Thoughts on the New Missal

Thoughts on the Nature of the New Missal

The Catholic Church, given the divine mandate to convert all nations, was brought into existence in its wholeness at Pentecost--yet her most ancient and profound ritual predates this event noticeably. This ritual, as you may have guessed, is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass--the memorial and true reenactment of Christ’s Passion on the Cross for our sakes.

The Holy Mass, defined as “...a true and proper Sacrifice” 1 by the Magisterium, is the peak and epitome of our faith as the Church Militant. It stands for and is truly the timeless redemption of man and our participation in that reception. The priest, in persona Christi, intercedes on our behalf to the throne of Heaven, where the outpouring of graces meet their recipients. The chalice, the bread--ancient symbols stemming from the first priesthood of Melchizedek--made into the blood and body of Christ at the first Eucharist at the Last Supper, as it was instituted by Christ to make present his Sacrifice even before it had occurred. 

And just as Christ promises us that His Church will last till He returns, and that “the powers of death shall not prevail against it” 2, so too will his establishment of the Eucharist remain with us, for as the Church will remain, so will its summit and pinnacle. It is the succor of the faithful, the haven of saints and sinners alike. 

And yet, while such a spring of grace and salvation has kept the Church sane and directed for so many years, the current crisis in both loss of faith, vocations, scandal, heresy, and the like make one wonder whether or not it has accomplished its duty. Moreso, we remember the dubious words attributed to the arch-heretic Luther, “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.” We must ask ourselves; is the firmament by which the faithful have been fed for millennia now run dry? How can this be, as Christ promised that he would remain with us, most particularly in the Eucharist?

II

One does not need to look far before he begins to recognize where such a drastic change began to occur among the faithful, where such graces were siphoned away from their mouths and eyes. I am of course referring to the liturgical “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council in 1969, where the mass of the ages, passed down from Peter, to the Latin Fathers, to the modern age, was replaced with a New Mass, so that “...the rites be carefully and thoroughly revised... and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” 3. 

The faithful, up till that point, had been accustomed to doctrines that never changed, and disciplines that did--but slowly. They had been impressed so poignantly by the truth and aesthetic of the Traditional Latin Mass, that not only did it become an essential to their spiritual and material lives--it also became ingrained in their folklore, examples being Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or the stories surrounding King Arthur. This New Mass, which seemed to bear little to no resemblance to the old one, seemed to the faithful a drastic change not only in performance but in doctrine--it certainly did not seem to express the same faith as before. 

And thus, abuses began. The new liturgy, with all its capacity for change and “specialization” as mentioned in the Council, could be form fitted for any community or ethnicity, leaving the unchanged truth and its corresponding liturgy to the mercy of individual priests and bishops--all within ecclesiastical law. 

When an inch is given, a mile is taken. With the introduction of the New Mass came the loss of the ancient and holy Gregorian Chant; the mother tongue of the Church, Latin; belief in the Eucharist; acknowledgment of the priesthood. Its effects have been devastating. They have been the occasion for the birth of many heresies concerning the Mass as a true Sacrifice. 

And while our planet boasts 1.2 billion Catholics, when we subtract those who because of the New Mass have lost any real reverence or understanding of the Mass, the sacraments, and the priesthood, one wonders if the true number is less of a majority and more of a remnant. 

This crisis in the Church is undeniable--even those on the progressive end of Catholicism cannot disagree with the fact that the Church is in a dark age of sorts. Yet, it is the cause which many bicker about. But if we can agree that a people starved are a people oppressed, and that a true liturgy is the food of the faithful, then we must conclude that the Church has starved her subjects. And as the starving of the faithful is a sin, and sin must be put to an end, it is imperative that we as the Church put an end to the withholding of heavenly sustenance.

III

The issue in dispute, as is obvious, is the return of this sustenance, by which we mean the Traditional Latin Mass. Its return is preferable, fitting, correct--and a means not only by which the faithful are fed, but by which God is praised, and a rightful sacrifice is accomplished. 

