The Beauty of the Norvus Ordo

Much ado has been made by Traditionalists about the words of the Mass; "...and be with your Spirit," "It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins…”


These are more accurate and precise meanings, the traditionalists say. Some infer, that the changes in the Mass led to the corruption of souls.


Much Ado About Nothing?
While it is true that a more precise translation it useful, there is another problem. The Traditionalists argue a more exact translation will make Catholics more Orthodox in their belief. Some even argue they will be more faithful Catholics. However, the statistics do not really bear this out. Mass attendance was at about 45%, in the United States, before Vatican II. Currently it is about 45% (after going above 60% after Vatican II).


In other Countries, Mass attendance has risen, including in Brazil. These Countries have the Novus Ordo (Mass in their native languages).


And Be With Your Spirit
While the new changes say "be with your spirit" the priest himself says "the Lord by with you."  What is the point of "be with your spirit?" Is it to emphasize the primacy of the soul in Salvation?  If this is the case, fine.


Are we also saying to the minister that we do not care about the welfare of his body? This is not fine. I will not belabor this point, however.


For Many
The phrase "will be shed for many, in the Greek ("sozo") can also mean "some" or "all." So the Greek language does not make a big deal about the translation.


It is a more faithful translation to the Latin, but the Greek, in which language we have the New Testament written, makes no such distinction. This seems a bit of a moot point to me.


Sure, be faithful to the Latin. However, know the Greek does not support scrupulosity.


The Beauty of the Novus Ordo
Several major apologists and theologians have been converted by the Novus Ordo Mass, including Scott Hahn. Scott attended a Novus Ordo Mass and saw (through the use of the English language) how the Mass is Scripture from beginning to end. If the Mass was in Latin, this would not have been possible unless Scott was fluent in Latin.


The First Mass
The first mass was in a common language of the Jewish people - Hebrew. First Century Jews in Palestine, celebrated Jewish ceremonies in Hebrew. Thus it is most likely that the first Mass was spoken in Hebrew.  Hebrew was the English of its day in Israel, it was a common tongue.


Now, some traditionalists think that there is a magical power to Latin. I do not say this facetiously, however. They have attributed to Latin almost god-like powers. They say things such as: Ending the latin Mass caused the corruption of the Church, The Church was not ready for the changes, the changes were not natural, etc.


So the changes are now natural?  After 40 years of the Novus Ordo we are to revert back to Latin?


I am sure this is what the traditionalists want.


Disobedience, Disobedience, Disobedience
I have talked to many people, including relatives, who would not attend Mass in the 90s because it was not in latin. Many people have been away from the Catholic Church for decades because of this.  Mel Gibson is a person who is a Latin Mass onlier. As if the words in Latin alone, will save anyone.


This is, in large part, why we have the indult Latin Mass. Because Catholics have their affectations they may put before Christ. It seems sometimes Latin is their God, not the Hebrew-ceremony-performing Christ.


Obedience, Obedience, Obedience
Regardless of the translation, obedience to the current form of the Mass is paramount. Your heart is tested by your obedience. You desire what is good, when you have holiness within you. You desire what is bad, when you have sin dwelling within. Are you obedient, regardless?


Questions for Consideration:

1. Do I put the Latin or English Mass before obedience to the Church and Christ?
2. Do I insist on attending only a Latin Mass and will not attend an English Mass and vice-versa?
3. Do I speak my mind about such things are Canon Law commands? 
4. Can I name five good things about the Novus Ordo (English Mass)?
5. Can I name five good things about the Latin Mass?
6. Can I resign myself to the will of God as manifested in the good of all peoples, before my preferences?
7. Is Christ and his Church first, before all things in my life?

+Blessed by the Lord, in his angels, Novus Ordo Mass, Latin Mass and his Saints.

Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is taken from the times between popes, where the "sede" (chair) is "vacante" (vacant). This means we have no pope. Based on the proported immorality of our times, the Sedes believe that there is no pope, because we have immorality among the hierarchy (bishops). This is an interesting theory, because Christ himself said of the Pharisees, the leaders of the time:

"Do whatever they tell you, but do not imitate them" (Matthew 23:2).

This means we have to obey, although the bishops themselves might not obey their own teaching (i.e. hypocrisy). Regardless of their hypocrisy, Jesus still said to obey them. This means they have authority, regardless of their state of holiness. Why?  Because of office is holy, even if the man occupying it is not.

Not Me, But What I Say
An often statement by hypocrites is "do what I say, not what I do."  This is a true saying, as far as it goes. We are to obey the lawful orders of someone above us, particularly in matters of diocesan discipline and policy, even of they themselves do not obey these orders themselves. Why?  Because we look not to them, but to their office. We look not to the man, but to the man-Christ.  It is his words where are our bond, not the hierarchy.

If you can follow this axiom, you will not be shaken by the faults of popes, bishops and clergy. But you will look elsewhere for examples of sanctity. My bishop does not have to be my spiritual director or confessor, but he is still the shepherd of my diocese, even if he is a horrible one.

Heresy
Sedes also accuse the pope of heresy. This is interesting since the pope determines of what heresy consists. They are much like dogs chasing their tails, when you step back:

"The pope taught heresy, yet the pope determines heresy, yet he taught heresy, but he is the supreme Pontiff."

Excuse me?  They affirm Catholic teaching while denying it? They state the immutability of the Mass, while denying the authority of the pope to determine the rite of the Mass.

They say the Tridentine Mass is immutable, because Pius V said so, but ignore the fact that the first Mass was likely in Hebrew, because it took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover? Well if the Mass has to be in Latin, Jesus violated this by having the first Mass in Hebrew.

The Mass
They say the words "for many" instead of the words "for all" are essential when stating of what the Mass consists. Actually, these words are a "novum" (new way of thinking). Because St. Paul is quite clear:

"Christ died for all..." (2 Cor 5:15).

and...

"[Christ Jesus] who gave himself for the redemption of all" (1 Tim 2:6).

It seems a moot point. The Church can emphasize the actualized redemption (prime justification) of those who are in a state of grace, or emphasize the first action of God (condign merit) in which Christ merited the redemption of all mankind. God brings about prime justification (justificatio prima) in which God is the first cause (prima causa) to move the soul toward justification.

Either presentation is valid. Either wording is valid. The Sedes seem to be splitting hairs in this regard.

Valid Popes
The Sedes also argue against the validity of the election of popes John XXIII and succeeding popes. They state these popes are heretics, therefore cannot be validly elected. The fact is, none of these popes taught heresy. In fact, in order to be a heretic you have to deny a dogma (summed up in the Nicene Creed). So which pope denied the divinity of Christ?

Invalid Arguments
Only a pope can determine who is a heretic. If you do not have a pope, who can determine that someone is a heretic? Church Councils! the Sedes argue. Yet Church Councils in the past have been overridden by popes. So how can you determine heresy without a pope, again?

Indefectibility
The dogma of indefectibility states, in summary, that the Church cannot fail to be a means of salvation to the world. She cannot (as a whole) defect in her mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Individual parts (parishes, dioceses) of the Church may defect, but the Church as a whole can never defect.

Who safeguards us from defection? The Pope.

The pope strengthens his brothers (Luke 22:32), has the power to bind and loosen by himself (Matt 16:18), and mission to feed and tend Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). This means that in order not to defect, we need the pope. If we cannot elect a pope, then we have defected. If John XXIII was not a valid pope, all the cardinals who elected him are dead. Thus, there can never be a valid pope, since there is no one to elect him.

Nice try, Sedes.

In Closing
The real problem is the problem of evil. The problem of evils is stated as, "If there is an all-good God, how can evil exist [in the Church]."  The Sedes have no problem with the defection of Judas and his punishment, but somehow when it comes to the modern Church, there is a different standard.

Judas was an Apostle, and therefore had the authority to teach new Revelation. The pope is not an Apostle, therefore cannot teach new Revelation. Therefore, there is less offense to the failure of a bishop, than that of an Apostle. Even Peter failed in his mission when he denied Jesus three times. So what is the problem?

We will have bishops who fail in their duties, however the Gospel message is still spread. We will have times where heretics plagued the Church, like Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ. However, the Church keeps going on.

Perhaps the Sedes need to learn an old lesson over again:

"Let (weeds and wheat] grow together until harvest, then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters. "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn...if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them" (Matt 13:25 et. al.).

There will always be thistles among the wheat. They will grow together. They will be burned in due time. Do not let the weeds strangle you. If a bishop is not doing what he should, send your donations to Rome. You have to give to the mission of the Church, but the Church does not say in which way you must give.

Make your concerns known to your bishop. But dividing from the Church over non-essential words in the Mass? I think we can be grownups now, and not divide over the non-essentials.

The Essentials of the Mass
The words "This is my body," "This is my blood." Bread and wine. A validly ordained priest. The intention of the priest to confect the Eucharist. Not Latin, not the Tridentine Mass, not English, not the raising of the host (Jesus did not do any of these). None of these are essentials. Not standing, not kneeling (Jesus and his Apostles were reclining, by the way). None of these are essential, thus, none of the Sedes arguments are valid.

Special Note:  I removed ads from my webpage, as Google was feeding in advertisements for Mormons among other non-Catholic denominations. That is kinda weird for a Catholic blog...