Posted on 11/13/2004 9:09:54 PM PST by Land of the Irish
“What’s wrong with the New Mass? I like the Old Mass and know it is better, but don’t know how to explain this to my children, who prefer the Novus Ordo because they say they understand it better.” This was a question Jan put to me.
Let me begin my response with a revealing statistic that shows that the New Mass is not easier to understand.
In a recent article in Our Sunday Visitor, Russell Shaw draws attention to a serious problem: Mass attendance has halved in the last four decades since Vatican II. (1) How can this be, he asks, when all changes in the Church were made in the name of making the Mass more appealing to the people – changing it from Latin to English, turning the altars around, involving the laity with dialogue and activities, permitting popular songs and guitars?
His answer was that people don’t attend Mass because they don’t know what it really is. He is right about that. A 1992 Gallup poll showed that 70 % of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass do not believe they are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, at Holy Communion. That is to say, only 30% believe in the Real Presence.
These shocking figures, which have not been contested or disproved, divulge what conservatives like Shaw refuse to admit – the essential failure of the New Mass and the bad fruits of the conciliar adaptation to the modern world.
Supposedly, all the changes made in the name of Vatican II would make the Mass more understandable. In fact, however, fewer people today truly understand what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, or have a completely different notion of what the Mass is about. And this seems to me the real problem – the Mass suffered significant changes that made it seem something different from what it really is.
Differences between the Traditional Mass and New Mass
Catholics always believed that the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed on the altar at the Holy Mass. By means of the sacrificing priest, the bread and wine is changed into the very Body and Blood of Our Lord at the moment of the Consecration. The words that the priest says at this moment constitute the Transubstantiation, a change of substance.
Above, the Cathedral of St. Louis fits perfectly with the grandiose Sacrifice which is renewed at the Mass.
Below, in the Abbey of St. Anne (Kergonan, France), a cold emptiness in worship is the result of the conciliar reformers' intention to please Protestants.
Quite different from this elevated notion of the Mass, the New Mass represents a shocking liturgical revolution similar to the Pseudo-Reformation of Luther and other Protestants.
Here are some keynotes of the New Mass that give it a Protestant tone: • The abolition of the sacrificial character of the Mass – We have a man-made liturgy in which mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been insistently removed, as well as any sacrificial tone, and only the notions of praise and thanksgiving retained. Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to emphasize the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice.
• An emphasis on the memorial supper – According to this new conception, the Mass is principally a Communion service – a memorial of the Lord’s supper, a Protestant thesis emphasized by Luther in the 16th century. As Luther clearly stated, “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.” (2)
• The priesthood of the faithful – The so-called priesthood of the faithful was over-emphasized and causes confusion with the sacramental priesthood. Catholic teaching is that it is the priest, and the priest alone, who is necessary for the Mass to be effective. To the contrary, the New Mass promotes the idea that the priest is a mere delegate of the assembly, and the people are an essential part of the “celebration.”
In fact, the General Instruction on the Novus Ordo states that the “people of God” celebrates the rite with the “priest-presider.” This equality between the priest and the faithful is what the Protestant leaders taught when they defended that the celebration of the “Lord’s supper” is realized jointly by the priest and the people. What is the main difference, then, between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass? The traditional Latin Mass is the clear expression of Catholic teaching, which understands the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The New Mass was made to please Protestants, and for this purpose: 1) suppressed the sacrificial character of the Mass, denied by Protestants,
2) emphasized the Mass as a memorial and a banquet, as preached by Protestants,
3) stressed the role of the people as essential to the “celebration of the Eucharist,” also defended by Protestants.
The makers of the New Mass definitively wanted to favor Protestantism
Fr. Annibale Bugnini, a Progressivist and principal designer of the New Mass. Later, he was named an Archbishop by Paul VI.
There is the false notion many Catholics have that the New Order Mass is just a simple translation of the traditional Latin rite, with a few small changes here and there. This is not true. It is a re-write, and quite substantial one, undertaken by a commission set up by Paul VI to implement the Council’s teaching on the liturgy.(3)
The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.
Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (4)
A clear design to destroy the Traditional Mass
The designers of the New Mass have boasted endlessly on the novelty and revolutionary nature of their creation, and you can find many examples. I will only site one: Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated: “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." (5)
The critics have said essentially the same thing. Again, I will just cite one. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes, wrote that "the Novus Ordo Missae .... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent,” and that there are “implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” (6)
Based on these testimonies, as well as on the fact that the religious authorities have imposed that this New Mass be said everywhere, is it any wonder that so many Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence?
Endnotes
1) August 24, 2003.
2) Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 202.
3) The ambiguous language of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the official document of Vatican II that deals with liturgy, is set out in Atila S. Guimarães’ In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, pp. 229-31.
4) L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.
5) Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.
6) Modern History Sourcebook: The Ottaviani Intervention, 1969, online edition.
My opinion?
The "Old Mass" was angelic, beautiful, holy, reverent. (what I've seen of it--I was a small child when they stopped it) It defined us as Catholics.
The "New Mass" (I'm sorry) just doesn't compare to it.
(FWIW, I just don't like the hand-shaking, either. Other than family, I hardly know most of these people---why do I need to make peace with them before Communion?)
Well take it from a NC. If you handshake every Sunday morning you get to know everybody. :')
Good for you!
I never have experienced that. I'm biased I know, but I have never liked it personally.
The Latin, the most beautiful and logical language ever assembled, had a power that the Church has simply thrown away, much as it has traded Bach for tuneless teenagers with guitars.
Thje Mass is about communion with God; post-Vatican II it's abvout communion with your fellow fellow congregants, including the hug and the handshake you are now expected to bestow on total strangers.
When my son was preparing for Confirmation a few years ago, the lay preacher running the classes said (and this is an almost verbatim quote): "The Eucharist is the symbol of Our Lord."
Later, I stopped him and said. "you don't know what you're talking about. Protestants treat the wafer as a symbol, we see it as something rather more than that."
His reply: "Look, if you have a problem with your son going through with his Confirmation, that's OK. The church is a big tent."
A man charged with preparing soon-to-be adults in the Faith, and his attitude is 'Yeah, well, whatever suits."
No wonder the pews are mostly empty these days.
I've heard about that. (people saying the Eucharist is a "symbol" instead of what it really is: the body of our Lord)
I need advice. My 6 year old will be preparing for Holy Communion next year. I do NOT want him to take it in the hand, only on the tongue. I am afraid of a battle with his saying "Well, so and so says you CAN take it in the hand..."
Anyone know how to handle this? How to best explain it? I want to teach him reverence. (I even make him genuflect when we arrive in church and when we leave)
Whoops. Pardon the typos. Written in haste and heat of passion.
The hand part doesn't worry me, so you're asking the wrong person. Conventions, like gentlemen wearing hats, come and go. It's when the Church jetisons the tenets of the Faith that I see red.
That said, if you don't want your child to take Communion that way, I can't see any reason why the priest shouldn't observe your wishes. I'd simply make the request, firmly and politely. And I'dd tell my boy why I think the traditional method is the right method.
Good luck.
Really?
I remember being taught (in 1971) that the host was not to be chewed, just allowed to dissolve on your tongue. That was after the demand was for the Holy Eucharist to be received kneeling.
I just don't see the reverence for receiving God (as we are taught) in the hand--I guess I've seen too many slouching, irreverant people during Communion to turn me against it. It seems to me that there is too much of this putting God on OUR human level (and I got this education in the 1970s--when I was in elementary school) post V2 versus the proper reverance and respect that we owe Him.
I'm no doubt somewhat older than you, because the convention observed in my childhood was that you ate nothing after midnight prior to Mass (this is 43 years ago, mind you), although I believe this may have been at the insistence of the unreformed, hard-line Irish Jesuits who ran the boarding school I was attending at the time. In the wider community, I think by then the fast was three hours.
Anyway, the sad truth is that all the changes in the Church -- changes purely for the sake of change -- have pretty much withered my faith, which is a terrible thing, as it has left an aching void in my heart and in my life.
My son attends Catholic school and has been versed in his religion, but there are many times I feel like a hypocrite on Sunday morning. I hate what the church has become and -- a terrible thought -- sometimes suspect those who now lead it harbor a secret wish for its eventual destruction.
The last time the flicker of faith flared briefly into a flame was when I attended Tridentine Mass here in New York at St. Agnes near Grand Central Station. Briefly, I could see further than the human uncertainties of every day life, personal weakness and my considerable moral frailty. Why this should have been the case, I'm at a loss to explain. Perhaps the liturgy simply touched memories of my youth, when faith was absolute. Perhaps it was the Latin, a language I still love and thank the Jesuits for laying open to me. Perhaps it was the old Mass's capacity -- indeed, its insistence -- on undistracted reflection, meditation and self-examination. Whatever the reason, fleetingly, faith was restored in full.
My son, I fear, is a lost cause. Neither he nor any of his friends makes the slightest pretense of believing. When he does go to Mass, which isn't very often, it's because there will be some girl or other he's keen to hang with after. Now I'm not one to put down the need for human reproduction and the adolescent mating dance that precedes it, but mere lust strapped down by shifting, weak convention makes a poor basis on which to hope for a resurgence.
Did not Christ say, "Peace be with you."
As imitators of Christ, then why can't we say the same thing?
At the Last Supper, did the apostles high-five each other and wish peace to each other?
By doing this, they take any opposition to communion in the hand and equate it to opposition to Vatican II and by extension to being schismatic (as seen on freepnet by well-honed modernists.)
So they figure that since they cannot get you, they will get your children.
I can still recall my reaction the very first time I ever saw communion in the hand. I recall being completely stunned - not knowing whether to think the priest was a devil or something, or those who received the host on their hands were. Back then, for those of us who were taught over and over again that the whole idea was a sacriledge, it was a shocking experience to say the least.
We've come a long way baby, the practice of communion in the hand, sign of peace and the other novelties were supposed to more closely unite us with Christ - strange how it has accomplished the exact opposite right under of the noses of everyone.
My son made his First Holy Communion last year.
He receives the Host on his tongue.
His father and I were mildly worried that we would get an argument from his teacher about this (the kids go to Catholic school). His teacher was perplexed, but she made it clear to our son and to the whole class that receiving on the tongue was perfectly OK.
My advice is: Ask your child's teacher if she will be teaching that both methods of reception are perfectly OK. You may be surprised at her response.
As for the First Holy Communion ceremony itself...well...THAT left a lot to be desired. The felt banners were a-flyin' (I embroidered one on linen instead), the music was insipid ("I Got the Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy Down In My Heart" -- which led my Lutheran mother-in-law to exclaim, "Why, it's just like Vacation Bible School!"), the children didn't sit together as a class, and the priest gathered them all 'round the altar for the concecration.
But he DID receive on the tongue and nobody said a word.
Strange...and I am beginning to suspect intentional.
Communion in the hand goes right along with disavowing the Real Presense.
As my faith grows, so does my irritation with the Church. I grew up in the 70's and missed out on all the Latin. Yet, I still long for it. I no longer take communion in the hand and neither will my son next year. We also sit in the pews that receive from the priest. I'm not a big fan of extraordinary ministers. Here are a couple sites that you might like reading. You may consider printing one of them out when it comes time for your son to begin his preparations. Good luck!
http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
http://www.tldm.org/directives/d03.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.