SUNDAY
May 16, 2004
vol 15, no. 135

Increasing Our Awareness of the Differences
    A Comparison of the Propers of the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo

    by Kevin M. Tierney

      Editor's Note: This series on the Propers of the Mass features the apologetics of Kevin M. Tierney. Helping Kevin launch this project was Jacob Michael, but now that it is up and running Jacob, with a heavier work-load and more in demand on other necessary projects, has turned it over to Kevin full-time. We are confident Kevin will do an excellent job in this special feature simply called "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" which, of course, translated means roughly how one prays is how one believes. As you can see the differences between the two are as clear as black and white. One, the Latin Mass is full and reverent, the Novus Ordo sterile and bland. It needs innovation and novelty to spice things up. The Latin Mass merely depends on the Divine. This series will compare the Propers of the synthetic Novus Ordo with the absolute Propers of the Traditional Latin Mass to show all that the NOM comes up far, far inferior, if not worse. Many might place the blame on the venom of the vernacular, but we all know what vipers injected this poison. It must be sucked out and spit out forever. Hopefully this series will give readers motivation to expedite that process in the counter-revolution dedicated to taking back the Mystical Body of Christ for Christ! We continue in the Season of Paschaltide:

Editor's Note: For the FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER EASTER Mass see "Vocem"

FIFTH SUNDAY AFTER EASTER
vs.
NOVUS ORDO SIXTH SUNDAY OF EASTER

    Today, the Novus Ordo Opening Prayer asks God to help us better celebrate Christ's Resurrection. This is altogether a good goal. The liturgy is the teacher and schoolmaster of the faithful, so we can better celebrate Christ's Resurrection, if we focus upon a liturgy that emphasizes the Resurrection, and what its fruits entail. With this in mind, we shall see which liturgy better emphasizes these fruits through its prayers.

    As is the custom in this series, The Traditional Mass will be marked by TM and both in Latin (in blue type) and English (in black type), the Novus Ordo Missae by NOM and in maroon type, as in marooned by synthetic novelty) Since this week the Introits for both liturgies are the same, so we shall start with the Collects.

COLLECT


Deus, a quo bona cuncta procédunt, largíre supplícibus tuis: ut cogitémus, te inspiránte, quæ recta sunt, et, te gubernánte, eádem faciamus. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus,
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.

O God, from Whom all good things do come, grant unto us, Thy suppliant people, that by Thine inspiration, we may think what is right, and under Thy guidance perform the same. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who livest and reignest with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God
Forever and ever.
R.Amen.

    Ever-living God, help us to celebrate our joy in the resurrection of the Lord and to express in our lives the love we celebrate. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. (NOM, Collect)

   As redundant as this is, we must continue to point out the ambiguity of the Novus Ordo, versus the precision of the Traditional Proper. What is "our joy in the Resurrection of the Lord?" The prayer doesn't tell us. The Traditional Rite takes a far different tone. It continues the call it gave last week, to help us to do good, and with the assistance of God's grace, to carry out our firm resolves, once again, reinforcing the call to be holy, something we don't really hear about in the Novus Ordo Propers. While they take two different tones, one is far more precise in defining terms, where the Novus Ordo just leaves the door open to just about anything. Such is the banality that we have become accustomed to seeing in examining these Propers.

EPISTLE:   James 1: 22-27


Léctio Epístolæ beati Jacóbi Apóstoli. Carissimi, estóte factóres verbi, et non auditóres tantum, falléntes vosmetípsos. Quia si quis audítor est verbi, et non factor, hic comparábitur viro consideránti vultum nativitátis sua in spéculo: considerávit enim se, et ábiit, et statim oblítus est qualis fúerit Qui autem perspéxerit in legem perféctam libertátis, et permánserit in ea, non audítor obliviósus factus, sed factor óperis: hic beátus in facto suo erit. Si quis autem putat se religiósum esse, non refrænans linguam suam, sed sedúcens cor suum, hujus vana est relígio. Relígio munda, et immaculáta apud Deum et Patrem, hæc est: Visitare pupíllos et víduas in tribulatióne eórum, et immaculátum se custodíre ab hoc sæculo.
Deo Gratias.

Lesson from the first Epistle of Blessed James the Apostle. Dearly beloved, Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves, For if a man be a hearer of the word and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass: for he beheld himself and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty and hath continued therein. not becoming a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work: this man shall be blessed in his deed, And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation, and to keep one's self unspotted from this world.
Thanks be to God.

    Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved." Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.

    The apostles and elders, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them:

    "The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 'It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'" (First Reading, Acts 15:1-2, 22-29)

    There are two points I would like to make. First is one has to wonder exactly what this has to do with the Opening Prayer. The answer is nothing. In order to better understand a liturgy, the liturgy should have a consistent theme, so the people can draw more richly off those prayers. This occurs in the Traditional Epistle, as the selection from James tells us to be hearers of the word and doers. It constantly exhorts us to do that which is good, the exact same thing we heard in the Collect. Does the Novus Ordo do this? Does the observing of the 4 Noachite Laws help us to better celebrate our joy in the Resurrection?

    Yet as always with the Novus Ordo, it is not what it says, but what it doesn't say that tends to be the most interesting in her choosing of Scriptural readings. For some odd reason, we go from verse 2, to verse 22 without skipping a beat. While the Novus Ordo tells it's faithful that the reading is from Acts, they do not give verse numbers. Those people listening would just as well think that they are hearing a consistent reading of Acts 15. What are the verses that are omitted? Allow me to reproduce them.

    They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law." The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made His choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, Who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as He did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith He purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned Himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for His name. The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written: 'After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom My name is invoked. Thus says the Lord Who accomplishes these things, known from of old.' It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Acts 15:3-21, emphasis mine)

    One wonders what is wrong with this passage, that it deserves omission. This is one of the most monumental moments in Scripture, where the Council of Jerusalem is convoked. We see the Church gathering to give a binding decree, settling a debate, Peter arising making an infallible dogmatic declaration, ok wait a minute, maybe we do know why it was omitted after all. In all seriousness though my dear readers, the emphasis of these verses omitted is that there is not two ways of salvation, one for Jews, and one for Gentiles, but that there has always been one way of salvation. It was never circumcision that saved anyone. The New Covenant is the covenant for everyone, if one is saved; it is through the New Covenant. The Old way is not salvific for anyone, because it technically never was salvific. Salvation always came through faith in God, never through law. By stating they must be circumcised to be saved, as those people were doing, Peter stated they were placing a yoke on Gentiles that was never on us. Therefore, circumcision was no longer necessary to enter the Covenant with God, for that had been set aside, as it was now God's grace regenerating us in baptism that made us members of the Covenant. For the modern church to admit this and emphasize this to the 'people of God' would destroy the whole ecumaniacal agenda that has evolved to no proselytizing the true Faith in Russia, letting the Jews think their wait for the Messiah has not been in vain, and congratulating pagan religions on their fruits and blessings, all direct contradictions to the Gospels!

    For the Second Reading in the NOM rite for this Sunday, we come to Revelation 21:10-14, which is a Protestant reference whereas Catholics have always considered it what it should be: the Apocalypse of St. John. Anyway, the NOM skips 15 through 21, and then reads verses 22 and 23. What is omitted? Again allow me to enlighten you.

    He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. It gleamed with the splendor of God. Its radiance was like that of a precious stone, like jasper, clear as crystal. It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, (the names) of the twelve tribes of the Israelites. There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west. The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The one who spoke to me held a gold measuring rod to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. The city was square, its length the same as (also) its width. He measured the city with the rod and found it fifteen hundred miles in length and width and height. He also measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits according to the standard unit of measurement the angel used. The wall was constructed of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass. The foundations of the city wall were decorated with every precious stone; the first course of stones was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh hyacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made from a single pearl; and the street of the city was of pure gold, transparent as glass. I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God almighty and the Lamb. The city had no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light, and its lamp was the Lamb. (Apocalypse 21:10-23, in bold are the verses the Novus Ordo omits.)

    The Omission is that which describes the heavenly city. Popular in the past 40 years has been the concept of "The Church of the Poor" where the Church strips herself of all her grandeur, especially in her buildings. Traditionally, these elaborate, gorgeous buildings were not adorned with Gold simply because we had some extra gold lying around because the Vatican was filthy rich. No, they were exquisite because they were the house of God. If what we see in Church is a foretaste of life in the Heavenly city, in today's devastated vineyard, where anything beautiful is normally decried as "too triumphant" and "a sign of life before Vatican II", that obviously has to go. What is most interesting is the fact that the Lectionary, whenever it omits something, there is clearly a purpose behind it, it is not "useless repetition" that required the omission, as Sacrosanctum Concillium stated, once again proving that the Novus Ordo is not the Product of even Vatican II, but a new rite in and of itself.

