I visited a local parish church this morning for the purpose of observation. I wanted to see and hear the new translation, and take note of parishioners’ reactions.
So does this mean it is morally permissible for us to attend "non-Catholic" services for purposes of "observation"?
It is still the same New Mass with its banality, slovenliness and limp vestments. It is still a liturgy that appears to be drained of nobility and genuine reverence. It is still a liturgy that transforms the sanctuary into a high-traffic area of concelebrants, Eucharistic ministers, lay-lectors and music ministry.
While this is true of many NO Masses, the NO Mass can be said with fiddle-backs, incense, ad orientam, altar rails, male only altar servers, no lay readers or EM's, and Gregorian Chant. Thus his beef is with the optional derivations of his local parish and not the Mass of Paul VI itself.
1) “Don’t criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. That way, he won’t hear your criticism from a mile away, and you’ll at least have his shoes.”
2) “The principle ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try again,’ does not apply to sky diving.”
Thanks, Father.
I admit this was pretty funny.
As for the new translation, it is simply a cleaner translation of a Protestantized rite – of the New Mass that was written with the help of six Protestant ministers.
Is there any proof the six Protestant observers had any official decision making role in the Mass?
The Critical Study of the Roman Theologians on the New Mass, otherwise known as the “Ottaviani Intervention”, spotlighted the many deficiencies inherent in the New Mass: Here are some of the defects they noted:
• A new definition of the Mass, as an ‘assembly’ rather than as a sacrifice offered to God;
The CCC and the current NO Missal define the Mass as a sacrifice.
• Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins, a teaching utter rejected by Protestants;
Which elements?
• The reduction of the priest’s role to a position approximating that of a Protestant Minister;
Protestant ministers recite words of consecration and confect the Eucharist?
• Implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation;
Where?
• The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere narrative retelling the story of the Last Supper;
The consecration is a sacramental action, doesn't matter that it is within a narrative.
• The fragmentation of the Church’s unity of belief through the introduction of countless options;
Valid criticism, but doesn't make the Mass evil.
• Ambiguous language and equivocation through the rite which compromises the Church’s doctrine.[2]
There is less precise language but it does not compromise the Church's doctrine at all as it all must be read in a Catholic sense.
• The Study said “It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes ‘supper’ and ‘memorial,’ instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.[3]
How so?
• The Study points out that in the New Mass, “the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed”.[4]
How so?
• The Study accurately noted that the New Mass “has much to gladden the heart of the most modernist Protestant”.[5]
Protestants believe the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is confected at Mass, as the NO says?
Mind you, as I have stressed many times throughout the years, this is a critique of the New Mass in the original Latin – in it’s “purest form” – as it was originally released by Paul VI in 1969.
Wrong! Vennari needs to check his facts as this is easily shown to be false. The study critiqued the experimental version before the '69 Mass was promulgated.
The New Mass – at its best – is not really a Catholic liturgy. It was not made for the worship of God that is His due, but was constructed for the sake of a modernist ecuмenism that is contrary to reason, and that has always been condemned by the Catholic Church.
So a Mass given to us and approved by a Pope and the CDF is not a Catholic liturgy? And Mr. Vennari gets the authority to declare this from where? How does he know why it was constructed? The Mass will always be the worship of God. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to approve a non Catholic Rite.
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini admitted, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”[8]
Why doesn't he ever produce the rest of this docuмent so we can read it in context?
Likewise, Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confident of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that its was the direct aim of the Pope to protestantize the liturgy. In a radio interview in the 1990s, Guitton said:
“The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but was is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord’s supper… there was with Paul VI an ecuмenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too catholic, in the traditional sense, and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[9]
Guitton's opinion.
Topic: The New English Liturgy- A Cleaner Translation of a Protestantized Rite (Read 4236 times)