Posted on 04/07/2003 10:40:50 AM PDT by 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
Attentive children will hear the words "may the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands..." during Mass, plus the references to offerings during the eucharistic canon.
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.
If your children can not distinguish to whom the priest is praying, when most prayers start "Father..." or "Lord..." then I would be as concerned as you are. I intend to teach my children to listen during Mass and to know the texts that are used.
Then I won't worry so much that the furniture or how the priest stands will destroy my children's faith.
SD
Your wishing will not make it happen. The Novus Ordo mass is the one recognized by the Vatican, along with the Indult Tridentine Rite. Nothing will change this ... nothing! . Perhaps, in time, the EWTN mass (that follows the format put forth by Vatican Council II) will replace both.
. Here is yet another EWTN response to a similar question:
MASS & DISOBEDIENCE
|
If the Old Mass was used by Popes since Gregory I, if Quo Primum of Pius V forbade and condemned changes, if Pius XII in Mediator Dei forbade innovations like the altar facing the people and the vernacular, how can traditional Catholics be disobedient for wanting the Mass of the ages? They are not, as I will explain. First, many features of the Mass do not enjoy the longevity you mention. Liturgical studies encouraged by the Popes since the 1800s have shown that while the core elements of the Roman Mass have not changed many of the lesser elements have. The most authoritative account of this history is Fr. Josef Jungmann's two volumes The Mass of the Roman Rite. Up until Trent the Mass could differ between regions and dioceses, as local adaptations were made to a basic Latin Rite. Rome did not, and practically could not, exercise so firmly her supreme authority over the liturgy. The Reformation changed that, and the Holy See reserved authority to herself. The question is not whether the Church was or is bound to the liturgical form promulgated for universal usage in the Roman Rite by Pope St. Pius V through Quo Primum, she is not, but who has authority to make changes. This is why Pope Pius XII, Vatican II and the 1983 Code of Canon Law all state that any changes in the Liturgy must come from the Holy See. The Popes, like Pius V in Quo Primum and Pius XII in Mediator Dei, decry and forbid innovations, changes by those without authority. This safeguards the essential forms, and thus the validity, of the sacraments. The Supreme authority in the Church, a Pope or a Council in union with the Pope, always has the authority to make changes to ecclesiastical discipline, such as the liturgical forms that cloak the essential matter and form of a sacrament. Pius XII made changes, John XXIII made changes, Vatican II proposed changes, and Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have made changes. All have understood that Popes do not bind other Popes or Councils in such matters, otherwise the Supreme authority would not be Supreme. As for the altar and the vernacular, it is up to the Supreme Magisterium to determine when, and where, and for whom, they are opportune. Both options of altar and language have been used in the Church. These are prudential disciplinary matters not matters of faith, which are protected by the charism of infallibility. However, even in such disciplinary matters the Church cannot err so as to undermine the validity of the sacraments, otherwise Christ' promise to be with His Church would fail. They are prudential judgments about which popes and Catholics may be of different opinions. Popes and Catholics are not bound to respect your and my opinion on the matter. Catholics are bound to respect that of Popes, however, as a practical matter of ecclesiastical communion. That is what the doctrine of Papal Primacy teaches.
All Catholics should respect the teaching and authority of the Church – whether manifested through a Council or a Pope. As for preferring the traditional rites, since the Holy See has shown its solicitude for traditional Catholics it can hardly be a matter of disobedience to prefer the Tridentine Mass. It would be theologically untenable to argue that in and of itself there could be any grounds for claiming so. Disobedience is a matter of a person's will knowingly rejecting lawful authority. Where that is not present there is no disobedience. In matters of the liturgy, the Holy See is that authority, and its willingness to satisfy the aspirations of traditional Catholics is clear. |
| Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL |
That's the problem. Attentive children will hear and see a lot more than "may the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands..." . Attentive children will see priests who don't genuflect. Attentive children will see a slew of lay people on the altar handling the Real Presence as if they are poker chips. Attentive children will hear the horrible, banal music that, by itself, could drive people from the Church. Attentive children will see imodestly dressed people who talk, chew gum and hold hands during the Mass.
The danger with the Novus Ordo is that children may pay attention and have their souls corrupted.
If so, then you will be committing the sin of presumption. If you say to yourself, "I can see millions upon millions of the faithful dropping away, but I know that I and my family are immune," then you do not show proper humility, distrust of self, and fear of sin.
It's clear that the vast majority of Catholics don't even attend Mass on Sunday anymore. And that's just the bare minimum. How many are following the Church's teaching on birth control (a mortal sin that leads to damnation)? Statistics indicate less than 5%. Belief in the real presence has plummetted. What makes you think that you are unique? Do you think that none of these people knew the words of the New Mass?
