The Future Of The Novus Ordo

No video, for this time…

Read on Rorate the report of a pseudo mass in a pseudo catholic (small c is de rigueur) church in the once to 40% Catholic (now 1% mass attendance) Netherlands.

What is most shocking of this event is not only that the group is not formally excommunicated (as far as I know, they do not have to be), but the fact that in the Netherlands things are so confused that, say, an uninstructed person confusedly trying to approach the Church might confuse these clowns for real Catholics, and one wonders how very different the Catholic mass must be, at least in places.

The Netherlands have a long tradition of schismatic mentality, when not outright schism. If you have read iota unum you will certainly remember the pages devoted to the Dutch Schism, and have an idea of whose spiritual sons the current Dutch bishops are. The mess of the Sixties continues to go on, in a somewhat milder form, to this day. After my experiences in Bruges, I do not doubt over there in the Netherlands you can find everything from the halfway reverent to the outright sacrilegious. I do not see much improvement in the next years, particularly with the disgraceful papacy with which we all are being very obviously punished.

Rorate also mentions another interesting fact: the tendency to move the Novus Ordo towards the “right” by some Anglo-Saxon priests trying to mix elements of the Tradition in their Novus Ordo masses. I have myself assisted to a Novus Ordo Mass which, whilst advertised as a standard mass in English, had so many parts in Latin you could not avoid thinking the celebrating priest was paving the ground for the Traditional Mass, biding his time until he could do without incurring the wrath of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. He’ll have to arm himself with patience, I am afraid.

Still, the freedoms allowed to a Novus Ordo celebrant – both the licit ones that are allowed, and the illicit ones that are made possible – will continue to make of a Novus Ordo an unknown entity and a known risk: in some places it will be very reverent; elsewhere it will a mess, a disgrace, a desecration or, in the worst cases, a fake; in all cases, it will be vastly inferior to the Mass of the Ages.

At some point in the future, the Church will recover sanity, and will ditch the Novus Ordo. The future generations will, methinks, consider the introduction of the new Mass (I mean the introduction itself, not the abuses; then the abuses are nothing else than the unavoidable product of the mentality that gave us the new Mass in the first place) the maddest thing the mad Sixties produced.

Unfortunately, the Sixties are, for now, still full in power, joyously driving the barque towards the shoals amidst stupid old bishops jumping around like demented idiots to the tune of some very faggoty dance master.



Posted on August 13, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. The New Mass imposed upon us by the execrable Paul VI destroyed Unity and created catholic congregationalism with the results you write about.

    It is an error to call it the Bugnini Mass for the Bug Man was but Pope Paul’s Bag Boy who handed him the ecumenical clubs that the crummy Pope used to beat Tradition into dust.

  2. This is why I consider arguments regarding the status of SSPX puerile, especially when there is repeated, ‘parrot-fashion’, the SSPX clergy lack ‘faculties’.

    In the Scottish Borders there was a refurbished Non-Conformist chapel, acquired by the Galloway Diocese, where there was no altar. There were three expensive tables placed together around which the congregation sat,

    In Somerset, a church I attended had the parish priest and his deacons all criticising the then pope and Magisterium, perhaps Francis might be to their liking.

    From one end of the country to the other, there is no knowing what you will meet.

  3. This one is for the “you can’t make this up” file. I got family living outside of Warsaw Poland. Went to a NO Bugninite service recently. Music was provided by a bleeting nun doing karaoke on her boom box. I kid you not. There was an organ in the church, but it hadn’t been used in a while. So we meet the priest who did the “memorial dinner” afterword and I asked him about the bad music. He said that all their organists are nuns. So I asked him that if he needed to hire an organist, I’d pitch in. (The “pitching in” is a left over from the Communist era.) Besides, I figured how much could a organist in Poland cost? As I was making the offer, the priest’s face started turning pail and he responded with the following: The nuns won’t let us hire an organist. And this is in Poland, folks.

  4. As a parish priest myself I try my best to make the Novus Ordo mass as reverent and as faithful to the rubrics as possible, but the more I study the TLM and experience it and compare the two I can only come to the conclusion that we have been left with an inferior liturgical form. As the hierarchy continues with the failed strategies of Vatican 2 era I can only see the decline accelerating. The Novus Ordo mass must be slated for extinction, and a recovery of the Church’s traditional doctrine on religious freedom, along with a revision of the ecumenical madness that has left the Church disoriented. Until these are addressed the new evangelisation is dead on arrival.

  5. Until these are addressed the new evangelisation is dead on arrival.

    Father, to be honest, I wonder if the Church authorities mean by “evangelisation” what the Church has traditionally meant by it.

  6. “The extent to which the Novus Ordo Mass departs from the theology of the Council of Trent can best be gauged by comparing the prayers which the Consilium removed from the liturgy to those removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer. The coincidence is not simply striking – it is horrifying. It cannot, in fact, be a coincidence.”