What I attempt to argue for is, firstly, the insufficiency of the New Mass, how it does not properly meet the criteria a true Mass should meet, and how it essentially decries the true nature of the liturgy. I then hope to establish the only real alternative to be the Traditional Latin Mass, and how the said Mass succeeds in all the areas where the New Mass fails. I will also attempt to maintain that the kinds of changes made to the Mass during the Second Vatican Council were illicit in it of themselves.

IV

The New Mass, “codified” during the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, as I mentioned, fails to meet the criteria of a True Mass, accepted by the faithful since the beginning. And yet, we must establish what we mean by a True Mass. 

The Mass is, of course, a Sacrifice. The first canon of the Council of Trent tells us that “If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema” 4. The Church has clearly defined, with Christ himself confirming the notion, that Christ is truly offered in Sacrifice as the spotless victim during the mass. “This is my body, given up for you.” 2

The Mass is also an incentive for piety and holiness, not simply by its outpouring of graces which are understood by Christ’s sacrifice, but by the instruction given in the readings, the form and symbol, the vestments and motions. The seventh canon of Trent states that “If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema” 4. Necessarily, the mass must inspire no evil, as it comes from Christ’s church, which cannot fail. 

The Mass is also a sacrifice to be offered by those ordained to the priesthood alone. In the person of Christ, the Sacrificial act is brought down through the priest by the power of God, as the second canon of Trent makes clear, stating “If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.” 4

The Mass, by its nature of being a reenactment of the sacrifice of the Cross, pertains to itself the Real Presence of Christ, not simply one of commemoration. Trent states in its third canon that “If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. 4

The Mass--surely--is many more things outside of what we have made mention of here. But this shall suffice for now as to the bare bones of the nature of a true Catholic Mass, as the Council of Trent expounds in unity with Tradition, Scripture, and the Fathers. 

If the fathers of the Second Vatican Council are true proponents of the faith, then surely their creation, the Mass of Paul VI, will meet these standards set forth infallibly by the Council of Trent and complement them, not contradict them. 

As you may not have guessed, this is not the outcome which is to be found, neither in intent or product, concerning the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. And so we must ask ourselves--how does it fail in regards to being a Sacrifice? It is never improper to return to the official and original definition of the New Mass to discover the answer to this question. FromThe Ottaviani Intervention citation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, we read, “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred gathering (synaxis) of the congregation of the people of God in one assembly, presided over by a priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus, the Lord’s promise--’where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst’ (Mt. 18:20)--applies in its highest form to these congregations of the holy local church.” 11  Not once is the truth of the reenactment of the Sacrifice brought to our attention here, not even as an allegory. 

But perhaps the essence of the New Mass exists outside of pretentious definitions? We find this is not the case. How does the New Mass align meet the criteria of being an unmistakable reenactment of the actual Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross? We will here list some examples of where the Novus Ordo fails in this regard, beginning from least to greatest. Firstly, and most symbolically, there is the separation of the tabernacle from the Altar--something present in the very first Novus Ordo Mass said by Paul VI himself. While this may be minute, it unmistakably separates the altar of sacrifice from the altar of presence, suggesting that what is done by the priest at the altar is of a separate nature than what exists within the tabernacle. Pius XII reminds us that these are “two things which should remain united by their origin and their nature." 6 More pertinent a difficulty concerning the ambiguity of the sacrificial nature of the mass is in the removal of the Offertory from the New Mass. The Offertory--unmistakably--states the sacrificial nature of the transubstantiation taking place at the consecration, as well as the remission of sins. We read, “Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.” 7 All marks are made here: the spotlessness of the victim, the remission of sins, the communion with the entire church, living and dead, all connected the sacrifice at hand. Read, on the other hand, what the council fathers replaced the offertory with. We read, “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life.” 5  Nowhere in this excerpt is there any suggestion of a victim of sacrifice--it is reduced to a mere human act, the work of human hands. Are these parts meant to substitute each other? Benedict seems to suggest this notion when he claims that the two masses are “One in the same rite...” 12  A final example among many which I could indeed name is the continual reminder of the memorialization instead of the realization of Christ’s presence in the Sacrifice. Take, for example, this reading:  “Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer...” 5 Not only does it seem to suggest that the celebration is done not simply by the celebrant, but by the people in question--it also suggests that what is taking place is something of memory and symbol, and not actual reenactment. 

