New Mass / Validity versus Scandal

EWTN ^

[Land of the Irish]

Question from R James on 04-02-2003:

Dear Father Levis:

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

[SoothingDave]

I was distinguishing between the altar (where the altar always was) and the table put in front. Otherwise, it's sort of "Who's on first?"

Only for the very slow-witted. In Churches where the altar was relocated, the relocated altar is still an altar. It is not a "table." In other Churches there is no "where the altar always was," there is just the altar that is.

Please, stop playing these stupid word games. It doesn't do you any credit.

And yes, I do recall veneration of relics; at St. Anthony's Shrine in Boston there is still a weekly veneration of a relic of St. Anthony (novena prayers at the Prayer of the Faithful at the Mass) -- we kiss the reliquary, but we don't bow to it.

I suppose then, that "Protestants" don't accuse you of worshipping grave images then. Since you are only "kissing" and not "bowing" towards the object.

Now, do you have any objections that you yourself don't violate? Or shall we stop introducing mythical Protestants to object to each other?

SD

[SoothingDave]

And no, of course not -- and here you're being deliberately obtuse.

Look, I said something, and you responded with a tangential point. I'm not the one being obtuse.

My point was that someone who had never experienced a Mass in a foreign tongue would be just as "awed" by any foreign language.

If you can't respond to my point, stop throwing out red herrings.

SD

[american colleen]

Consider yourself ahead of the curve.

Well, that's a first!

I looked at the new online GIRM and it has the translation "that I shall be healed" but I must have been taught "that my soul shall be healed" as a kid and it stuck.

[SoothingDave]

I looked at the new online GIRM and it has the translation "that I shall be healed" but I must have been taught "that my soul shall be healed" as a kid and it stuck.

Sometime before you and I pass away, God willing, there will be English translations of the Third Missal where we say things like "And with your spirit."

SD

[american colleen]

Perhaps you neither consider the altar to be a sacred place, nor have the relics of a saint contained within?

I have to agree with maryz on this one. Otherwise, you would be doing that "profound bow" thing to both the altar containing the saints relics (which was never done) and to the tabernacle forlornly placed on that side altar - treating both exactly the same.

I always wonder what the heck people are bowing to when they pass the altar as well - unless the tabernacle is located on the main altar, that is.

[SoothingDave]

I have to agree with maryz on this one. Otherwise, you would be doing that "profound bow" thing to both the altar containing the saints relics (which was never done) and to the tabernacle forlornly placed on that side altar - treating both exactly the same.

You are to genuflect to the tabernacle and bow to the altar. Two different gestures. Two different realities.

SD

[SoothingDave]

49 When the priest, the deacon, and the ministers enter the sanctuary, they reverence the altar with a profound bow. As a sign of veneration, the priest and deacon kiss the altar; when the occasion warrants, the priest may also incense the cross and the altar.

GIRM found here

SD

[american colleen]

We can hope! But I thought the "open arms and palms" by the laity for the Our Father was supposed to be stopped. But the priests really don't say anything. Like the encyclical on Confession... never heard a word about that either.

It used to bother me until I really thought about it and asked myself "why?" - hey, if it makes them happy, go right ahead. I doubt anyone will be judged on whether they bow or genuflect, open their arms during the Our Father or keep them by their sides, etc., etc.

Snowing again here. Just to add to the 5 or 6 inches we got last night. *sigh*

[SoothingDave]

275 A bow is a sign of the reverence and honor given to persons or what represents those persons.

a) An inclination of the head should be made when the three Divine Persons are named, at the name of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is celebrated.
b) A bow of the body, or profound bow, is made: toward the altar if there is no tabernacle with the blessed sacrament; during the prayers Almighty God, cleanse and With humble and contrite hearts; with the profession of faith at the words was incarnate of the Holy Spirit . . . made man; in Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon) at the words Almighty God, command that your angel. The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks the blessing before proclaiming the gospel reading. In addition, the priest bends over slightly as he says the words of the Lord at the consecration.

