Forty years ago on 30 Nov 1969 the Novus Ordo went into force. It was the 1st Sunday of Advent.
I was in my late teens and found my way home from the Woodstock Festival in August. The whole revolutionary force of the 60s was at Woodstock. Revolution was in the air: sex/moral/authority/political/economic/educational/music revolution. I only went because a few friends and I had tickets ($5, I think). I had a horrible time. We were not even close to the stage. It rained all weekend. Everything was sloppy. We walked forever. By way of example: let’s say Our Lady of Victory is where Woodstock was. We parked and walked from Chili Center.
I remember one ripped-up looking hippie was on the side of the road selling orange sunshine. He held it up and hawked it with the words “this will guarantee you to see Jesus”. Because I came from a very ultra conservative, very orthodox Catholic background, I was absolutely shocked. Woodstock was where I heard colors and saw sounds.
But where was the bigger revolution: Woodstock or in the Vatican? Everything that I loved about the Mass was now changing. We changed the Mass and Western Civilization has not been the same since. As another side point, the day President Kennedy was shot in 1963 in Dallas, Texas was also the day the Second Vatican Council passed the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Which of those two events had the most impact on society?
Even though I was only 19 when the Mass changed in 1969, I was suspicious, very suspicious about the change. It flew in the face of what the sisters, priests and my parents taught me about the Catholic faith. But, nevertheless, I believe what they told me and still do to this day. Their major point was this: “in the Church things change and grow organically, never suddenly or overnight’. But now things were starting to change overnight and very fast.
I smelled a rat. A big rat. It seems after all these years since 1969, the truth about what the Council Fathers really had in mind for the Mass was nothing even close to what the Novus Ordo Mass is today. This whole rupture of tradition is a concept very foreign to the Catholic faith. All documents should be interpreted in light of tradition, but all around me I saw darkness. Imagine if we had the internet back then. I even went to Westbury, Long Island to attend Mass by Father Gommar dePauw at the Ave Maria Chapel. Today, praise God for Pope Benedict. He realizes that “you save the liturgy; you save the world”.
Instead of becoming a radical hippie like most of my friends, I totally rebelled and became more conservative and orthodox. This first Sunday of Advent in 1969, the altar was turned around so the priest had his back to the tabernacle and honestly, it looked like he was bartending.
Why am I writing all this dribble? There are two podcasts from Father Zulsdorf’s blog that I think would be worth listening to. They are about the changes in the Mass. Please take a listen to them, if you have the time. I believe Father Z sets the stage perfectly with what was happening in society at the time of the changes.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/11/podcazt-93-40-years-ago-paul-vi-on-the-eve-of-the-novus-ordo/
Tags: Progressive Drivel
|
Yes, what happens in The Church effects the world profoundly because what happens in The Church profoundly determines what happens in the world. Destroying the Liturgy was key. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi". Not just a cute little rhyme.
Why do you think the Revolution's remnant inside The Church trembles with fear and loathing at the Latin Mass being released from bondage? They understand even better than their Novus Ordo children the power of the Holy Mass.
You were graced to know that things were rotten with this "New Mass". Fr. Corapi calls that "hearing The Shepherd's voice". What made you stop listening to Him and start listening to "them"? They lied to you.
I'll leave some thoughts and then, simply out of self-preservation, will have to stay away from these attacks on the Novus Ordo. (Describing the Novus Ordo always and only in worst case scenarios is equivalent to the blatant attacks following this sentence.) In a previous thread, someone said "No one is saying the Novus Ordo is bad." In order to not further escalate the discussion, I refrained from pointing out that a poster had done just that, expressing the opinion that I was "not an authentic Catholic" and "the Novus Ordo was to blame."
Today there's the comment "things were rotten with this 'New Mass'." That certainly sounds to me like generically calling the Novus Ordo bad.
Choir loft, in response to your comment This whole rupture of tradition, I'd suggest you re-read the pope's letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum in which he states: There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (emphasis mine)
on to Part II
I looked for the General Audience because I like to read the document itself before any commentary. Unfortunately, there is no English translation. I'm glad Fr. Z read it so I had some idea of what it said.
I would disagree with your statement that "Father Z sets the stage perfectly with what was happening in society at the time of the changes."
Fr. Z's podcast is a good example of persuasive argument, clearly to make a point. Thirteen minutes of commentary and music precede twelve minutes of the document itself followed by another 7 to 9 minutes of music and commentary: twice as much commentary as actual document.
The "Age of Aquarius" song did reflect secular culture of 1969, but I'd argue that its inclusion supports a different interpretation than Fr. Z makes. Later in the first podcast is a song that sounds like "Gather Us In" which was not sung in 1969 because it wasn't written until 1982.
Choir Loft, your point seems to be that Vatican II caused all the ills of the 1960s. It's a popular view in some circles. But not all orthodox Catholics subscribe to that view. I'd suggest that the causality is reversed.
At any rate, I have neither the time nor the energy to bang my head against the wall with people who are determined to treat Vatican II in terms of worst case scenarios.
clarification of "worst case scenario": always negative about Novus Ordo, I have yet to hear from those making the disparaging comments anything positive about the Novus Ordo.
No one's attacking the Novus Ordo. We're examining improper application and interpretation of the texts of the Second Vatican Council. The Novus Ordo can be done beautifully (Fr. A, Fr. B, Fr. Lioi, etc. ad infinitem).
There was an unbelievable zeal to destroy Tradition after the documents were released. A local priest related to me how, as a seminarian, he visited his home parish. As he was sitting there, on the second week of Advent, 1969, workmen came in with hatchets and literally attacked the high altar. This was not what the Vatican had prescribed.
I hope we can get past this persistent debate – no side is "correct," seeing as how both "sides" are supported by the Vatican. One is called "Ordinary" and the other "Extraordinary." The only point I think Choir is trying to make here is that people took Vatican II way too far, dismantling altars and such.
Mary Kay: Thanks for your comments. Perhaps if we could meet personally we could talk over all this "stuff".
Let me know what you think.
Choir Loft, sometime in mid-December, I'll probably be at the same Mass, so maybe after that Mass.
Gen, you've got to be kidding with "No one's attacking the Novus Ordo."
What part of the following do you not understand?
-things were rotten with this "New Mass".
-Destroying the Liturgy was key.
-you lack the spirituality…That is result of the Novus Ordo.
What you related about the high altar is inexcusably and unacceptably horrible. But that's not universally true about the Novus Ordo. Once again you prove my point about constantly using worst case scenarios.
The only thing "persistent" about this "debate" is the persistent portrayal of the Novus Ordo in disparaging terms. Yes, I know there are priests and bishops who are being obstructive about Summorum Pontificum, but that doesn't mean it's okay to generically drag the Novus Ordo through the mud.
Time and time again we say "not all NO Masses are abused." For goodness sake, almost every other post or comment is giving a nod of the miter to some priest for doing a NO right!
If were were attacking it, we would be more thorough than mere insinuation, Mary Kay. And also, if we hated the NO as much as you think we do, why would we go to such lengths to root out abuses by Nancy DeRycke, Joan Sobala, Bishop Clark, etc. . . ? If we truly hated it, we wouldn't care at all. In fact, we would be happy to see these things happening. But we aren't. We are grievously pained. We would like to remove abuse from the NO's here. (And for goodness sake, before you say "not all are bad," I know that. I went to Mass at St. Anne from time to time under Fr. Lioi. I've been to Mass at St. Thomas the Apostle. I have seen much good here.) I think that you can agree, Mary Kay, that the NO of the Second Vatican Council is not what we see in 95% of our parishes in the United States.
We're not attacking the NO, Mary Kay, we're attacking liturgical abuse within it.
"Silence gives consent." You made a huge thing a while ago that "Silence gives consent."
Given your silence about the following, I can only conclude that you consent to it:
-things were rotten with this "New Mass".
-Destroying the Liturgy was key.
-you lack the spirituality…That is result of the Novus Ordo.
Mary Kay, You Make good points but your anger can color them Liturical abuse must be stopped is everyones goal not whose preference is better.
Now we?re down to Anonymous postings? That?s a step backward.
? your anger can color them?
1.Projecting/attributing anger to me is an attempt at distraction but still does not change that you have not responded to my statement. Other than TD?s ?(doesn?t) excuses the attitude displayed of "We're right; you're wrong; you're not a Catholic" ? other than that, none of you have indicated that ?things were rotten with the New Mass?destroying the liturgy was the key ? that is the result of the Novus Ordo,? none of you have indicated that those quoted phrases are unacceptable.
2. Have you considered how your anger colors your view about discussions on the topic of liturgy? Your statement is pure projection.
Liturical (sic) abuse must be stopped
1. Have I ever said otherwise? Indeed, I can go back and point out several places where I?ve described liturgical abuse for what it is. Again, with only one exception, you folks have not indicated that the anti-Novus Ordo comments were inappropriate and unacceptable.
2. The comments I quoted did not specify liturgical abuse, but referenced the Novus Ordo in a generic way. Therefore, the attack is on the Novus Ordo itself.
is everyones goal not whose preference is better
Where did that come from?
Nice talking with you this morning; now I have to get some errands done.
Mary Kay, what's up with all this hostility? Choir posted a joke and some personal experiences, and you seem to be the only one with serious objections. I'm sorry if you were offended, but I've bitten my tongue (fingers?) on a variety of instances when this bickering has broken out.
Wow. Mary Kay. What's your problem? Can't other people express their opinions? God forbid that someone says that the NO Mass is easily abused!
Ad hominmens are the classic response when one is unable to answer a question or counter an argument.
It's unfortunate that Gen and Huey have proved that true again.
Mary Kay,
You make us want to post anonymous as your tone is such, if you should find us, we would want to run from you. I am annoy. 10:03AM. and this is my second entry on this thred.
OVER & OUT.
P.S. Maybe the folks at latin Mass should pray for MARY KAY. May she find peace and happiness.