Secondly, we will examine whether or not the New Mass indubitably represents that the priest is the sole celebrator, interceder, and teacher of the True Mass, in the person of Christ. The first very obvious offense of this lies in the new “Prayer of the Faithful”, an intercessory prayer of Lutheran origin. We read, “In the Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in some sense to the Word of God which they have received in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal Priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all.” 5 How obvious and tiresome are these sinful insults to the priestly primacy! Again, the priest is no longer an intercessor but simply an overseer--the people themselves offer their pleas to God by themselves, perhaps with the help of the lay person on the ambo. The priest need not even be there--they do just fine without him. How much of the New Mass could be done in such a manner? “It is desirable that there usually be such a form of prayer in Masses celebrated with the people, so that petitions may be offered for the Holy Church, for those who govern with authority over us, for those weighed down by various needs, for all humanity, and for the salvation of the whole world.” 5 While the priest’s role is to offer his mass for the people as intercessor, he is diminished and pushed aside, his task “completed” by the people. It is scandalous how evident it is: while the priest previously would beseech God in front of the altar for the salvation, preservation, and mercy UNITED with the Sacrifice, now he stands idly by, off to the side, while his purpose and vocation is siphoned into the lay people. The intercessory prayers are an ugly and awful pause, breaking with the sacrifice, belonging to a prayer service or youth group than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. “It is for the Priest Celebrant to regulate this prayer from the chair.” 5 Excluding for a moment the fact that he rarely completes this himself, in this case he still only acts as a convoker, simply introducing the prayer, whilst he, drowned out by the reader and people, watches on as the people are the ones who beseech the Lord--”Lord, hear our prayer!”--defying his order and rank. “He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he calls upon the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with an oration.” 5 Again, even should he be the one to introduce and present the intentions (which is rare), he is still but reduced to a layman who shares in the assembly’s oration, explicitly so when he says, “We pray to the Lord”, admitting that he isn’t even the one intercession. The priestly role is all but indistinguishable. “The intentions announced should be sober, be composed with a wise liberty and in few words, and they should be expressive of the prayer of the entire community.” 5 Again, the community prays and intercedes--not the priest. “They are announced from the ambo or from another suitable place, by the Deacon or by a cantor, a reader, or one of the lay faithful.” 5 Led by laymen, accomplished by laymen. Where are the orders? The distinctions? The New Mass equates the Deacon (the last of the lesser orders, in a sense) with those previously ordained positions of reader, cantor, and the like. Lay people, too, intercede--not the priest. I have no doubt that, just as the minor orders were eliminated and filled with the laity, so too will the diaconate. “The people, for their part, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said in common after each intention or by praying in silence.” 5 The reformers are explicit--the people invoke, the people intercede, the people lead. The common priesthood is elevated and accentuated; who is priest, who are the people? They are indistinguishable. One of the gravest apparent crimes of the New Mass is the obfuscation of the priesthood. 

