New Mass / Validity versus Scandal

On this expert forums, there is sometimes debate over the validity of the New ("Novus Ordo") Mass.

I would like to respond to this debate by noting that oftentimes the reason that many Catholics avoid the New Mass (and attend the traditional Latin Mass instead) is not out of concern over its validity (as most "traditional Catholics" I know believe that the New Mass is indeed valid), but rather out of a fear that by attending the New Mass, they would be immorally scandalizing their CHILDREN. Please allow me to explain.

The dramatic fall-off in Mass attendance, along with the dissipation of priestly vocations, can be clearly traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Similarly, decline in the belief in the Real Presence of Christ can be traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Thus, many Catholic parents fear that it would be immoral to subject their children to the New Mass out of concern that they would, among other things, (1) stop going to Mass, (2) less likely to be called to the priesthood / religious life, and (3) less likely to believe in the Real Presence.

And this is not simply a matter of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (in other words, coincidence). There are simple, cogent reasons why the New Mass could be seen as detrimental to the Faith.

For instance, the Real Presence of Christ in the Latin Mass is undeniably confirmed by the fact that (1) the priest must not separate his fingers once he touches the Sacred Host, (2) laity receive the Host on their knees, (3) laity may not touch the Host, (4) a paten is placed under the chins of those receiving the Eucharist to guard against the chance that a crumb may fall to the ground. None of these safeguards are present in the New Mass.

The notion of Mass as a SACRIFICE is obscured by replacing altars with tables. Sure, they may still be called altars, and they may even be marble (although they're usually not), but they do indeed look much more like tables to children rather than something different and set apart -- like a Tridentine altar.

The fact that the priest faces the congregation throughout the New Mass makes it appear much more like the priest is talking to the congregation, rather than to God. Children see this.

In sum, children are quite perceptive, and they notice these little things. Catholic parents need all the help they can get in raising children in the Faith. Sadly, the New Mass is not that helpful -- indeed, it often undermines many of the key tenets of the Faith via practices that are inconsistent with the Truths of the Mass.

So please understand that many of us who avoid the New Mass do so not because we believe it's invalid (we don't), but rather because we are parents who believe that it would be immoral to subject our children to a liturgy that can confuse or undermine Church teaching.

(An obvious response to this would be: how can the Church do anything to undermine its own teaching? One need only look at "Catholic" colleges, and many "Catholic" high schools, to see that this sadly happens all the time. Or see how Catholic bishops have responded to the sex-abuse scandals; the Church is certainly infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, but is NOT infallible in matters of prudential judgment. In other words, the Church can make a mistake with regard to the best method of evangelization, safeguarding the Faith, etc.)

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 04-03-2003: R. James, Many thanks. Your arguments are very interesting; I am not sure I would use them like you do, but they have some strength. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis

CCC #2221 The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute. The right and duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

I think that you and I and Dave all agree on this. I said so in my post. What I was objecting to was the idea that we all teach our kids whatever we feel like. Dave said that he didn't support that anymore than I did. As to parents as the "primordial and inalienable teachers" of children, that is something that cannot be stressed enough. Thanks for the reference. Especially today with the Catholic schools likely to destroy the faith of any child sent to them.

What "Reality" of the Faith do I not have? What tenet am I missing? What Truth am I not getting?

Here is just one example -- I chose an issue unrelated to the liturgy, but one which affects every aspect of your life as a family. Have you ever been taught the primary purpose of marriage? Many popes have dogmatically stated that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Pope Pius XII said:

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

This sounds very much like an infallible teaching, not because of an ex cathedra statement, but because he demonstrates the repeated concurrence of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Yet this teaching is not only ignored today, it is actively attacked and derided, even by the Vatican. I know of no statement from the last 3 pontificates which unambiguously expresses this foundational teaching. Even the canon law was changed to be ambiguous.

Any Catholic who is not active in the traditional movement will be unaware of such fundamental matters. There are hundreds more. How can someone build a solid family life when the hierarchy is actively working to suppress and distort the necessary information?

I am honestly curious as to whether his opinion of the responsorial part of the Mass is held by all traditionalists

As expressed by other posters, to some extent it is a personal preference of High Mass versus Low Mass. But to some extent there is a larger issue of what is meant by "active participation." Since Vatican II the term "active participation" has come to mean physical activities: singing, holding hands, moving back and forth between postures, lay people undertaking "ministries," etc. But true "active participation" occurs on the spiritual level. It means participating spiritually in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Our model at Mass should be the Blessed Mother and the way she behaved at the original sacrifice on Calvary. Her participation was supremely active, and yet it was silent and interior.

Some traditionalists like the dialogue Mass, congregational singing, etc., and they may find that it aids their "active participation," while remembering the concept that these things in themselves do not constitute active participation, and in fact they could possibly impede true active participation. Other traditionalists prefer the silence of the Low Mass where there is nothing to distract their focus from the essential action of the sacrifice.

In either case, we must remember that spiritual activity cannot be sensed by any of our 5 senses, nor does it involve even our emotions. We don't "feel" anything when grace is active. Emotions of any kind, even those which we associate with religion such as sorrow or uplift do not necessarily correspond to any interior reality of grace.

Just to be clear, I think that the Indult should be widely available and that those who prefer it should not be denied.

I don't know the Latin Mass very well, but I do know it is more orthodox than the NO Mass said in most parishes. Sadly, our Pope and bishops still forbid the tradional Mass in most dioceses. One can only conclude they see it as a threat to the liberal agenda.

