P.S. It was a novus ordo mass. How many novus ordo Masses have altar rails? How many have altar boys holding patents under the communicants' chins?
Posted on 06/06/2016 8:31:02 AM PDT by ebb tide
Radicati Editorial: "Thank God We Did Not Obey Those Forcing the New Mass Upon Us"
The New Mass, Source of Pious Naturalism
Editorial: Radicati nella fede, June 2016
Newsletter of the Catholic community of
Vocogno, Diocese of Novara, Italy
Thank God we did not obey.
We are going to shock you, but some provocations are beneficial and useful.
Thank God we did not obey those, who, in order to keep us within “ordinary pastoral care” (while allowing us reluctantly an occasional Traditional Mass) asked us not to be closed to the Council’s New Mass. Thank God we did not obey: we did not cave in to the “political” concern of altering the custody of the faith which is what everyone is doing now out of “a greater obedience.”
We have just celebrated the Feast of Corpus Christi: what meaning would there be in solemnly adoring the Eucharistic Presence of the Lord and not, at the same time, defend the pure Rite of Mass?
We say this for many devout priests and lay faithful, sincerely concerned about the respect due to the Body of the Lord, but not so concerned about the poisoning inside the body of the Church produced by the New Mass.
It’s as if the New Mass has put the Christian populace to sleep within a kind of pious Naturalism. In the Church, Naturalism is the constant forgetting of the supernatural life. Naturalism is the concern for the prevalently human aspects of Christianity, interpreted and judged according to the categories of our times, according to the cultural modes of the moment. Those in the Church who tend towards Naturalism don’t deny Jesus Christ, but neither do they consider His direct power over the entire reality [of things]: it’s as if nothing depends on Him.
How can this be deduced? By the fact that when considering the state of the world, they don’t turn to God for a solution to its evils. They don’t turn to God, but follow the vain talk of the world filled with empty rhetoric.
Let’s give an example: at Fatima Our Lady asked the three little shepherds to pray and offer sacrifices for the end of the war, in this way indicating that the state of the world and nations depends on our obedience to God. Can you imagine a Papal or Episcopal document today being so explicit?: indicating that the return to God, to Jesus Christ, is the solution to all the grave economic, political, moral and spiritual problems in the world? Even priests who privately think that the root of all evils in the world is indeed the sin of men, would be careful about saying this in public, seeing the tremendously naturalistic climate reigning in the Church today: yet the Fatima message is a perfectly faithful echo of all Sacred Scripture.
There are many causes for this disastrous situation but the main one is the reform of the Rite of Holy Mass.
The New Mass - intentionally modern in respect to Tradition – in order to be modern - bent to Naturalism, inaugurating pious Naturalism. To favour this, the image of the Last Supper was given to the Catholic Mass: Jesus in the centre, represented by the priest, and then the assembly, the community of disciples, who listen to Him and are fed by Him. In the Novus Ordo even the most solemnly celebrated Mass gives this image. In the best of cases, it’s the Mass that stops at “Jesus present in the midst of us” . This is why since the Council, the Church has no longer put God at the centre, but man. To man everything is being sacrificed, even the truth of Revelation. To man and his rights everything is being sacrificed, including God.
The New Mass stops at Jesus and this is the problem; it stops at Jesus present among us, but it never touches on the second movement, God’s action in us, which is what counts the most, it being our ascension to God. There is no ascending movement in the Modern Mass. It is in fact, the terrible victory of Protestantism, first impeded by the Council of Trent but which is now practically complete.
The Sacrament isn’t denied, but is horribly distorted: it is no longer intended as Christ’s transforming action in us, but as His consoling presence. The aim of Christ’s action in us, which is to be transformed in Him, has been forgotten. Our transformation in Him is absolutely necessary though, since God the Father is glorified by His Word made man, Jesus Christ, and is not pleased with us if He doesn’t see His Word formed [in us]. “We have become not only Christians, but Christ” says St. Augustine: how many today are near this truth? how many sense the greatness of the work of grace in us? How many understand that this is the work?
Today the Sacrament is reduced to consoling us, the Mass is reduced to Jesus sharing everything with us, and, the demonic temptation is to transform Him into us. For this reason, it is incomprehensible, even to many priests in the Church, that some conditions for receiving the Sacraments exist, all of which are united to the intent of truly wishing to die to self so that Christ is affirmed in us. Today, thanks to the New Mass, everyone believes they have a right to the Sacraments, to be served by Christ, with no intent of serving Him.
The New Mass has favoured Naturalism, even if it’s pious; Christ is affirmed in word, but in action it’s as if He didn’t exist. And this is precisely heretical Protestantism, which doesn’t give credence to the transforming action of grace on our nature.
It is not enough then to celebrate the New Mass with devotion since it’s conceived as the Last Supper and not [the Sacrifice of] Calvary.
Calvary tells you that God sacrificed His only Son so that you might be pulled out of a world of sin, and, transformed in Him by the Grace descending from the Cross, therefore being saved, God willing.
The Last Supper without Calvary tells you that God comes into our midst; consequently you are important, your life and the life of the world is essential, nature is everything, seeing that God has come with His presence to serve it; this is how Naturalism is served, even if in a pious côté.
It truly is the victory of the “purged” Sacrament, initiated by Luther and his companions.
Moreover, the most dangerous among us are the devout Conservatives who think that with a “little touch-up” along traditional lines, this poisoning can be cured. [However]only the Mass of Tradition and not some surrogate saves the integrity of God’s action and makes us aware of it.
It is the duty of the priests and the lay faithful to protect without further delay God’s most precious gift, since time is running out.
Vatican II: Mass Destruction
You might want to check out whether your blanket accusations about Wascally Evangelical practice are even TRUE. Truth must be at the core of good Christian worship anywhere, and good evangelical and biblical practice (cf C. S. Lewis for just one) insists that spiritual transformation is the proof of the faith pudding. You folks are so busy thinking you’re the only ones on heaven’s list that you miss the obvious.
Dominus vobiscum, dude.
;^)
Learn the language before you mock it:
Dominus tecum.
Oops, my bad. You’re right, & I thought I was replying to the Wascally Evangelical. Lo siento mucho.
I’m caught up in the New Mass debate myself & have a real question: is the Tridentine Mass after all the only authentic one? I’ve disliked the Novus Ordo Mass from the first and personally can’t stand the `sign of peace’ as it interrupts the Liturgy.
Peace?
It is not enough then to celebrate the New Mass with devotion since it’s conceived as the Last Supper and not [the Sacrifice of] Calvary.
The author doesn't understand the continuity between the Last Supper and Calvary?
Pax tecum
In Buginini's mass, immediately after the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated, the sheeple sometimes respond, "...until you come again". How does that indicate any semblance of transubstantiation upon the NO's "supper table"?
I am a cradle Catholic (as in, my brother is a Bishop, albeit retired) and I recognize there is but one Christ, one God, one baptism for the remission of sins.
My local church is so bad, I’ve been going to morning prayer and Eucharistic services at a 1928 prayer book Anglican Church, as it is more Catholic than my Catholic church (and lacks the La Raza racist priest and Obama worship of the priest that was thrust upon us).
"Empathizes"? Strange verb choice. The Last Supper and Calvary are two parts of a greater whole. You can't have one without the other.
In Buginini's mass, immediately after the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated, the sheeple sometimes respond, "...until you come again".
Are you saying that a profession of belief in the Second Coming contradicts a belief in Transubstantiation? Both are de fide dogmata of the Catholic faith; if they contradict each other, they contradicted each other all along.
Or to put it another way, in the TLM, the “sheeple” (or the choir, actually) sings “Et iterum venturus est cum gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos” before the consecration. Since the living and the dead aren’t judged a few minutes later at the consecration, are you saying there’s no semblance of transubstantiation in the TLM either?
Please excuse my typo.
And I do know what de fide dogma is. I just don’t think it’s on display in most novus ordo masses.
Nobody sings during the Canon at my TLM Masses.
P.S. It was a novus ordo mass. How many novus ordo Masses have altar rails? How many have altar boys holding patents under the communicants' chins?
I’m not sure the problem described here (a detachment from the transforming power of Christ’s Sacrament) can be, exclusively linked to post-Vatican II celebrations. This disconnect seems more largely related to modernism creeping in to not only the laity but ordinary as well. And I wouldn’t say the source of said modernism is Vatican II per se.
Rather it’s a “liberal” interpretation of the Council’s recommendations. Take for example the Mass itself (the topic of this thread although there are other examples of abuse of the Council’s product). Vatican II never called for what we call the TLM to be replaced. Rather that an alternative Mass be offered as well, to help obtain the overarching goal of the Council which was to open up the Church, make Her more accessible and inviting to the world. Hence, the so-called “novus ordo”’Mass was born.
It is unfortunate that this alternative was taken too far, taken to an extreme, where the more traditional Mass, relatively speaking, was shunned and discarded. The reason this happened though was not because of Vatican II but because of all the priests, nuns and bishops who were the product of the 60’s and early 70’s, to whom anything “traditional” was anathema. This radical humanism is the root cause of all the problems described in the OP not the Council itself.
My main point is that the blame for the disuse of the TLM lies in the same area from which disrespect for and ignorance of the Sacrament is born, which is secularism and modernity.
To blame what is ultimately, a matter of form for the woes that currently infect all of Christendom is short sighted at best. It doesn’t address the root of the problem which is that far too many aren’t as simplistic as need be, which is trusting in not just the transformation via the Sacrament, but daily prayer, acts of charity and reading Sacred Scripture. For such people who regularly engage in all those activities, it really doesn’t matter what kind of Mass they attend, the Sacrament will always be a point of sublime departure from the temporal to the eternal.
For those who don’t exercise spiritually as described above, it doesn’t and won’t matter how many TLM Masses they attend. It’s the receptive heart (”poverty of spirit”) that is required, not how many times we kneel or in what language the Mass is recited.
Do you not think the TLM does encourages "spirituality" and is more receptive to the Sacred Heart than the Novus Ordo?
I cheer it when I see anyone being serious in any communion about worshiping Jesus (which makes me look kind of odd as a Wascally Evangelical but that’s where the blessing is). It’s possible to get so hung up over details of formats that it’s like arguing whether one should get one’s Vitamin D from milk or from sunshine. Either will do it. What does the overall worship achieve, is what we need to ask.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.