Prof. Smith need to translate the Ordo Missae for use at Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville?
Was not the revised and improved translation already approved by USCCB and the Vatican?
Why would a different translation be needed at Steubenville?
One is very tempted based on the English translation we've been saddled with for a few decades to say what this post begins with. It's prayer with all the mojo taken away, and a bland gelatinous mass left behind. Even some doctrines are rendered precariously thin in the current translation. Let us embrace the "restoration", while remembering that, irrespective of what is said in the mass, the main event never changes: Jesus arrives, body, blood, soul and divinity.