Thirdly, Trent shows us that the Mass pertains to itself the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Does the New Mass show forth this nature? It is advantageous to mention a recurring theme throughout this study, which is the distinctions between Christ’s different kinds of Presences. Christ, being God, is omnipresent; thus, we can recognize that He is in all places at once, yet in none singularly. This is the Mystical Presence, which exists in a special way where “two or more” are gathered. It exists just as much when we pray the Breviary or Rosary as it does at the Mass. Protestants often conflate the Real Presence within the Eucharist--this is known as Consubstantiation, where Christ is “with” the Bread and Wine. This is a heresy in that it is not the primary effect of Transubstantiation, which leads us to the second kind of presence, the Real Presence. Christ is here present in His body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is what the Mass is; namely, Christ’s being brought down upon the altar in a real and substantial way. This is what separates the Mass from all other devotions and prayers. It is the primary focus and the primary presence. This kind of presence is not simply found in the Eucharist being offered; it exists always in the Tabernacle, which reinforces the kind of presence which occurs at the Mass. The dubious separation of the altar and the tabernacle, which (in the aforementioned quote) Pope Pius XII stated, are two things which must remain together, has had disastrous effects in obfuscating the oneness of this presence. We as Catholic must believe that “...the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.” 1 Any rite which clearly reduces this presence to mere memorialism or symbolism, or even one which removes it from its primary place, is one which cannot be of God, as it takes away the pinnacle of the mass. It is what separates it from any other communal prayer. It is wholly and altogether different from any other devotion. If it is reduced, obfuscated, or destroyed, it makes the grave error of turning the people away from “...the Worship of Adoration (latria) [which] must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.” 1 Any ritual which makes ambiguous this kind of presence, reducing it or replacing it with the Mystical presence which is far from the primary intent of the mass, is one which has made the grave sin of scandal, and cannot be followed. As we will see, the New Mass and its explanations within the General Instruction do this in spades. 

We will list one such example. We read, “The main part of the Liturgy of the Word is made up of the readings from Sacred Scripture together with the chants occurring between them. As for the Homily, the Profession of Faith, and the Universal Prayer, they develop and conclude it. For in the readings, as explained by the Homily, God speaks to his people, opening up to them the mystery of redemption and salvation, and offering spiritual nourishment; and Christ himself is present through his word in the midst of the faithful.” 5 Yet another example of the focus being shifted away from the imminent Real Presence by way of the Sacrifice and towards the Mystical Presence is found here. Christ seems to be made present in all ways save the Real one; here it is “in the midst of the faithful” further reaffirming the reformers intent of a mass which reflects the priestly power of the congregation, not the celebrant. This definition also clearly bypasses that the priest acts in persona Christi by saying that “God speaks to his people”, implying that God exists more in the recipient than the preacher. The priest is not mentioned at all. “By silence and by singing, the people make this divine word their own, and affirm their adherence to it by means of the Profession of Faith; finally, having been nourished by the divine word, the people pour out their petitions by means of the Universal Prayer for the needs of the whole Church and for the salvation of the whole world.” 5 It is almost shocking as to how little the celebrant is spoken of here. He is the intercessor; yet reading this it would seem the people have spiritual power. The General Instruction makes the people their own intercessors, their own united priesthood; this is heresy and cannot be abided by, at least not in the mass

V

While I believe absolutely that the preceding evidence should be substantial enough to dispel any doubts, it may be advantageous to answer those which may present themselves to those who have less faith in the arguments previously stated. 

The most common objection which I have seen presented very frequently stems from a belief in authority. The Pope, alone or in unity with the bishops of the Church, has the ability to abrogate any rite, ceremony, discipline or practice within the Church--to refine and deepen our understanding of the unchangeable dogmas given by the Magisterium. Should this be true, then surely the rite of the New Mass imposed on us at the Second Vatican Council by Paul VI should be completely licit, and demand our obedience? 

I answer that, if one accepts that the rites of the New Mass are indeed dangerous to the faith, and that they contain heresies both protestant and modernist, then I suggest that the following statements on the nature and extent of the papacy be reviewed. We read from Unam Santcum, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 8 If obedience to the Holy See is necessary for salvation, then how would her authority extend to imposing these new heresies within the liturgy? It is unimaginable. Pope Pius IX states quite clearly a similar sentiment. He states, “Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church...” 9 Here, the Pontiff makes clear that the nature of our submission to the Pope comes from the fact that he is promulgating the Catholic Faith in its fullness--yet, we are not bound if the converse is true.