    There is really not much to comment on for the Respective Gospels in each liturgy, the Novus Ordo using John 14:23-29 with the Traditional Liturgy utilizing John 16: 23-30. About the only point that could be made has already been made that of the consistency and the coherent flow of the prayers and the readings the Novus Ordo lacks. One - the Traditional Liturgy - was divinely instituted and formulated meticulously, ceremoniously and reverently with a purpose and adopted by holy men and tested and proven true by its fruits over the centuries; the other - the Novus Ordo was a synthetic concoction purposely invented to supplant the True Mass, to strip Christ's Mystical Bride - Holy Mother Church - of her garment of grace, and what has happened in the last 40 years is akin, dear readers, to rape! We can see this each Sunday when comparing the new-fangled liturgy with the tried and true. Let us now move on to the Offertory/Secret Prayers.

OFFERTORY:    Psalm 65: 8, 9, 26


Benedícite, gentes, Dóminum Deum nostrum, of obaudíte vocem laudis ejus: qui pósuit ánimam meam ad vitam, et non dedit commovéri pedes meos. Benedíctus Dóminus, qui non amóvit deprecatiónem meam, et misericórdiam suam a me, alleluia.

O bless the Lord our God, ye peoples, and make the voice of His praise to be heard: Who hath set my soul to live, and hath not suffered my feet to be moved. Blessed be the Lord, who hath not turned away my prayer, nor His mercy from me, alleluia.

SECRET


Súscipe, Dómine, fidélium preces cum oblatiónibus hostiárum: ut per hæc piæ devotiónis offícia, ad cæléstem glóriam transeámus. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium Tuum, Qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus,
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.

Accept, O Lord, the prayers of Thy faithful, together with the gifts they offer: that by these offices of loving devotion we may enter into heavenly glory. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God
Forever and ever.
R.Amen.

    Lord, accept our prayers and offerings. Make us worthy of your sacraments of love by granting us your forgiveness. We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord. Amen. (NOM, Prayer over the Gifts)

    We must give credit to where credit is due. The Novus Ordo almost gets close to speaking of propitiation for once. Yet let's not get ahead of ourselves. What the Traditional Mass called "The Sacred Victim", the Novus Ordo calls "offerings." It's our prayers and offerings. Therefore, our money we give in the collection plate could make us worthy of God's sacrament of love and forgiveness of sins, rather than Christ, Whom the priest offers to the Father for us. It seems to equivocate the two, as if there's no real difference. Furthermore, the Secret, after stating we are offering the Divine Victim, not just any ordinary offering (which is possible to think in the Novus Ordo), furthermore talks about devout fervor in God's service so we may win the glories of Heaven, the distinctly Catholic thinking on the treasury of merit right there. Again, there really is no credit due because the precision of Catholic truth becomes sacrificed on the Altar (I mean table) of ecumenism.

    We now move on to the Postcommunion in comparing the two you'll see ambiguity once again resurfacing in the NOM.

POSTCOMMUNION


Tríbue nobis, Dómine, cæléstis mense virtúte satiátis, et desideráre quæ recta sunt, et desideráta percípere. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus,
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.

Grant to us, O Lord, that filled with strength from this Heavenly table, we may both desire what is right, and obtain that which we desire. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God
For ever and ever.
R. Amen.

    Almighty and ever-living Lord, you restored us to life by raising Christ from death. Strengthen us by this Easter sacrament; may we feel its saving power in our daily life. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen. (NOM, Postcommunion)

    What is the "saving power in our daily life"? The Novus Ordo doesn't say. The Traditional Mass tells us what it is, that we end up desiring only the things that God desires, we conform our will to His will. The Novus Ordo again, in one of those rare occurrences when the planets are aligned, speaks of what we receive in Mass on Sunday carrying over into our everyday life, but again, it does not escape ambiguity, whereas the Traditional Rite gives clarity. If one wishes to worship in ambiguity that is their choice. We however make the decision that the faithful from the time of St. Peter through Pope Pius XII have made: to worship in spirit and truth, that precision best being exemplified in the Rite of Tradition.



    May 16, 2004
    vol 15, no. 135
    Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi