The True Mass |
| These three pages
are from the Ottaviani Intervention regarding the new mess missal.
These pages are indications for some of the problems of the new
ordo missae. Some of the information I have taken from other sites if I
see it is incorrect later including call Paul VI the pope will be
changed. Unfortunately many sites including sites such as Our Lady of the Rosary Library
have errors in them and one of them they believe Paul VI is the Pope. |
| In 1969, Paul VI issued a New
Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time,
what is commonly referred to as the "Tridentine" or "Latin" Mass, was used by the Church. On the face of things,
it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for the universal Church. The New Mass Contradicts Tradition The "Tridentine" or Roman Rite Mass is not the result of a development or evolution over the 2,000 year history of the Church. It is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that "no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details." The integrity of the Mass was considered so sacred that when Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) sought to add the words "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon (central part of the Mass), the Catholics of Rome were so outraged that they threatened to kill him! Blessed Pope Pius IX, when requested to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon, replied: "I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?" In this context, it is easy to see why Pope St. Pius V sought to protect the Roman Rite by codifying the Traditional Latin Mass in the proclamation Quo Primum in 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part: At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally.... And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." What, then, was done at Vatican II? Were some changes made merely in "unimportant details"? Was the proper honor and respect given to the Rite essentially bestowed by Christ on His Church and confirmed by incomparable proofs in the form of thousands of saints and countless miracles? Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church's Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, gives the answer: "[The concept] that the liturgy is in fact something given and not a reality to be manipulated at will, has completely disappeared from the consciousness of Western Catholics. Yet Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can 'fabricate' a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity." The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it. St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: "Vatican II's refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted.... Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about." This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the "common consciousness" of the Council Fathers. This is pure Modernism and totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith. What are Catholics to think when, according to the common opinion of Catholic theologians throughout the centuries, any pope who "wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed" (Suarez*)? Is that not just exactly what Vatican II has attempted to do by foisting the Novus Ordo on the Catholic world in place of the rite given to us by Jesus Christ Himself through Apostolic Tradition? (*Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., Doctor Eximus -- "an eminent and pious theologian" -- Pope Paul V)
The Destruction of Catholic Worship is the Destruction of the Catholic Faith The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: "The way we worship is the way we believe." The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church's enemies have always understood this principle as "They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church." St. Alphonsus Liguori explains that "The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Dan. 8:12)." The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent." How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy." When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive." Here are some examples:
Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently. Prophecy of Marie-Julie Jahenny If the New Mass is so contrary to Church teaching, does it not seem that God would warn His people of the betrayal of His Church and His Mass by Her pastors? It would be entirely fitting for His Mercy. Marie-Julie Jahenny, the mystic and Stigmatist of La Fraudais and perhaps the greatest mystic in the history of the Church, was born on the 12th of February, 1850, in a little village in Brittany (in the West of France), called Blain. The eldest of five children, she was brought up by her simple, good parents in that lively faith for which Bretons are renowned. Our Lord favored her with many graces from the time of her First Holy Communion, graces to which she corresponded with ever increasing devotion. She joined the Franciscan Third Order when in her early twenties, to help to sanctify herself in the world. In 1873, she received from Heaven that most remarkable mystic gift, the Stigmata. From the age of twenty-three until her death, some sixty years later, she bore in her body the Wounds of Our Lord to a more visible degree than had any other stigmatist in the Church's history. In addition to the Five Wounds of the Sacred Hands, Feet and Side, Marie-Julie suffered the Wounds inflicted by the Crown of Thorns and the Cross on Our Lord's Sacred Head and Shoulder respectively, the Wounds of His Scourging, those caused by the ropes with which He was bound, as well as other Wounds of a more mystical nature. Marie-Julie lived her life of coredemptive suffering (as a victim soul) in a little cottage in the hamlet of La Fraudais, near Blain. She thus fulfilled Our Blessed Lord's desire for her to make reparation for the sins of France and the world. She was favored with frequent visions of Jesus and Mary, as well as many prophetic lights. The truth of the Heavenly warnings of which she was to be the humble messenger was vindicated by her characteristic simplicity and honesty, her exemplary obedience to her spiritual directors and her Bishop, and of course, by the fulfillment of all she prophesied during her long life. With unfailing accuracy she foretold the two World Wars, the election of Pope Saint Pius X, the various persecutions of the Church, the chastisements and the fate of apostate France. Much remains to unfold. Her warnings for the Last Times should be read by all "who have ears." Marie-Julie was the wonder of the many scientists who examined her continually, the scorn of unbelievers and the proud, the admiration of her lifelong friend, Monsignor Fourier, Bishop