Another common objection is that, despite its imperfections, the New Mass can be done reverently, and for the vast majority of us, must be tackled in some form or another as our Sunday obligation. The reasoning, yet again, is founded in obedience where it need not be applied. To keep holy the sabbath” is a divine command from Heaven, and must be held if one is able. But this presumes of course that the Novus Ordo mass is something which may be kept holy, as well as something which can be considered the Sabbath obligation. If the Novus Ordo mass pertains to itself even one defect, one which occurred not by accident or misinterpretation but by rule, one cannot consider it a valid mass. Why? Because as Trent lays down so unmistakably, the Mass must be without error, as it comes not from man, but from the Church. And as this mass, as we have proven thus far, pertains to itself many, many errors, we then must come to the conclusion that it is neither from the Church, nor a true mass. And as it is not from the Church, it does not require your obedience. 

A final objection I will now answer is that of interpretation. How can we, as mere laymen, decipher the will of the Church, which cannot be doubted? Those who pose this may remember the eternal words of Canon 1404: “The First See is judged by no one.” 10 The answer, of course, is quite simple. None of us, greatest nor least, attempts to judge he who cannot be judge. It is not in our ability nor do we dare try. Rather, we merely attempt to recognize those legitimate impositions which the Church bid us to understand and obey from older times and implement in our lives, realize that the new rituals being enforced upon us blatantly contradict these notions, and realize that we cannot do both, and must conform to one. And we have chosen the one which is in harmony with both Scripture and Tradition. It is between Trent and the Second Vatican Council, and one of them has to go--and as Trent contradicts nothing before its time, and is the rule of Faith, we cannot accept the dictations of the new theology within the New Mass.

VI

What this brief study attempts to do is to merely offer some basic insight as to how the New Mass is contrary to what the Church, in her wisdom, has defined a Mass to be. And while a much more extensive study would be necessary to explain how the Old Mass--the Tridentine Mass--has in spades what the Novus Ordo is lacking in, this essay has hopefully illuminated some rudimentary points to prepare for a more critical study.

For myself personally, it is worrisome that so many recipients of what is called the New Mass, with little apprehension, admit to its imperfection. Most practicing Catholic have no shame in divulging that the Old Mass is “more reverent”, “more fitting”, and “most beautiful”, and that the New Mass has “the ability to be done reverently” although it is “not perfect”. They honest lay person has no difficulty in understanding a difference between the two forms of the Mass; and while most graciously give the place of honor to the Old Mass, it does not stop them from attending the New. 

Understanding that the Church is incapable of propagating a deficient or imperfect rite, we must come to terms with an ultimatum: either the Mass of Paul VI is perfect in all ways and has no deficiencies, or it is not a valid rite at all--and dubious in its fulfillment of our Sunday obligation. We mean this, of course, not in respect to the validity of its Eucharist, but in the validity of attendance and perfection. It is my hope that this brief study can shed some light on this truth.

Works Cited

1 Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Rockford, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1955.

2 The Bible. Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.,

Edinburgh, UK. 1966.  

 

3 Paul VI. “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” The Holy See, 4 December. 1963, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

 

4 Schroeder, Henry J. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. , 1941. Print.

5 “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal.” The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales,      https://lms.org.uk/missals. Accessed 19 April 2021.

6 Pius XII, “Assisi Allocution (1956).” The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales,      https://lms.org.uk/pius_xii_assisi_allocution. Accessed 19 April 2021.

7 Lasance, F.X., & Walsh, F.A. “New Roman Missal in Latin and English.” The Latin Mass Society of  England and Wales, https://lms.org.uk/missals

8 Boniface VIII. “Unam Sanctam.” The Holy See, 18 November. 1302, 

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

9 Pius IX. “Nostis et Nobiscum.” The Holy See, 18 December. 1849, 

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/en/documents/enciclica-nostis-et-nobiscum-8-dicembre-1849.html

11 Ottaviani, A., and Bacci, A. The Ottaviani Intervention. Kansas City, Angelus Press, 2015.

12 Benedict XVI. “To the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio Data’.” The Holy See, 7 July. 2007, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html