Would the reduction of the signs of the Cross over the Victim from 33 to ONE in the entire NOM, be a sacrilege in itself? Isn't this a grave irreverence=sacrilege? To virtually eliminate the signs of the Cross over the Victim?

What about the genuflections? From 16 to 3?

In case you've never read Fr. Wathen's; The Great Sacrilege give it a read, it answers many questions about the new jazz.

There's also Fr. Altenbach's recordings from 1974, well worth listening to.

I have TGS, but I've never read it all. Does it address specifically what I asked?

The Great Sacrilege does not specifically discuss the reduction in the number of signs of the cross in the Novus Ordo, nor does the book specifically discuss the reduction in the number of genuflections.  

These changes may or may not be, by their nature, sacrileges.  After all, the sign of the cross is still used and the priest does still genuflect.  Had the Mass originally contained the numbers of these actions we find in the Novus Ordo there would have been nothing to question.  

The sacrilege is in in reason these changes were made and the way the entire Novus Ordo has been designed to diminish the sacred, reverence for God, respect for the priest, etc., etc., etc.  The sacrilege is also in making the very changes enacted by the Protestant revolutionaries who did so for a variety of very specific theological reasons and pretending that those theological reasons don't exist or, even worse, parroting those reasons while also claiming that nothing has changed in the theology.

It would be very interesting to know the original number of Signs of the Cross and Genuflections, indeed. But that probably isn't possible anymore. Or is it?

Doesn't the priest make the sign of the cross 52 times during Mass?  Where is 33 coming from?

Quote from: Malleus

It would be very interesting to know the original number of Signs of the Cross and Genuflections, indeed. But that probably isn't possible anymore. Or is it?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure genuflecting is optional, if any reverence is purported to be displayed at all, genuflecting was replaced with the "profound bow".

According to the SSPX - but I don't think they totalled all the signs of the cross, only the ones from the Offertory to the Communion of the Priest.............

The Holy Mass is also not a simple celebration of the Memorial of the Lord, but the making present of the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner. It is, therefore, a true offering of sacrifice. It is both the Sacrifice of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Church. The 37 signs of the cross in the traditional rite—from the Offertory to the Communion of the Priest inclusively express clearly the actual content of the rite. In the new rite there remains only one sign of the cross. When Eucharistic Prayer I is used, however, there are two!

I've never heard or read that genuflections are optional, only that if the physical condition of the priest made genuflections impossible he could obtain permission to make some other sign of reverence, i.e., a profound bow.  Perhaps one of the former SSPX seminarians we have on CathInfo can illuminate us.

In many hand missals, the signs of the cross are identified.  I counted more than 37 in the entire Mass, though Stubborn noted the SSPX only counted from the Offertory.  It's easy to count them though I've seen many priests make additional signs of the cross so some may not be identified in the hand missal I used.  Counting genuflections are not as easy as many of them are not specifically identified in hand missals.

Where did the number 33 come from?  The only place I've ever heard this is from Thomas Droleskey.  He used to frequently cite that number as common knowledge.  Then I counted them and found that the true number--easily identified--was 37.  I don't know whether he still claims 33 signs of the cross in the Mass since, for reasons unconnected with this issue, I no longer read his blogs or listen to him.

Doesn't the priest make the sign of the cross 52 times during Mass?  Where is 33 coming from?

Where did the number 33 come from?  The only place I've ever heard this is from Thomas Droleskey.  He used to frequently cite that number as common knowledge.  Then I counted them and found that the true number--easily identified--was 37.  I don't know whether he still claims 33 signs of the cross in the Mass since, for reasons unconnected with this issue, I no longer read his blogs or listen to him.

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

I myself once counted the Signs of the Cross in a 50's or 60's missal at the latest and i think there were more than 33.

Does someone have a pre-V2 missal to settle this? I don't.

But if there actually are more than 33, and the number is in the 50's, that only makes it even worse.

Seriously? From 50+ to 1?

 :shocked:

This is tomorrow's Mass from the 1955 Missal. I count 33 Signs of the Cross, excluding the Last Gospel. Am I overlooking something?

http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/missa.pl

Well, I'll answer my own question: I DID overlook something, namely, that during Lent there's no Gloria, which contains a Sign of the Cross.

NOM, do you mean Novus Ordo Mass?  However you add up things, the Mass is all a sacrilege!

Yes, "Novus Ordo Missae/Mass".