of Nantes, and of the devoted circle of those who made the diffusion of her messages to an ungrateful and unheeding world their life's work. She went to her Heavenly reward on March 4, 1941. Blind, deaf, dumb and crippled, she had subsisted miraculously on the Blessed Sacrament alone, for the last many years of her life. Surely then, we will not pass over lightly what God has confided to her for the benefit of our own sad days. Now read Marie-Julies's prophecies concerning the new liturgy: On November 27, 1902 (Ed. note: The seventy-second anniversary of the Miraculous Medal Apparition [November 27, 1830]) and on May 10, 1904, Our Lord warned of the new liturgy which would one day be instituted: "I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period." "The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it." On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and its liturgy: "They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children." She announces the "dispersion of the pastors" by the Church herself; true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: "...new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities." Fruits of the New Mass "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." (Matt. 7:15-17) Given the foregoing, it should be plain that the New Mass was conceived for an evil purpose and constructed by evil means. It only follows that such a tree would have disastrous effects on the Church. Let us look at its fruits as reported in Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II. The number of priests in the United States more than doubled from 1930 to 1965 to 58,000. Since then, however, the number has fallen to 45,000 and there will be only 31,000 priests left in 2020, with half of them being over 70. In 1965, only 1% of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, 3,000 or 15% of the parishes are priestless. The number of seminarians from 1965 to 2002 dropped over 90% from 49,000 to 4,700, while two-thirds of the seminaries have closed. There were 104,000 teaching nuns in 1965, while today there are a mere 8,200, a decline of 94% since the end of Vatican II. Religious orders are on the road to disappearance. Three and a half thousand were studying to be Jesuits in 1965. In 2000, the number was 389. The Christian Brothers have lost two-thirds of their members in that span of time, while the number of their seminarians has shrunk by 99%. In 2000, there were only seven. Almost half of all catholic high schools have closed in the U.S. since 1965. Only one in four Catholics now attend Mass on Sundays. There were 338 annulments in 1968 and 50,000 in 2002. Only 10% of lay religious teachers now accept Church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a catholic can have an abortion and remain a good catholic. Sixty-five percent say that catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent hold that one can be a good catholic without going to Mass on Sundays. Finally, 70% of catholics between 18 and 44 believe that the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus. Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church!? It is no wonder that Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: "I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." It is clear how the New Mass could create such a disaster. Liturgy dictates belief. A Protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 35 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before. The New Mass is condemned by its own nature, by its fruits, and even by Our Lord Himself. The crisis in the Church will continue to worsen until we return to orthodoxy and discipline. What is a Catholic to do in such troublesome times? He must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins: "What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty." St. Athanasius, one of the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church, earned the title of "Father of Orthodoxy" for his strong and uncompromising defense of our Catholic Faith. He was banned from his diocese at least five times, spending a total of seventeen years in exile. He sent the following letter to his flock which is a powerful lesson for our times: "What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important? The place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?" If we deny one article of our Faith, we are on the road to hell. The New Mass cannot have come from God, whereas the True Mass came directly from God. The only safe course to follow is to attend the Traditional Mass at any cost. It is not worth risking the loss of your soul for all eternity. All NEW ORDER SERVICES OR "MASSES" if that is what anyone wants to call them are invalid or illicit all the time and are profane if they are guitar "masses", that is guitar messes, drums and unholy instrumentation. Consecration of this mess is certainly not valid. All liturgical dance messes are sacrilegious. All other abuses that affect the reverence depending on what the abuse is and how often the abuse is will render a novus ordo consecration more blasphemous. Anytime unworthy priests offer a consecration as a meal, banquet or a celebration will render the consecration a heretical sacrilege. If the members of the church receive the Body of Christ with a consecration and they believe it is any of the abusive things such as a community meal it is mortal sin to them or it is profanation, sacrilege or imputes another grave punishment deserving of death. All are to receive and recall that it is a holy sacrifice and nothing more and to have oneness with Christ as Redeemer and to remember when He comes again. Illicit "consecrations" can take place in many other instances. It is best to stop all hillbilly and pop rock singers and guitar messes in order to have gone to a service that only by His mercy will bring the miracle of the changing of bread and wine into His body and blood. There are many other things that have occurred in the new order mess service that will render a consecration abominable, idolatrous or a manifest heresy. No miracles will take place and no graces shall be imparted with many or most if not all messes depending on the gravity of the offenses committed on the altar or in the congregation of unfaithful and for the sad part those few faithful who suffer with the dog catholics and the filthy priests. |
| A Critical Study of the New Mass by Cardinal's Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci
LETTER OF THE CARDINALS ALFREDO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI, ANTONIO CARDINAL BACCI [Note that the Cardinal is speaking here of the defects not of any vernacular translation, but of the original Latin draft, that is, the New Mass in its best, in its purest form.]