    We will carry on with the Cranmer comparison:

    The Common Prayer Book of 1549 suppressed the psalm Judica me as it referred to ‘the altar of God’. Judica me was suppressed in the New Mass.

    The Common Prayer Book of 1549 suppressed the Aufer a nobis. Aufer a nobis was suppressed in the New Mass.

    The prayer which referred to the relics in the altar-stone has been suppressed – there was no altar any more, so there was no altar-stone. It too was suppressed in the New Mass.

    The Offertory was, in fact, the first thing the Protestants stripped out as it refers to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Divine Victim on the Altar. The Offertory, from Suscipe sancte Pater to Suscipe Sancte Trinitas was suppressed by Cranmer. It too was suppressed in the New Mass. The Offertory in the New Mass consists of two short prayers of Jewish origin in which we ‘offer’ bread and wine to God that He might bless it for the coming ‘meal’. The Mass is not a meal, or a remembrance of the Last Supper, or whatever you like. It is a Sacrifice. This is Protestant!

    The Roman Canon was suppressed in the Protestant ‘service’. It is merely an ‘option’ – which means we never see it – in the New Mass. It has been replaced – as the Protestants did – with a series of ‘Eucharistic Prayers’, some of dubiously ‘ancient’ origin but far more likely to have been invented in the 1960s. None of them are Catholic. They are stripped of the prayers which refer to the Sacrifice, the ‘immaculate Host’, the martyred Saints – in short, they are Protestant.

    The prayer ‘deliver us O Lord’ was suppressed in the Common Prayer Book of 1549. It was suppressed in the New Mass.

    The 1549 Common Prayer Book bore the title “The Supper of the Lord, and the holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.” The ‘General Instruction of the Roman Missal’ bears the title ‘The Lord’s Supper or Mass.’

    The 1549 Common Prayer Book suppressed the prayers ‘What has passed our lips as food’ and ‘May thy Body, O Lord, which I have eaten’ as they plainly refer to the Real Presence, which Protestants deny. These, too, were suppressed in the New Mass.

    The prayer May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to thee, most holy Trinity drew the especial ire of the Protestants as it referred plainly to the propitiatory Sacrifice. It was suppressed in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. It was also suppressed in the New Mass.

    The Last Gospel was suppressed by Cranmer. In order to fit with the form of a Protestant service, the Last Gospel was suppressed in the New Mass.

    The Leonine Prayers – three Hail Mary’s, Hail Holy Queen, O God our Refuge, St. Michael the Archangel and three Most Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us – were all suppressed. I can think of numerous unsavoury reasons why. Five more Catholic prayers – or less Protestant prayers – you could not hope to find. All five were suppressed.

    Only 17% of the 1182 orations have made it intact into the New Mass. 36% have been rewritten. 58% have been dropped entirely.

    If all of this is a coincidence, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. One Freemason – Hannibale Bugnini – six Protestant ministers (George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian – here, forgive the sede-vacantist source, is a photograph of the assembled ministers and a ropey collection of condemned Modernists (including one Father Joseph Ratzinger, a leading malign influence in the Council, a notorious Modernist in and out of hot water with the Holy Office and threatened with the most severe punishment of all! Where have we seen him recently?) drew up the conciliar Mass, which is a bastardised, protestantised ‘communion service’ , stripped of practically everything Catholic (even the Canon is now purely ‘optional’, which means you will never see it, and has been cut to pieces. The ‘Offertory’ is demonstrably not Catholic) and from the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice of the Divine Victim, to something which is now more often than not described as ‘a [con]celebration’ or ‘a Eucharistic Meal’.

    I am not referring, of course, to the abuses which turn the Novus Ordo Mass from an equivocal, Protestantised bastard Mass of which Henry VIII and Cranmer would have been proud into a blasphemous farce.

    • I have no problem at all with sedevacantist sources. I use them too.

      I merely resent it when criticism – even bitter one, and who am I to judge? 😉 – becomes Sedevacantist propaganda, a propaganda to which I will not lend this little blog.


  7. Thank you – I’m no sede-vacantist. What I am is an ardent supporter of Mgr. Lefebvre and the SSPX. I do NOT have the power to judge the sitting Pontiff. I leave the legitimacy of the Conciliar Popes to a future, Traditional Pope. I prefer to consider, and do, HH. Francis I as the Sovereign Pontiff and I sincerely hope my little criticism (only a part of a long essay) was not understood as defending the presumptuous and grossly erroneous errors of the sede-vacantists.

    • Thanks Patrick,
      The remark was a general one. Sedevacantist posts are binned directly, so if I had thought yours was such a comment I would have gone Mastro Titta on it 😉

%d bloggers like this: