Author Topic: Old Mass vs. New Mass (Read 3157 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** April 14, 2015, 06:38:21 AM »

http://www.traditionalmass.org/versus/

Old Mass vs. New Mass
Compare...
Traditional Latin Mass
   With ...
Modern Mass at your parish
Atmosphere of Reverent Worship:
Peaceful, otherworldly atmosphere. Emphasis on individual "lifting his heart & mind to God." Members of congregation direct attention to God, not each other.

   Social, Classroom, Entertainment Atmosphere:
Constant standing, sitting, amplified noise; atmosphere like a public meeting. Emphasis on "instruction." Socializing in church before & after service, and handshaking during.

Profound Reverence for Real Presence:
Sixteen genuflections. The hands of the priest alone touch the consecrated host. Communion given only on tongue.

   Indifference, Irreverence towards Real Presence:
Only three genuflections required. Lay men & women distribute communion. Communion given in hand - a practice protestants introduced to deny Christ's Real Presence.

Fidelity to Catholic Doctrine:
Over the course of a year, presents all facets of Catholic doctrine.

   Systematic Omission of Catholic Doctrines:
New prayers systematically omit references to hell, judgement, punishment for sin, merits of the Saints, the one true Church, the souls of the departed & miracles.

Antiquity:
Bulk of Sunday prayers & their arrangement goes back at least to 300s and 400s AD. Canon essentially the same since St. Ambrose (d. 397).

   Novelty:
Old Sunday prayers omitted or stripped of doctrines, and rearranged in 1960s. Only 17% of old prayers remain. Chunks of ancient Canon are now "optional." The words of consecration, Christ's own words "For you and for many" are changed. Three substitute "Canons" invented & introduced in 1960s, and still more invented later.

Stability:
Everything regulated by precise laws to protect purity of worship and doctrine.

   Constant Change:
Options, options and more options. Individual priests & parish liturgy committees get to pick, drop or invent texts to push what they think people should believe.

Priest is Sacrificer:
Priest faces tabernacle, cross and altar (symbolically toward God). Priest performs all the actions & recites all the prayers of the Mass.    Priest is "President", Actor:
Priest faces people instead of symbolically "toward God." Priest sits off to side. His functions given away to lay men and women.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2015, 08:42:52 AM »

90% of these could be written off as implementation abuses. If, however, a validly-ordained priest were to say the NO Mass using the Canon #1 (almost identical to the Tridentine Canon) using the proper "for many" translation of the words of consecration, I don't see how the New Mass would not be valid.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2015, 11:43:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

90% of these could be written off as implementation abuses. If, however, a validly-ordained priest were to say the NO Mass using the Canon #1 (almost identical to the Tridentine Canon) using the proper "for many" translation of the words of consecration, I don't see how the New Mass would not be valid.

In the New Order, the intention at the Offertory is specifically perverted. In the traditional Mass, the Offertory specifically identifies that what is being offered is the True Victim (Note: That the word "Hostia" in Latin--the thing being offered--is generally translated as "Host". The earliest definition of the English word "Host" is a sacrificial victim. The term later came to be also defined as the circular communion bread). In the New Order, the Offertory specifically identifies the thing being offered is "The work of human hands". The priest, validly ordained or not, is publicly communicating his intention NOT to offer to God the True Victim, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, but mere bread and wine.

The New Order is a Protestant Service. If a validly ordained Catholic priest could, in the New Order service, truly bring about transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then he could also do this using almost any Protestant Last Supper service since these use valid "words" of consecration as well, which is an absurdity!

The New Order Service, by its very nature, changes the priest's intention. He is no longer intending to do as the Church does in the Sacrifice of the Mass by offering the Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is intending to offer bread and wine, the work of human hands, the sacrifice of Cain, to God.

This change, by the way, was the specific intention, according to all sources, of Montini who wanted a service that the Protestants could accept. He got what he wanted. Protestants actually use the New Order Service. My son was in boy scouts for a time and a meeting was held in the hall of a Methodist church. I was sitting in the semi-circular worship space waiting and took a gander at the hymnal, which had three versions of their Last Supper service in it. Needless to say, I was surprised to find, with only a few alterations, the English Novus Ordo. And to eliminate all doubt, the copyright page of the hymnal specifically told me that this section was copyrighted by the ICEL (International Commission of English in the Liturgy, a Conciliar Catholic organization).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2015, 12:00:36 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
90% of these could be written off as implementation abuses. If, however, a validly-ordained priest were to say the NO Mass using the Canon #1 (almost identical to the Tridentine Canon) using the proper "for many" translation of the words of consecration, I don't see how the New Mass would not be valid.

In the New Order, the intention at the Offertory is specifically perverted. In the traditional Mass, the Offertory specifically identifies that what is being offered is the True Victim (Note: That the word "Hostia" in Latin--the thing being offered--is generally translated as "Host". The earliest definition of the English word "Host" is a sacrificial victim. The term later came to be also defined as the circular communion bread). In the New Order, the Offertory specifically identifies the thing being offered is "The work of human hands". The priest, validly ordained or not, is publicly communicating his intention NOT to offer to God the True Victim, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, but mere bread and wine.

Except that BEFORE the consecration you do have bread, the "work of human hands", and the sacrificial intent is absolutely clear and evident in the Roman Canon (Novus Ordo Canon #1).

Quote

The New Order is a Protestant Service. If a validly ordained Catholic priest could, in the New Order service, truly bring about transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then he could also do this using almost any Protestant Last Supper service since these use valid "words" of consecration as well, which is an absurdity!

Last time I checked the Protestant services do not use the Roman Canon or anything like it.

Quote

The New Order Service, by its very nature, changes the priest's intention. He is no longer intending to do as the Church does in the Sacrifice of the Mass by offering the Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is intending to offer bread and wine, the work of human hands, the sacrifice of Cain, to God.

See above regarding the Offertory.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2015, 12:22:00 PM »

Just look at this here:

http://www.latinliturgy.com/OrdinaryFormMassText.pdf

If one uses the Roman Canon it resembles little more than a truncated version of the Tridentine Mass. I'm not talking about any of the Propers now, but just the Common here. Now say this in Latin, face away from the people (the rubrics actually imply that this is the case), have people receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue, eliminate the eucharistic ministers and lay readers, etc., add Gregorian chant. Suddenly it's not a huge stretch from the Tridentine Mass. Yes, the biggest change is in the Offertory, but it's not enough to invalidate the Mass. Eastern Liturgies don't have an offertory that resembles the Tridentine Rite too closely either. But the sacrificial intent is clearly obvious in the Roman Canon.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2015, 01:05:38 PM »

I just read your link. The Eucharistic Prayer #1 is not nearly as clear as you are making it out to be. The intention may be inferred (maybe) but it is not absolute and the intention has already been declared in the Offertory.

And given all of your newly written criteria, you obviously don't live in the real world with the rest of us.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2015, 01:09:42 PM »

Is this where you say the sacrificial intent of the, so-called, Roman Canon of the New Order Service is clearly obvious:

Quote

For them and all who are dear to them we you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them...

I don't think you actually read this. Without the Offertory, the intention is not really identified.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2015, 01:11:24 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I just read your link. The Eucharistic Prayer #1 is not nearly as clear as you are making it out to be. The intention may be inferred (maybe) but it is not absolute and the intention has already been declared in the Offertory.

And given all of your newly written criteria, you obviously don't live in the real world with the rest of us.

Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2015, 01:26:30 PM »

Quote

Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

exactly.

i wonder if people have actually read the things that they object to? it would be an interseting poll to see how many people have read the docuмents of Vatican II, or the N.O. mass texts including the 4 canons before they objected to them or did they object to them because others told them?
we should know what is actually there so our objections are logical

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2015, 01:47:49 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

Quote
Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

exactly.

i wonder if people have actually read the things that they object to? it would be an interseting poll to see how many people have read the docuмents of Vatican II, or the N.O. mass texts including the 4 canons before they objected to them or did they object to them because others told them?
we should know what is actually there so our objections are logical

I have read all the docuмents of V2 several times and all of JP2's encyclicals and the ""C"C"C" several times. I know what new Church teaches and how it operates and the purpose of its existence.

But your question is a good one. Many people regurgitate what other people say on any number of topics without being schooled in the topic itself.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2015, 02:23:47 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have read all the docuмents of V2 several times ...

So what do you consider the chief heresy of Vatican II to be?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2015, 02:25:02 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

Quote
Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

exactly.

i wonder if people have actually read the things that they object to? it would be an interseting poll to see how many people have read the docuмents of Vatican II, or the N.O. mass texts including the 4 canons before they objected to them or did they object to them because others told them?
we should know what is actually there so our objections are logical

Until the past 18 months, I've been guilty of this.

I'm thinking it might be profitable to have a thread entitled "Your Objections to V2 Docuмents", that would act as a compilation of excerpted passages, with commentary on why/how/if they are heretical.

It would be supremely beneficial to this miserably ignorant sinner.

For example, Ladislaus had a great thread going, analyzing V2 docs, and it helped me understand one very critical point much better.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2015, 02:29:29 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: confederate catholic
Quote
Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

exactly.

i wonder if people have actually read the things that they object to? it would be an interseting poll to see how many people have read the docuмents of Vatican II, or the N.O. mass texts including the 4 canons before they objected to them or did they object to them because others told them?
we should know what is actually there so our objections are logical

Until the past 18 months, I've been guilty of this.

I'm thinking it might be profitable to have a thread entitled "Your Objections to V2 Docuмents", that would act as a compilation of excerpted passages, with commentary on why/how/if they are heretical.

It would be supremely beneficial to this miserably ignorant sinner.

For example, Ladislaus had a great thread going, analyzing V2 docs, and it helped me understand one very critical point much better.

It was this one:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Vatican-II-Errors

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2015, 02:57:07 PM »

Thank you Cantarella.
(I forgot that I had it bookmarked)

So, no need for a new thread as I proposed, but it would be beneficial to build upon that thread.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2015, 03:07:58 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: confederate catholic
Quote
Eucharistic Prayer #1 IS THE CANON OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS.

exactly.

i wonder if people have actually read the things that they object to? it would be an interseting poll to see how many people have read the docuмents of Vatican II, or the N.O. mass texts including the 4 canons before they objected to them or did they object to them because others told them?
we should know what is actually there so our objections are logical

Until the past 18 months, I've been guilty of this.

I'm thinking it might be profitable to have a thread entitled "Your Objections to V2 Docuмents", that would act as a compilation of excerpted passages, with commentary on why/how/if they are heretical.

It would be supremely beneficial to this miserably ignorant sinner.

For example, Ladislaus had a great thread going, analyzing V2 docs, and it helped me understand one very critical point much better.

That's why I started that thread. It's very important that we know what we're talking about. I abandoned the thread due to so few people who seemed to care and especially when Nado tried to derail it.

You see, most of us Traditional Catholics (those who weren't cradle Traditional Catholics) got our start simply as a reaction to the current Novus Ordo status quo. I, like many, witnessed the growing liturgical abuses, lack of piety, lack of faith, and downright modernism / heresy being spewed by the Novus Ordites. So our basic sensus fide recoiled against all that and found comfort in the Traditional Mass. I became a Traditional Catholic before I had ever read the docuмents of Vatican II completely (just had seen a few isolated excerpts), before I had received any formal training in scholastic theology and philosophy, without knowing what a reverently-implemented Novus Ordo Mass could look like. If we had just had the NO Mass being celebrated in Latin at my old NO parish with an orthodox and pious priest in charge of the parish, I'm certain that I would still be there.

But the more I learned about the faith, the more I realized the importance of remaining in submission to the Holy See and about the fact that accepting the Magisterium as our interpreter of Tradition, as our proximate rule of faith, are what separate use from Protestants, the more it became obvious that R&R ran contrary to that. As I read older theology manuals, I found out that R&R would be completely alien to pre-Vatican II Catholics. Consequently, I became a sedevacantist for some time. Until I realized the problems inherent in that position. So I backtracked to where I've been for some time, the so-called sede-doubtist position.

So I continue to search and to pray about where the truth lies and where God wants us to be.

But too many people just casually shoot from the hip with accusations of heresy. It's just wrong. Vatican II did not teach clown Masses.

At the end of the day, Vatican II boils down to exactly one thing: EENS and ecclesiology. We know that there can be no salvation outside the Church -- that's dogma. But if Muslims and Hindus and Jєωs and Protestants can be saved, then that must mean they're inside the Church. But that creates a new ecclesiology ... which is exactly the same as Vatican II ecclesiology. Everything in V2 that Traditional Catholics find objectionable is easily reconciled with Tradition and previous Magisterium the SECOND that you say people like that can be saved. I would drop ALL objections to V2 in a split second if I felt that infidels could be saved. I have rolled these arguments over in my mind again and again and again. If I were to adopt LoT's position on EENS and ecclesiology I would ABSOLUTELY BE A SCHISMATIC if I continued to be out of communion with and submission to the Holy See, the Vatican II hierarchy.