[The Ottaviani Intervention, with a preface by Fr. Anthony Cekada, is available from Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL 61105.] Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the following considerations: 1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily. 3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful. At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.
A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
5 June 1969 A Group of Roman Theologians Chapter II Let us begin with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition: The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (*3) For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20) (*4)
The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a "supper," a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this "supper" as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:
In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by "going beyond them" amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. (*7) The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ's promise, "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's promise (which refers only to His spiritual
presence through grace on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a "Liturgy of the Word" and a "Liturgy of the Eucharist," and adds that the "table of God's Word" and the "table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive "instruction and food." As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as thought they possessed equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as: Chapter III We now turn to the ends or purposes of the Mass--what it accomplishes in the supernatural order. 1. ULTIMATE PURPOSE. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." (*9) In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared:
- From the Offertory, where the prayer "Receive, Holy Trinity, this oblation" has been removed. - From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity, "May the Tribute of my Homage, Most Holy Trinity" has been eliminated. - From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity, formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on the Feast of the most Holy Trinity. 3. IMMANENT PURPOSE. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right. The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into "spiritual drink": Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to offer, fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands, It will become for us the bread of life (spiritual drink). (*12) The expressions "bread of life" and "spiritual drink," of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually--and not substantially---changed. (*13) In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the "Deus qui humanae" and the "Offerimus tibi": - The first prayer, recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: "O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously restored." It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day. - The second prayer, which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice.
In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves--and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated. The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists' meeting or a charity banquet. We now consider the essence of the Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, imperceptible to the faithful. (*14) Here are some of the main reasons: 1. THE MEANING OF THE TERM "EUCHARISTIC PRAYER." The meaning the Novus Ordo assigns to the so-called "Eucharistic Prayer" is as follows: "The entire congregation joins itself to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and in offering the sacrifice." (*15) Which sacrifice does this refer to? Who offers the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions. The definition the Instruction provides for the "Eucharistic Prayer" reduces it to the following: "The center and summit of the entire celebration begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification." (*16) The effects of the prayer thus replace the causes. And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made in the old rite with the prayer "Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation," has been suppressed--and replaced with *nothing.* The change in the formula reveals the change in doctrine.
2. OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed. It has been removed from the place it so resplendently occupied in the old liturgy. In the General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just once--and that in a footnote which is the only reference to the Council of Trent. Here again, the context is that of nourishment. (*17) The real and permanent presence of Christ in the transubstantiated Species--Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is completely ignored. The invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Offertory--the prayer "Come, Thou Sanctifier"--has likewise been suppressed, with its petition that He descend upon the offering to accomplish the miracle of the Divine Presence again, just as he once descended into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is one more in a series of denials and degradations of the Real Presence, both tacit and systematic. Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates: 3. THE ROLE OF THE MAIN ALTAR. The altar is nearly always called the table: (*19) "...the altar or the Lord's table, which is the center of the whole eucharistic liturgy..." (*20) The altar must now be detached from the back wall so that the priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the people. (*21) The Instruction states that the altar should be at the center of the assembled faithful, so that their attention is spontaneously drawn to it. Comparing this Article with another, however, seems to exclude outright the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on the altar where Mass is celebrated. (*22) This will signal an irreparable dichotomy between the presence of Christ the High Priest in the priest celebrating the Mass and Christ's sacramental Presence. Before, they were one and the same Presence. Before, they were one and the same Presence. (*23) The Instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart for private devotion--as though It were some sort of relic. Thus, on entering a church, one's attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but to a table stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up against liturgical piety, and altar is set up against altar. The Instruction urges that hosts distributed for Communion be ones consecrated at the same Mass. It also recommends consecrating a large wafer, (*24) so that the priest can share a part of it with the faithful. It is always the same disparaging attitude towards both the tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This constitutes a new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species remain. (*25) 4. THE FORMULAS FOR THE CONSECRATION. The old formula for the Consecration was a *sacramental* formula, properly speaking, and not merely a *narrative*. This was shown above by three things: A. The Text Employed. The Scripture text was not used word-for-word as the formula for the Consecration in the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the "Mystery of Faith," was inserted into the text as an immediate expression of the priest's faith in the mystery which the Church makes real through the hierarchical priesthood. B. Typography and Punctuation. In the old Missal, a period and a new paragraph separated the words "Take ye all of this and eat" from the words of the sacramental form, "This is My Body." The period and the new paragraph marked the passage from a merely *narrative* mode to a *sacramental* and *affirmative* mode which is proper to a true sacramental action. The words of Consecration in the Roman Missal, moreover, were printed in larger type in the center of the page. Often a different color ink was used. All these things clearly detached the words from a merely historical context, and combined to give the formula of Consecration a proper and autonomous value. C. The Anamnesis. The Roman Missal added the words "As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me" after the formula of Consecration. This formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past event, but to Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation to recall not merely His Person or the Last Supper, but *to do* what He did *in the way* that He did it. In the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, "Do this in memory of Me," will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed in the vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, rather than as its beginning. The idea of commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a sacramental action. (*26) The General Instruction emphasizes the narrative mode further when it describes the Consecration as the "Institution Narrative" (*27) and when it adds that, "in fulfillment of the command received from Christ...the Church keeps his memorial." (*28) All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration--how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body." (*29) Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O Lord...until you come"--introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just at the moment when He is *substantially present* on the altar--as if Christ's real coming will occur only at the end of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more strongly: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory." The juxtaposition of entirely different realities--immolation and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming--brings ambiguity to a new height. (*30) Chapter V We now consider the question of who performs the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in order: Christ, the priest, the Church and the faithful.
1. The Role of the Faithful in the New Rite. In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful is autonomous, absolute--and hence completely false. This is obvious not only from the new definition of the Mass ("...the sacred assembly or congregation of the people gathering together..."), but also from the General Instruction's observation that the priest's opening Greeting is meant to convey to the assembled community the presence of the Lord:
2. The Role of the Priest in the New Rite. The role of the priest is minimized, changed, and falsified: - The many grave omissions of the phrase "through Christ Our Lord," a formula which guarantees that God will hear the Church's prayers in every age. (*42) - An all-pervading "paschalism" -- an obsessive emphasis on Easter and the Resurrection--almost as if there were no other aspects of the communication of grace, which, while quite different, are nevertheless equally important. - The strange and dubious "eschatologism" --a stress upon Christ's Second Coming and the end of time--whereby the permanent and eternal reality of the communication of grace is reduced to something within the bonds of time. We hear of a people of God on the march, a pilgrim Church--a Church no longer *Militant* against the powers of darkness, but one which, having lost its link with eternity, marches to a future envisioned in purely temporal terms. In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church--as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic and Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart. The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ. To this group--with further detriment to the notion of the Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to You alone." None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice. (*43) Everywhere desacralizing omissions debase the mystery of the Church. Above all, the Church's nature as a sacred hierarchy is disregarded. The second part of the new collective Confiteor reduces the Angels and the Saints to anonymity in the first part, in