Replies

You don't understand what I say because you don't understand the ancient Mass and what it means. You think it's all about the Latin language. But the language is really a side issue. I am just as harsh in criticizing the Novus Ordo in Latin as I am in criticizing it in English.

The ancient Mass--that which is normally called the Tridentine Mass--is essentially different from the Novus Ordo. It theologically expresses the Catholic faith, not the Protestant faith (as does the Novus Ordo!), because it emphasizes Christ's atonement for our sins through His sacrifice at Calvary. In this sense the old Mass is essentially sacrificial, from start to finish.

The Novus Ordo has deemphasized propitiatory sacrifice, speaking only of a "sacrifice of praise" for our redemption, in the Lutheran manner, celebrating this through the paschal meal--which is really an imitation of the Protestant Lord's Supper. So it is radically different from the old Catholic Mass and has strong Protestant theological congregationalist underpinnings. It deliberately hides the mystery of the Real Presence, for instance, emphasizing throughout the virtual presence of Christ in Scripture and in the Community. This is why nobody kneels anymore to receive Communion; it is why Communion in the hands is favored; it is why the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle has been shunted aside, taken out of the sanctuary's central place of honor. Other reasons will be given by bishops for these changes--but the real reason is to undermine the dogma of the Real Presence.

So do some reading and learn something about these liturgical differences. Attend the old Mass and learn how different its sense of the sacred is from what is being pawned off in the Novus Ordo liturgy today--a concoction invented by a committee of humanists only a mere thirty-five years ago. The ancient Mass worships God; the Novus Ordo celebrates ourselves--which is why the priest now faces the people and not east, symbolic of facing God the Father. These are radically different liturgies in orientation and this difference has nothing to do with mere language.

It's true Jesus probably offered the Last Supper in Aramaic as you say. But we have no way of knowing how this was done exactly. We do have an idea of what the apostles wanted, however, because there is every indication the canon of the ancient Roman Rite goes back to St. Peter himself and was probably first celebrated by early Roman Christians in Latin, not in Greek, as had been originally supposed. It has evolved slowly over the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until its canon was finally fixed by the fifth century. So it has been around for a very long time and Pius V even decreed it should remain the Mass of the Church forever. This was a stricture violated by Paul VI--with disastrous consequences.

As for your other charge--I do not promote schism as you say. I strongly deny that I urge disobedience to the Pope. I urge criticism where it is justified, rather than the mere hero worship of celebrity. And I urge Catholics who should know better to be more aware of the shenanigans of important men at the top. There is a very big difference between this and urging schism. I urge this because the evidence is everywhere that we are slowly losing the faith. Catholics should therefore stick closely to the traditions which have come down through the ages and to the faith embodied by these traditions. I would urge young Catholics especially to look warily on those who put forward novelties never before taught, and to take a closer look at old-fashioned notions such as sin and hell and penance. They are not much discussed anymore. I say this because there is a dangerous liberal faction within the Vatican that wishes to impose on the rest of us a new faith that ignores these realities. This must be rejected.

As for sowing disunity--who does this, people like myself, who follow tradition, or those who urge on us doctrines and practices which are radically new and in opposition to the faith Catholics have practiced for the previous two millenia? I would say the latter. The New Mass is a recent concoction--going back only thirty+ years. It is a casual, careless, faith-destroying liturgy which has had disastrous consequences. It was not the doing of traditionalists--it was the doing of the revolutionary New Order.