Conservatives, open your eyes. The reverently said NO is almost as rare a the Indult. Conservatives and Traditionalists must join in protest against the liberal, sex-scandalous Pope and bishops.

The Pope's a liberal? I don't think so. He's a staunch defender of the Vatican II Council, but he is no liberal. Remember, the Council was only less than forty years ago, and we're still dealing with the resulting arguments over how to implement it. Most church-going Catholics acknowledge that reverance is the huge problem with the NO Mass, or any Mass said these days. I think the large cause of this lack of reverance is lack of parental involvement in the religious upbringing of their children, plus the subversive influence of infiltrators in the Church who have their own agenda.

I think the large cause of this lack of reverance is lack of parental involvement in the religious upbringing of their children, plus the subversive influence of infiltrators in the Church who have their own agenda.

You know what's weird, where I attend Mass, the more irreverent people are not the young, but those who lived through the upheaval. The younger people are the ones who are actually quiet before Mass. It's really bizzare. Other than the people with toddlers (who are naturally irreverent, the little cuties), the young people are not the offenders. ANd most parents I see are teaching their children well.

You know what's weird, where I attend Mass, the more irreverent people are not the young, but those who lived through the upheaval.

Great point -- I've noticed the same thing. At our old New Mass parish, I called them the "flock of starlings." As soon as the priest said "Mass is ended, go in peace," they broke out into conversation like a flock of birds. We also noticed that the Saturday afternoon Mass was attended almost exclusively by those old enough to have lived before Vatican II. My theory is that this group feels like they are getting away with something by going to Mass on Saturday. Sort of like kids getting let out of school early.

The Pope's a liberal? I don't think so.

Some of the Pope's appointments are openly heretical like Cardinal Kasper. However, most are smooth-talking "moderate conservatives" that surround themselves with an aura of orthodoxy while continueing the policies of their more honestly liberal predecessors.

The Pope is definately tainted by the still-going, world-wide sex scandal. That should undermine any credibility that would otherwise remain.

Most church-going Catholics acknowledge that reverance is the huge problem with the NO Mass, or any Mass said these days.

I have to disagree. What if the Episcopalians were more reverent -- would it make their Mass valid? What about the Lutherans and the Methodists -- is reverence going to change the nature of their services? What really matters is the reality of what is taking place. Reverence is the response to that reality and it tends to occur spontaneously in the presence of the divinity. Of course some people will be irreverent anywhere. But most people know when they are in a sacred place.

In a New Mass church they act appropriately for that venue. A horizontal service calls out a horizontal reaction. People interact with each other. In a church for the traditional Catholic Mass they act appropriately for a different venue where a different reality is taking place. They are interacting with God, at least we hope they are.

You know what's weird, where I attend Mass, the more irreverent people are not the young, but those who lived through the upheaval.

Do you mean people of Baby-Boomer age? That would make sense to me. According to a book that I read titled "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll, the Baby-Boomers trend to be less orthodox, and those of my generation, born in late 1960s until the early 1980s, have many more orthodox worshippers who seek the more traditional devotions like Eucharistic adoration. It's a good book.

Just a tidbit related to your FR name, you obviously know that Desdemona is a Shakepearean name, but did you know there is a moon of Uranus named Desdemona? It was dicovered by the Voyager 2 space probe in 1986.

Do you mean people of Baby-Boomer age?

More the people older than that. The ones currently at retirement age.

...you obviously know that Desdemona is a Shakepearean name, but did you know there is a moon of Uranus named Desdemona? It was dicovered by the Voyager 2 space probe in 1986.

I've heard that, but actually I chose it because of an opera character from Otello (Verdi). Desdemona is the only character in all of opera who is traditionally dressed to resemble the Blessed Mother. She is without fault. And she sings one gorgeous aria. I started working on it earlier this year.

I also recall, when I used to attend a Tridentine Rite Mass in Huntington Beach, Calif., that the congregation was encouraged to participate in the Mass, at different times. I believe that in the missals, all the parts where the altar boys were called to respond, the congregation was called to respond as well.

It's been a couple years, but I recall singing the profession of faith -- although I have to admit that not a lot of people around me seemed to do it. I think they were under the impression that the congregation was supposed to remain silent. The only reason I didn't think that was because when I first started attending, all I did was read the missal (which gave the instructions to participate).

Also, I recall the priest, during one of his homilies, calling on the people to raise their voices, both in the responses as well as the exit song.

If the SSPX had gotten what they wanted, why do you suppose recent talks with Rome have broken down? Clearly Rome was unwilling to grant anything more than a special canonical status. It steadfastly refused to discuss the theological underpinnings of its New Mass--which traditionalists believe are aggressively Protestant and very subversive of the Catholic faith. Rome wishes a reconciliation without any challenge to the multiple novelties it has promulgated in the name of the Church it continues to sabotage.

The SSPX is well aware of Rome's power to reneg on promises, moreover. It has already betrayed the FSSP by firing its superior general and replacing its seminary theologians. It has also begun chipping-away at the traditional Mass as well. There are more and more instances of Indult priests using lay ministers to distribute the Eucharist, receiving communion in the hands, and violating other traditional rubrics in an effort to bring the Old Mass into greater harmony with the New. Campos would be still another example in which Rome has forged an agreement with a traditional community, but then proceeded to angle more and more concessions corrupting the traditional Mass.

SSPX is wary of all this. It holds onto the ancient faith above all else and will not come under Rome's aegis until it is certain those in command reject the modernism which is aggressively destroying Catholic tradition.

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.