the person of St. Michael the Archangel, they have disappeared as witnesses and judges. (*44) In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II--and this is unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The prayer after the Our Father, the "Libera Nos," now suppresses the mention of the Blessed Virgin, the holy apostles and all the Saints; their intercession is thus no longer sought, even in times of danger. Everywhere except in the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo eliminates not only the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the Church in Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles, the foundation and mark of the one and universal Church. This intolerable omission, extending even to the three new Eucharistic Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church. The New Order of Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion of Saints by suppressing the blessing and the salutation "The Lord Be with You" when the priest says Mass without a server. It also eliminates the "Ite Missa Est," even in Masses celebrated with a server. (*45) The double Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass showed how the priest, vested as Christ's minister and bowing profoundly, acknowledged himself unworthy of both is sublime mission and the "tremendous mystery" he was to enact. Then, in the prayer "Take Away Our Sins," he acknowledged his unworthiness to enter the Holy of Holies, recommending himself with the prayer "We Beseech Thee, O Lord" to the merits and intercession of the martyrs whose relics were enclosed in the altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said previously about elimination of the two-fold Confiteor and Communion rite is equally relevant here. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, a sign of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, the new provisions for celebrating Mass outside a church: a simple table, containing neither a consecrated altar-stone nor relics and covered with a single cloth, is allowed to suffice for an altar. (*46) Here too, all we have said previously in regard to the Real Presence applies--disassociation of the "banquet" and the Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself. The process of desacralization is made complete, thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for the Offertory Procession, the reference to ordinary (rather than unleavened) bread, and allowing servers (and even lay people, when receiving Communion under both Species) to handle sacred vessels. (*47) then there is the distracting atmosphere created in the church: the ceaseless comings and goings of priest, deacon, subdeacon, cantor, commentator--the priest himself becomes a commentator, constantly encouraged to "explain" what he is about to do-- of lectors (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places, while others carry and sort offerings. And in an era of frenzy for a "return to Scripture," we now find, in contradiction of both the Old Testament and St. Paul, the presence of a "suitable woman" who for the first time in the Church's history is authorized to proclaim the Scripture readings and "perform other ministries outside the sanctuary." (*48) Finally, there is the mania for concelebration, which will ultimately destroy the priest's Eucharistic piety by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole priest and Victim, and by dissolving Him into the collective presence of concelebrants. (*49) Chapter VI We have limited ourselves
above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most
seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations
touch upon deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete
study of all the pitfalls, dangers, and psychologically and
spiritually destructive elements the new rite contains, whether
in texts, rubrics, or instructions, would be a vast undertaking.
We have taken no more than a passing glance at the three new
Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already come in for repeated
and authoritative criticism. The second gave immediate scandal to
the faithful due to its brevity. (*50) Of Eucharistic Prayer II it
has well been said that a priest who no longer believed in either
Transubstantiation or the sacrificial character of the Mass could
recite it with perfect tranquility of conscience, and that a
Protestant minister, moreover, could use it in his own celebrations
just as well. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as an "abundant
resource for pastoral work," as "a text more pastoral than
juridical," which national bishops' conferences could adapt,
according to circumstances, to the "spirit" of different peoples.
Section One of the new Congregation for Divine Worship, moreover,
will now be responsible "for the publication and *constant
revision* of liturgical books." This idea was echoed recently
in the official newsletter of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany,
Switzerland and Austria: Chapter VII The Apostolic Constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified. What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites. (*53) At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline. Chapter VIII
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either to liturgical worship or to the faith itself, then threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The grave situation fully justified--and even rendered prophetic--the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal:
DOL: "Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts." Translated, compiled, and arranged by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982
7. It is perhaps superfluous to recall that, if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would fall ipso facto, insofar as the principle of the infallibility of the supreme hierarchical magisterium, whether conciliar or papal, would thereby be destroyed.
15. GI 54, DOL 1444.
20. GI 49, DOL 1489. Cf. GI 262, DOL 1652. 24. Rarely does the Novus Ordo use the word hostia. In liturgical books this traditional term has a precise meaning: "victim." Again we encounter a systematic attempt to emphasize only "supper" and "food." 25. Following their customary practice of substituting one thing for another, the reformers made Christ's presence in the proclaimed word equal to the Real Presence. (See GI 7, 54; DOL 1397, 1444). But Christ's presence when Scripture is proclaimed is of a different nature and has no reality except when it is taking place (in usu). Christ's Real Presence in the consecrated Host, on the other hand, is objective, permanent and independent of the reception of the Sacrament. The formulae "God is speaking to his people," and "Christ is present to the faithful through his own word" (GI 33, DOL 1423) are typically Protestant. Strictly speaking, they have no meaning, since God's presence in the word is mediated, bound to an individual's spiritual act or condition, and only temporary. This formula leads to a tragic error: the conclusion, expressed or implied, that the Real Presence continues only as long as the Sacrament is in the process of being used--received at Communion time, for instance--and that the Real Presence ends when the use ends. 26. As the General Instruction describes it, the sacramental action originated at the moment Our Lord gave the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under the appearances of bread and wine. The sacramental action thus no longer consists in the consecratory action and the mystical separation of the Body from the Blood--the very essence of Eucharistic Sacrifice. See "Mediator Dei," esp. Part II, Chapter I, PTL 551, ff.
27. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fn.. 30. Let it not be said, following the methods of Protestant biblical scholarship, that these phrases being in the same Scriptural context. The Church always avoided superimposing and juxtaposing the texts, precisely in order to avoid confusing the different realities they express. 31. GI 28, DOL 1418 32. GI 74-152, DOL 1464-1542. 33. GI 209-231, DOL 1599-1621. 34. GI 45, DOL 1435.
35. Against the Lutherans and Calvinists who teach that all Christians are priests and offerers of the Lord's Supper, see A. Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae," (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1930), v. III: "Each and every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary minister of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal minister. The faithful offer *through the intermediary of the priest, but not in a strict sense*." Cf. Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 2, DB 949. 37. GI 298, DOL 1688 fn.. 38. We note in passing an unthinkable innovation which will have disastrous psychological effects; employing *red* vestments on Good Friday instead of black (GI 308.b, DOL 1698)--as if Good Friday were the commemoration of just another martyr, instead of the day on which the whole Church mourns for her Founder. (Cf. Mediator Dei, PTL 550, quoted below.) 39. Rev. A. M. Rouget, OP, speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany at Plessit-Chenet. 40. GI 4, DOL 1394. Cf. "Presbyterum Ordinis," Section 13, DOL 265. 41. GI 60, DOL 1450 fn.
42. See Jn. 14:13-16, 23-24.
46. GI Section 260, 265; DOL 1650, 1655. 53. Consider the following elements found in the Byzantine rite: lengthy and repeated penitential prayers; solemn vesting rites for the celebrant and deacon; the preparation of the offerings at the "proscomidia," a complete rite in itself; repeated invocations, even in the prayers of offering, to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; invocations of the choirs of Angels at the Gospel as "invisible concelebrants," while the choir identifies itself with the angelic choirs in the "Cherubicon;" the sanctuary screen (iconostasis) separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church and the clergy from the people; the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes; the position of the priest who celebrates facing God, and never facing the people; Communion given always and only by the celebrant; the continual marks of adoration toward the Sacred Species; the essentially contemplative attitude of the people. The fact that these liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an hour and are constantly defined as "awe-inspiring, unutterable...heavenly, life-giving mysteries" speaks for itself. Finally, we note how in both the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil, the concept of "supper" or "banquet" appears clearly subordinate to the concept of sacrifice --just as it was in the Roman Mass. 54. Bull "Quo Primum," 13 July 1570. In Session 23 (Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent announced its intention to "uproot completely the cockle of the damnable errors and schism which in these fateful times of ours and enemy has sown (see Matt. 13:25) in the teaching of the faith about the Holy Eucharist and about the use and worship of the Eucharist. In addition to his other purpose, our Saviour left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to unify and unite all Christians." DB 873. 55. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words." (1 Tim. 6:20) 56. "Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the Sacred Liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the right path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings... This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Synod of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "depositum fidei" committed to her charge by her Divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn." "Mediator Dei," I.5, PTL 548, 549.
60. It is well-known how Vatican II is now being repudiated by
the very men who once gloried in being its leaders.
While anti-pope Paul declared at the
Council's end that it had changed nothing, these men came away
determined to "explode" the Council's teachings in the process of
actually applying it. This infidelity went from changes in mere form (Latin,
Gregorian Chant, suppression of the ancient rites, etc.)
all the way to changes in substance which the Novus Ordo
sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have attempted to
point out here, we must add those which,
with an even greater effect psychologically, will affect the
Church's discipline and teaching authority by undermining the
respect and docility owed the Holy See. |