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.
And what do you do when you sit on the side of the church with an extraordinary minister giving out communion?
These are well-meaning people, good people, so this isn't personal. However, the name is EXTRAordinary which means giving Holy Communion in extenuating circumstances (absence of a priest, obviously). But they're there, even during the weekday masses, I've noticed. (when I've gone during the week)
I grew up during the seventies too, and thankfully, things have calmed down (at least here in the Deep South) My grandparents were really hurt with all of the changes (Yes! change just for the sake of change), most especially my Grandpa. (he was a cradle Catholic, my Grandma converted from Lutheranism in her late 20s, I believe) But, they stuck it out. Hopefully, they are in Heaven praying that Latin, the beautiful and ancient language that bound us around the world as Catholics will make a return to everyday Mass again. Did I also mention that my parish's last priest doesn't even know Latin? I thought all of the Church documents (coming from the Vatican) were written in Latin? However, this priest also brought back the 24 hour exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, had May crownings of the Blessed Mother, and other traditional practices.
On a brighter note, when I went to Mass this morning we have around 12-14 seminarians for our diocese! As my diocese has gone back to more traditional practices (pre-Mass Rosaries, Novenas, First Friday Observations and Expositions of the Blessed Sacrament) so has the # of vocations gone up. Great news indeed!
I'm not sure I can accept your blaming the Church for *your* withering of faith. Take some responsibility for your own salvation, legitimate grievances with the Church notwithstanding.
"Take and eat, all of you..."
Communion in the hand was the common method of receiving the Eucharist for four centuries, in the early Church.
ROFL.
My Father says that he's 'skeptical' about these extraordinary ministers.
I don't have to deal with it at my regular Mass, as it's the Tridentine Rite. I receive Communion on the tongue, on my knees, at the Altar rail with a dish held under my chin should the Host accidentally drop.
When I go to see my Parents though and I attend Mass there, there seems to be an extraordinary amount of extraordinary Ministers. I'm used to it by now, and I don't prefer it, but I don't care too too much, especially when the extraordinary Minister is an elderly Polish gentleman, who's a Holy Man in my estimation.
The Evangelicals seem to have great success making their religion cool -- skateboarding, rap, and none of the Mystery...but it draws the 25 and younger! I guess the post Vatican II RCC didn't go far enough...
You can't go half way in dismantling Tradition. Christianity was never about pleasing the latest trends so that young people can "enjoy" their faith (that's pretty un-biblical, don't you think?). The Lutherans didn't finish the job Luther started -- the Catholics did!
Then on the other hand, traditionalist Islam is gaining (the common denominator in all this growth seems to be fundementalism regardless of religion and not something luke-warm), so one can't say it's simply "Lutheran" or "Protestant." What is now Catholic? That's pretty sad. That's why we Orthodox Christians say Western Christianity is something unrecogniziable.
Today, the Catholic news announced two more parishes closing down by bankrupsy from legal battles over priestly sex-absue scandals. My deepst sympathies.
My own diocese,Phoenix hss been blessed with a new and very Catholic Bishop. This return to the Catholic Church seems to be occurring with increasing frequency throughout the country.
In the interest of good,valid information can you tell me what diocese you are in as well as the name of your B/bishop? Thanks.
Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee (Florida), Bishop J. Ricard
Communion in the hand was the common method of receiving the Eucharist for four centuries, in the early Church.
But, let us not forget that Our Lord has just instituted the priesthood, and therefore, was talking to a set of Bishops, not lay people.
The practice of Communion in the hand was the single issue that turned me off the Novus Ordo. It came at a stage in my life that I started to actually learn what the faith was all about, what the Real Presence actually meant, and what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really was. Up until then, the phrase The Body of Christ was just an empty one, without much impact at all. Why was this? Because the faith in the Real Presence wasn't backed up by the example given in the New Mass. It was treated like a symbol. It is a shocking statistic that the vast majority of Western Catholics that actually attend Mass do not believe in the Real Presence as the Church teach it.
To your point on the practice of the Early Church. Yes, Communion in the hand was widespread, but please consider the context in which this was happening. The Church was either practicising in the catacombs, or had just come out into the open. The faithful were just that - extremely faithful, were extremely close and most of them lived on a daily fear of martyrdom (was it 10 million Catholics killed by the Romans in the first 4 centuries?).
When the Church came out into the open, proper churches were built, and the general populace began to practice. Faith was not as fervent in places, and abuses started to creep in. Eventually, the church condemned the practice as an abuse:
Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.taken from Some Considerations on Communion in the Hand by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald.
Moreover, times have moved on. The Protestant "reformation" returned to Communion in the hand as a direct expression of their disbelief in the Real Presence. The Roman Catechism put it this way: Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species, so people are leaving parts of the Real Presence behind on their hands without even knowing about it. Also, our knowledge of the Real Presence has deepened (see someone like St. Alphonsus' writings on the Blessed Sacrament, or St. Thomas Aquinas), so to reverse this is simply illogical - the tree does not revert to the seed). Symbolism has also changed - today, to have something in your hand is to "possess" it - a contradiction in terms of the Blessed Sacrament. We are not to take "possession" of the host, but to be fed by it by the priest, who stands in the place of Our Lord. The practice opens up the possibility of real abuse: taken away for satanic ritual (this does happen!) or even - as I have read recently - framed in a wedding photo album (this almost defies belief!). Finally, the practice was introduced through disobedience of the Dutch Bishops - is this really the sort of president we should follow.
I encourage everyone to shun this practice. It has taken on the baggage of the Protestant faith, has been previously condemned by the Church, Pope Paul VI's inquiry to the Bishops rejected it (but was introduced anyway), and - at the end of the day - is less reverent than receiving Our Lord directly on the tongue in the traditional way.
"And what do you do when you sit on the side of the church with an extraordinary minister giving out communion?"
That only happens if I'm traveling. I casually go stand at the back of the church near the line going to the priest and until I can find a place to jump in line. If, for some reason, I'm unable to do this I will take communion from an Extraordinary Minister. I don't want to make a huge deal of it. I just make an effort. :-)
Stick to your guns! I was the only child in my First Communion class back in the late 70's to receive the Blessed Sacrament on my tongue. My parents taught me well and I owe them my faith. So, despite all the wreckage you see around you, hang in there and stay close to the Mother of God. She's never far from her children. :)
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.