Beacuse I have only a little knowledge about the facts of the matter (I always rely on Rome for direction) I always go to those who have more knowledge to instruct and comfort me. This is from "Vita Brevis" Blog re the new liturgy:
One article on Bob Sungenis’ site that hasn’t received much attention is the article about the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s an article by Jacob Michael entitled The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite
While Bob Sungenis himself didn’t write the article, I point out that his front page says: “Our Apostolate is directed at supporting the work of Catholic Apologist, Robert Sungenis, to propagate and defend the Catholic faith. There are no paid staff here at CAI and all funds are pumped into supporting Robert, his family, and the apostolate.” For all intents and purposes, then, Bob Sungenis is the owner of the site and bears ultimate responsibility for everything posted there.
The descriptive paragraph found on the front page, (scroll down to find) mentions that the article “explains how the New Mass is objectively inferior to other approved, legitimate rites”. The key words are “objectively inferior”. If information is truly objective, no reasonable person can dispute it. The dictionary definitions for “inferior” that have any pertinence to the issue at hand include “(a) of low or lower degree or rank; (b) of poor quality, mediocre; (c) of little or less importance, value, or merit”.
Thus the article is claiming to explain how no reasonable person can differ that the Novus Ordo Mass (“NOM”) is one or more of the following:
(1) of lower degree or rank than the Tridentine Mass (“TM”);
(2) of poorer quality than the TM to the point of being mediocre when compared with the TM; or
(3) of less value or merit than the TM.
There’s not a measurable scale that could determine clearly, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, the “degree or rank” of Mass texts. Thus the last two are the only possible conclusions drawn from the use of “inferior”.
I won’t be going line-by-line, as the base article itself is over thirteen thousand words in length. The article makes many comparisons between TM and NOM. The following seem to be the largest points of contention in the article:
1. The NOM offers more options than the TM;
2. ICEL translation of the NOM does not match the author’s understanding of the Latin text;
3. The NOM does not maintain a sufficient distinction between the priest and the laity;
4. Some items that were repeated multiple times in the TM are not repeated in the NOM;
5. The NOM does not include any corporate absolution;
6. The NOM does not include as many phrases and concepts that are “uniquely Catholic” and amounts to a tacit surrender to Protestantism; and
7. The NOM is not sufficiently respectful toward the Host prior to the consecration.
No one could question that the NOM offers more options than the static text of the TM. The reasons for this are made clear in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI (April 3, 1969): “the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving” and “particular care has been taken with the prayers. Their number has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources.” (Full text available here.) Where the article sees constant use of the same texts as a high value, Pope Paul instead requests that texts vary. There’s a good cognitive reason for this as well. When one hears the same thing over and over, one often has some difficulty in paying close attention. When, though, one encounters something less familiar, more concentration is necessary. That greater concentration may be a valuable teaching moment.
Attacking the NOM because of ICEL translation issues is not intellectually honest. The Holy See is aware that there are issues with the translation and is acting accordingly. If, rather than promulgating the NOM, the hierarchy had simply authorized translations of the TM, many of the same issues raised by the article could still have developed. If one were to compare the NOM and the TM, use of only the normative texts for each would be more appropriate and more honest. (To be fair, I should note that I too have issues with the ICEL’s translations.)
The role of the laity in the Church was a major point in the Second Vatican Council. Bob’s own front page quotes a conciliar document (Apostolicam Actuositatem) regarding the importance of the laity’s mission. For several centuries, the Church had undergone a highly clericalist focus. The importance of the role of the laity in the mission of the Church can be underscored by the role of the laity in liturgy. Priests are, after all, sinners just as the laity are, the unique powers and responsibilities placed upon them by virtue of their ordination notwithstanding. To give too lofty a position to priests vis a vis the laity also may lead to unreasonable expectations regarding the sanctity of the priest and damage to the faith of the laity in light of sins committed by priests. In the end, though, rejection of the increased role of the laity in the Mass is a rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium which directed the modification of the liturgy such that “devout, active participation by the faithful more easily achieved”. Repetition of prayers within the Mass was also discouraged by the conciliar fathers.
The deletion of corporate absolution seems like an odd thing to rankle a traditionalist. Wouldn’t the corporate absolution make a person less likely to go to confession? Wouldn’t the deletion of corporate absolution actually encourage more frequent confession on the part of the conscientious layman? Isn’t that a good and desirable result? Also the use of corporate absolution is central to the liturgical Protestant worship service. Not using corporate absolution makes the Mass significantly different from Protestant celebrations.
The items that are “uniquely Catholic” that were mentioned in the article are all good and laudable – the saints and angels, especially. The Mass, though, does not exist to give glory to saints and angels, it exists as the Sacrifice of the Living God. Maintaining focus more exclusively on Him and less on His creatures should not give pause to anyone, regardless of their degree of devotion to any saint or angel.
The Host prior to the consecration is a special object, but it is nothing compared to what comes after the consecration. Paying special reverence to the Host prior to consecration could lead the faithful to have less regard for the immensity of the miracle of the consecration. What is brought to the altar is not what is ultimately sacrificed upon the altar and then given out as the very Bread of Life, it only maintains that appearance to mortal senses. Any failure in catechesis regarding the Eucharist is tragic, but it cannot reasonably be attributed to a diminution in reverence toward a non-consecrated Host.
What’s more important, though, than the individual points is the implication drawn that the NOM is “objectively inferior”. Had the author posited that there are reasons for individuals to prefer the TM, there’d be no problem. I can understand why a person might, for reasons of their own devotion, have a strong preference for the TM, the Latin NOM or the vernacular NOM. What causes the problem is the use of the term “objectively inferior”.
If the NOM is truly inferior to the TM, it is either “of poorer quality” or “of less value”. To say that any valid Eucharist – the source and summit of Christian life – is of less value than another is to sit in judgment on Him who comes to us in His body and blood. I would not presume to place myself upon that judgment seat. To question the quality of Jesus’ prayer to the Father is beyond what I could arrogate myself under any circumstance.
Lastly, our spiritual fathers duly promulgated the NOM. To accuse our spiritual fathers of denigrating the liturgy (and how else could one describe a change from the previous form to one that is “objectively inferior”?) is to show a degree of disrespect and dishonor to those whom Christ has selected as our superiors that is not becoming to His disciples. A great saying that was oft-repeated by Pope John XXIII and attributed to St. Augustine is a fitting conclusion: “In essentials, unity; in other matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”
* I'll let the know-it-alls fight it out amongst themselves. The litle I do know about liturgical history makes me aware of how much I do not know about liturgical history. From some of the posts I read on here, I think the know-it-alls think they know more than Ecumenical Councils and Popes which is hardly a sign of Christian humility.