Of course, as you say, knowing "the texts that are used" is always a good idea. Why not start by learning the text that was always used for over a thousand years? And then comparing it to the text that is used today? You will find that not one single prayer remains unchanged. Here is a website where you can see the New Mass side-by-side with a translation of the Latin Mass:
Missals Comparison
That's the problem with the "Latin Mass" types. You overstretch your arguments. If you were content to list these abuses of the NO Mass and demand that they be corrected, then we would be on the same side. And I agree with you that the NO Mass, on paper and in reality, shows less physical respect for the Real Presence.
But you have to go further, with the ridiculous arguments that the "Altar" (though called an altar) is not an altar. And that the sacrificial nature of the Mass (though referred to as a sacrifice) is missing. These arguments are silly.
Everything you listed is an abuse, not a condition of the NO Mass. Priests are supposed to genuflect. They do at my Church. Extraordinary ministers are used all the time. The hippie music is awful.
But not all NO parishes are like that, and until you realize that the NO does not have to be what you have seen, and that people are capable of recognizing a prayer to God, regarless of the way the priest is standing, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Give me some credit for understanding what is going on, and I will give you some likewise.
Spare us the boilerplate "it's a table, not an altar" stuff.
SD
I commit no sin different than those who assume that a Latin Mass is a panacea. How about I teach my kids the faith, and you do the same, OK?
It's clear that the vast majority of Catholics don't even attend Mass on Sunday anymore. And that's just the bare minimum. How many are following the Church's teaching on birth control (a mortal sin that leads to damnation)? Statistics indicate less than 5%. Belief in the real presence has plummetted. What makes you think that you are unique? Do you think that none of these people knew the words of the New Mass?
Yes, society is collapsing. Are those who hear the Mass in Latin immune from this? Nobody at a Latin Mass is a a sinner? Is that what you are saying?
The Church has failed splendidly to pass on the faith in the last 40 years or so, and that failure has been in adapting too much, being too "progressive." The remedy is to find the proper balance, not to retreat into isolated shell communities, who "tsk tsk" at others' failures.
You will find that not one single prayer remains unchanged.
Yes. What is your point? That the Church lacks the authority to change the texts of Her own liturgy?
SD
Well it's nice to know that someone is still infallible now that the pope is kissing the Koran. "NYer has spoken, the case is closed." And there's nothing like bold-face type to answer an argument conclusively. Having seen you state in bold-faced type that it's hopeless, I was ready to give up all hope that the Church will return to the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But then I decided I'd wait until I see it in ALL CAPS. Then I'll be certain that the case is closed.
That's not the way it's supposed to work. That's Protestantism, not the Catholic Faith. The Catholic faith should be the same for every country, every parish, every family. Now there's hardly 2 parishes that believe the same and worship the same. Not to speak of families.
Of course, as you say, each father has a responsibility to be the spiritual head of his family. But the faith that we should be teaching our children should be the same faith, the same belief, the same worship.
Nobody at a Latin Mass is a a sinner? Is that what you are saying?
I'm sure you're aware that I did not say any such thing. What I said was that it's presumptious to ignore known dangers. People die from accidents all the time, but those who are walking along the edge of a cliff are taking a much greater risk. As the original writer to EWTN said, the New Mass is a known danger to the faith of children. This is a fact as demonstrated by mountains of data.
Yes. What is your point? That the Church lacks the authority to change the texts of Her own liturgy?
Since you are willing to agree that not one single prayer of the traditional Catholic Mass remains untouched in the New Mass, then you must at least stop and consider whether it is true that they are "the same Mass." Catholic philosophy has always been consistent with human reason. Two things that are utterly different cannot be the same. If the New Mass is in fact NOT the same as the traditional Catholic Mass, then what kind of service are you attending?
The TRUE Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place daily, in every corner of the globe. If you are referring to the Indult Tridentine Rite, then that too is said daily, around the world.
If, however, you expect that one day, the Vatican will suddenly announce they they erred in adopting the NO Mass, then you are sadly mistaken. The NO mass, as radical as it may seem to you, is here to stay. The church gives catholics two choices - the Novus Ordo mass or the Indult Tridentine Rite. If there is no Indult mass in your community, you should address this with your bishop.
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the NO mass. That mass however addresses some of the errors that made their way into the Latin mass. (these have already beendiscussed here).
The fault line of progressive/orthodox falls within the Church as well. Seminaries in orthodox diocese, like in Nebraska, are also "bursting at the seams." These are seminaries that are NO.
The problem of progressive elements within the Church is indeed "Solving itself." The need to schism is unclear.
SD
I was having a little fun in my previous post, but the serious point is, "How can you predict the future?" "Man proposes, but God disposes" -- we don't know what God has in store for us. Right now God seems to think that we need to be punished by taking away from us the grace of the sacraments and leaving us to rot in our sin. But in His Providence He may deign to be merciful and to give back to us the necessary means to live lives of grace and sanctity.
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.