Skip to main content

The Novus Ordo Is Not Responsible For Liberalism In The Church

In fact, if you attend a Mass in the Ordinary Form, it is very likely that it is rife with abuses--yes, abuses--that the Council fathers of Vatican II did not intend. There is no such thing as a "Communion hymn". A hymn after Communion is permitted, but not required. In most of the places where hymns are sung, we're supposed to have antiphons read or chanted. The "Sanctus" just prior to the preface dialogue for the Eucharist is supposed to be in Latin. In fact, most of the faithful's responses can and should be. This is the Novus Ordo. You wouldn't even recognize it, were it done properly.

The bishops had envisioned that what we know now as the Extraordinary Form would grow organically together with the Mass of Paul VI, to produce great spiritual fruit, not this concocted battle between traditionalists and alleged "neo-Catholics." (Many American bishops had already erred in making "TLM" exceedingly hard to celebrate, which again, was never intended by the Council.)

The Church does have wayward children (and theologians!) who used the occasion of the Council to introduce error, which brings about a false sense of "pastoral" sensitivity, and things like altar girls become an allowance, on account of the original error, which is a misunderstanding of what the Council meant by "active participation." It is not a hill I'm going to die on, but it does undermine theologically the sacrificial aspects of the Mass, and in consequence, the awareness of the necessity of the all-male priesthood. Same with lectors. Unless you have an instituted lector, anyone else can be temporarily deputed to fill that role, but they are not lectors. It seems that some use the pastoral provisions for emergencies to introduce an odd egalitarianism, more born of feminism than considered theological reflection.

All that said, many hotbeds of "traditionalist" sentiment are equally lacking in theological care, blaming the Council for what is in reality our own profound lack of conversion. We are foolish to believe that simply returning to "the old ways" either indicates that conversion, or can substitute for it. Yet good liturgy is the God-ordained response to what has been revealed, so we should all be ready to be shaken out of complacency if God asks it of us, even if what is sub-standard has become comfortable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un