Karl Keating's E-Letter of August 14, 2007

[Forum Admin]

Karl's E-Letter of August 14, 2007

Topics:

Old Mass And New
Update On Our Forums

==========
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_070814.asp

[stevej]

What does the phrase "The old form contains 1 percent of the Old Testament" mean? I thought the Lectionary and the General Instructions were separate. Do people expect that the Lectionary for the Ordinary and the Extrordinary forms will be merged at some time so that everyone is hearing the same readings every day, or is there some incompatability with the current Lectionary with the Extrordinary Form of the Liturgy
God Bless
Steve

[Brennan Doherty]

Another good E-Letter, thanks.

In regards to the fewer New Testament reading in the old liturgy (and it's a one year instead of a three year cycle) I remember Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote something interesting. He said that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) the scripture in the old liturgy wasn't there just so that people could get a run through of the New Testament. Rather, the purpose of scripture in the liturgy is to help prepare people spiritually for Holy Communion. This makes a lot of sense to me. Plus I think people may end up remembering more scripture when it is gone through in a one year cycle, instead of hearing a section of scripture once in three years.

[contra_mundum]

The statement "The old form closes with the Last Gospel (the opening verses of the Gospel of John) and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. The new form closes with a prayer after Communion, a blessing, and a dismissal." Is at best misleading, at worst untrue. It gives the impression that the prayer after communion blessing and dismissal are absent from the old liturgy, which is simply false, they are all there, its just they have the last gospel after them. The prayer ot St. Michael is not part of the old mass and never was.

The old mass concludes with the post-communion prayer, dismassal blessing and last Gospel. After some masses (note some, not all) the so-called Leonine prayers were/are recited. These prayers include the prayer to St. Micheal but they include other prayers as well and they are not a part of the liturgy and are noramally said in the venacular.

I can understand why Mr. Keating feels the removal of the last gospel (which was a late medieval addition) was wise, but I cant agree. I very much like the fact that the mass ends with an affirmation of the central truth of the incarnation.

As to the Leonine prayers, again I see Mr. Keating's point, but surely, at a time when the church is under such attack from both within and without we need those prayers more than ever.

[contra_mundum]

SteveJ,

One reason that using the New Lectionary together with the Old Liturgy would be problematic would be that the Calanders are different. The most notable difference is that the Old Liturgy has threee seperate seasons (The Season After Advent, Septergesima and The Season After Pentecost) which the new liturgy rolls into the single season of Ordinary Time.

There are specific readings assigned to, for example, the Sundays of the Septegesima season which, in the new Calander, simply get the readings for whicheveer Sunday that happens to be in ordinary time.

[Brennan Doherty]

Originally Posted by contra_mundum

The statement "The old form closes with the Last Gospel (the opening verses of the Gospel of John) and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. The new form closes with a prayer after Communion, a blessing, and a dismissal." Is at best misleading, at worst untrue. It gives the impression that the prayer after communion blessing and dismissal are absent from the old liturgy, which is simply false, they are all there, its just they have the last gospel after them. The prayer ot St. Michael is not part of the old mass and never was.

The old mass concludes with the post-communion prayer, dismassal blessing and last Gospel. After some masses (note some, not all) the so-called Leonine prayers were/are recited. These prayers include the prayer to St. Micheal but they include other prayers as well and they are not a part of the liturgy and are noramally said in the venacular.

I can understand why Mr. Keating feels the removal of the last gospel (which was a late medieval addition) was wise, but I cant agree. I very much like the fact that the mass ends with an affirmation of the central truth of the incarnation.

As to the Leonine prayers, again I see Mr. Keating's point, but surely, at a time when the church is under such attack from both within and without we need those prayers more than ever.

Good points. And have to completely agree with the use of the last gospel. It is magnificent to end the Mass with one of the most sublime portions of Scripture in existence.

And yes, the congregation should probably be staying after Mass and saying the Leonine prayers for about five hours considering the state of the Church nowadays.

[BrianDay]

"The newsletter includes a chart in which the chief differences between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass are summarized. Here are a few points:"

I really dislike the newsletter bulletin points. I think that they only present only a small portion of the differences - like the elimination of the prayers at the foot of the alter.

As far as the three year lectionary cycle including more of the old and new testament - I used to feel that it was a "good thing". However by looking at the Liturgy of the Hours, you can see that the old cycle of Mass readings were tightly integrated with the Liturgy of the Hours. The new cycle breaks that integration. Many readings for Mass now do not correspond to any readings in the LotH.

If the old cycle of readings were enhanced with a "first reading/second reading" instead of just the Epistle; along with alternate readings for certain passages, that would have truly fulfilled the wishes of the Council Fathers.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by BrianDay

"The newsletter includes a chart in which the chief differences between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass are summarized. Here are a few points:"

Is there an online copy of the newsletter? The USCCB website does not make it easy to find if so.

tee

[threadkiller]

Mr. Keating can speak for himself and maybe many of the posters on these forums I presume, if he wishes to concede to our protestant brethren that nowhere in scripture does it mention the Assumption of our Blessed Mother. He might try reading Psalm 132:8 in light of todays reading from Revelation, Specifically verses 11:19- 12:1.

[Bob Rowland]

Belief in the Real Presence in the ordinary Mass: 34%.
Belief in the Real Presence in the extraordinary Mass: 95%.
I believe the ordinary Mass is a dangerous threat to salvation whether caused by the council or what relaxation of discipline allowed the "spirit of Vatican II" to make of it as you so aptly imply was probably not intended by the council. The Novus Ordo dealt a serious blow to the Catholic (Universal) nature of the Church. I believe the prayer to Saint Michael held the Modernism Heresy at bay. When it was dropped, modernism was allowed to infest the sanctuary of the Church as implied by Pope Paul VI. Pope St. Pius V promised the wrath of Saints Peter and Paul if the Tridentine Rite were changed. You mention seven Missals of that Rite, but none of them changed the form of the Mass. The Novus Ordo implies new doctrine that challenges an apparently forgotten stipulation of The Vatican Council of 1870: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles." That seems to put the Novus Ordo outside the control of the Holy Spirit. In spite of that, I have accepted it, but It can never replace the spiritual Tridentine Rite in my affection.

[stevej]

Originally Posted by threadkiller

Mr. Keating can speak for himself and maybe many of the posters on these forums I presume, if he wishes to concede to our protestant brethren that nowhere in scripture does it mention the Assumption of our Blessed Mother. He might try reading Psalm 132:8 in light of todays reading from Revelation, Specifically verses 11:19- 12:1.

From the NAB:
Psalm 132:8 Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.

Rev 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the templd. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

Rev 12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

It seems from these passages the there is excellent evidence for Mary being in heaven, which pretty much all protestants will concede, and I would say good evidence for Mary being the Queen of Heaven, but it really does not offer proof that Mary was Assumed body and soul into heaven. I think it can demean Sacred Tradition to insist that every doctrine must be explicitly shown from Sacred Scripture.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by Bob Rowland

Belief in the Real Presence in the ordinary Mass: 34%.
Belief in the Real Presence in the extraordinary Mass: 95%.

I'd like to see some justification of those data (because I have my suspiscions about them ), or I shall feel free to discount them.


PS.

Originally Posted by tee_eff_em

Is there an online copy of the newsletter? The USCCB website does not make it easy to find if so.

I found it.

tee

[westlch]

Karl is also misleading when he describes the changes Mass in the 1960s as simply the latest version of changes that were happening throughout the centuries following Trent. Indeed, none of those previous changes were seen as revolutionary because they were small and evolutionary, never effecting a wholesale change in the liturgy. In other words, when (say) Blessed John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, the Mass would still remain recognizable to anyone throughout history. Surely no future pope would describe the Mass with that minor change as being a New Mass.

Karl, despite his tremendous contributions in the defense and spread of the Faith, has always had a hard time with the traditionalist movement. I'd hope that with the release of Benedict's motu proprio, he would reexamine his positions on the LM and recognize those areas that the traditionalists were right. Thank goodness the traditionalists stuck to their principles and defended their rights as Catholics, especially during those heady days of the early 1970s when it looked like Catholicism was truly turning itself upside down. Karl usually appreciates, in his writing, such decent and loyal Catholics. I'd love an e-letter in which he does it again, with a focus on the life and contribution of Michael Davies.

[westlch]

Tee - The statistics on belief in the Eucharist is surely correct. See Kenneth C. Jones Index of Leading Catholic Indicators for that and other statistics regarding changes in Catholic practice and belief, comparing pre- and post-conciliar worlds.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by westlch

Tee - The statistics on belief in the Eucharist is surely correct. See Kenneth C. Jones Index of Leading Catholic Indicators for that and other statistics regarding changes in Catholic practice and belief, comparing pre- and post-conciliar worlds.

Sadly I have not that work at hand, nor does my library appear to have a copy. Can you tell me: What populations were surveyed? In particular, regarding "34% believe in the Real Presence":

Is that 34% of self-identified Catholics?

or

34% of Catholics who regularly attend Sunday Mass?


tee