[american colleen]

You are to genuflect to the tabernacle and bow to the altar. Two different gestures.

Genuflect? I haven't seen a priest genuflect in years. No one genuflects except at the Indult.

I think the "profound bow" has replaced the genuflection in the GIRM. And I think it is sad that the altar, containing the relics of saints, is treated with the same sign of respect that the consecrated Eucharist is treated. Especially since most Catholics probably have no idea that the altar contains the relics of saints.

[SoothingDave]

274 A genuflection, which is made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and for this reason is reserved to the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Holy Cross, from the solemn adoration in the liturgy of Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

Three genuflections are made during Mass by the priest celebrant: after the showing of the Eucharistic bread, after the showing of the chalice, and before communion. Special features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (see nos. 210-252).

If there is a tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament in the sanctuary, the priest, deacon and other ministers genuflect to it when they approach or leave the altar, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.

Otherwise, all who cross before the most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are involved in a procession.

Ministers who are carrying the processional cross or the candles bow their heads in place of a genuflection.

*******************************************

Again, that is genuflection for the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle. And a bow for the altar.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Genuflect? I haven't seen a priest genuflect in years. No one genuflects except at the Indult.

Then they are wrong. If the tabernacle is present, that is. If the Tabernacle is not present, there is no need to genuflect.

Except, as noted, during the three times during the Mass. After the consecration of both the Bread and Wine the priest should genuflect.

I think the "profound bow" has replaced the genuflection in the GIRM.

No. It may have in practice in some places, but it is an error.

And I think it is sad that the altar, containing the relics of saints, is treated with the same sign of respect that the consecrated Eucharist is treated.

It is both sad and disobedient.

SD

[american colleen]

Thanks for your #128... I thought genuflection had been stopped in front of the Blessed Sacrament. It is NOT done in my parish - a bow, no different from the bow to the altar is what is done. In fairness, the two priests are older.

[SoothingDave]

Here's the GIRM straight from the US Bishops web site. This is the "new" version. Ask your pastor about it.

SD

[TradicalRC]

Pro multis has always been translated as for many (as scripture still has it). The current use of "for all" certainly implies universal salvation an Idea that has become de rigeur in progressive circles and blatantly contradicts Christ's teaching on the matter of Heaven and Hell.

[dsc]

"just to recognize that there is a power in a special language."

Yes, yes, yes--and that's one reason that it was a gross error in judgment to abandon the 2000 year old tradition of a Latin liturgy.

Another, of course, is that the changeover provided an opening for modernists to try and "translate" their political and social agendas into the liturgy.

I like knowing that I'm getting the straight stuff, and not some Maoist's corruption.

The Church bulletin last Sunday carried a corruption of the Anima Christi that just about gagged me. They get away with it because it's English. If they started changing the Latin, it would be too obvious.

[Salvation]

To me this whole discussion has more to do with expecting the Lord regardless of the type of Mass said. With the correct mindset and heartset, Christ will be there in the Real Presence, regardless of the Mass version -- valid, that is!.

Expect the Lord, do manfully, and let thy heart take courage, and wait thou for the Lord.

 -- Psalm xxvi. 14 

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Domestic Church]

As I posted that I figured you both were in agreement as you both are steeped in the teachings but I felt it was important to clarify it considering the public eye on our words and the cultural clash on the role of education in this country.

[SoothingDave]

I agree with all that you say. Except that the gross error was not to "abandon" the Latin liturgy, but rather to not police the entirely reasonable efforts to use the vernacular where appropriate.

That people should not be rewriting and injecting their own ideas into the liturgy is a given, regardless of what tongue it is in. The complete failure to control and police the actions of priests and bishops is the issue. When priests were fluent in Latin, it would have been completely possible for them to "ad lib" parts of the Mass that they objected to, or thought needed their own particular "influence."

Possible, but unthinkable. Today we are selfish and each priest wants to tailor the Mass to suit himself. This is made easier by being in the vernacular, but it is made possible by the loss of faith and respect for the Church.

SD