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
SD
Ever try the indult at Old St. Mary's in Chinatown?
wrong form
Ok, thanks for answering. How much of the text has to be exact for the proper form to be in place? And who is the judge of this?
Incidentally, are you then of the position that the NO in Latin is valid?
SD
Historically that's not quite the way it happened. The vernacular versions of the New Mass came first. Then the Latin version was back-translated from the vernacular. But when they created the official Latin version, they retained much more language from the traditional Mass than the vernacular versions had done.
That's why the same errors are present in every major European language (I'm told that Polish is an exception). They were all created with the same (heretical) meanings in their own vernaculars long before an official Latin Novus Ordo was created.
You can compare this process to what happens today with encyclicals. When the pope is the primary author, he writes it in Polish. Then he with assistance translates it into Italian which is then the working document in the Vatican. The Italian is translated into French which becomes the language of the official release. (For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was released first in French and took several years before it was available in English.) Then the French is translated into Latin which become the official version of record, but it's actually the LAST version created.
Recall the controversy when the pope said that "Hell is more than a place," and "Evolution is more than a theory." In both cases there was a great deal of discussion regarding his exact wording. In the written document it was in French, but in the spoken speech it was in Italian.
The point being that ICEL did not mis-translate the Latin of the New Mass as most people believe. The ICEL was part of a world-wide process in which new vernacular liturgies were created with little or no reference to the traditional Latin Mass. The Latin NO came later and it retained the language of the traditional Mass in some places where the vernacular liturgy had discarded it.
Does this "mistranslation" void the Sacrament, and how?
The New Mass says "pro multis" in Latin, which means that it retains the possibility of potential validity. Perhaps it is not inherently invalid per se. But what about the greater than 99% of Masses world-wide that are offered in the vernacular? According to the Council of Trent they are invalid. Trent specified the words that are necessary for a valid consecration, and they include words that are separated out in all-caps in the traditional missal.
The teaching is that if any of these words are changed such that they have a different meaning, then the consecration is invalid. So a small or accidental change that does not change the meaning does not invalidate the Mass. Does the change of "for many" to "for all" constitute a different meaning? According to the Council of Trent, "Yes, indeed it does." They specifically ruled on this point.
I have heard the argument that by changing Christ's words, the form is not proper. I am not qualified to make that determination. If I ever have doubts about the validity of a Consecration, it's usually because I believe the intent is not there.
It is difficult to answer. I honestly don't think I can divorce myself of my own experience to try to imagine such a scenario in a disinterested manner.
As for something "inherent" in the old Mass, versus the new, I think we need to consider a few things. One, you had a true desire to learn the Faith, and to recognize the Mass of the ages.
True. But had I attended a Tridnetine Rite Mass, through growing up -- all things being equal (i.e., same disposition of my parents, same disposition of the parish itself, CCD program, etc.) - the question is would the results have been different? Or even, would there have been a greater chance of me NOT falling away? I'm not sure if this is a question that can be answered, because as you point out, most Tridentine Rite parishes are already composed of families who are devout, and if the kids are not, then their parents at least are. It's sort of like the statistic bandied about that couples who live together before marriage are many times more likely to get divorced than couples who wait to move in together until after their married -- the people who are living together are probably not (on average) Christian, and so they probably don't have the same negative opinion about divorce.
I think the real test would be to find a Tridentine Rite parish that had some liberal priest in charge, a leftover, burnt-out hippie in charge of music, and Sister Feminazi in charge of the CCD program --- and then see how the average parishioner's faith was shaped. Would the Tridentine Rite Mass ensure, despite the environmental disadvantages, proper catechetics
Re pro multis:
from (http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm)
ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many",which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all".
The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.
That's a valid point. And I think it's one that traditionalists (in the non-pejorative sense -- those who favor the Tridentine Mass) would use to argue that Mass *should* be said in Latin, because we are ultimately physical beings, and the auricular is one of our senses. The Catholic faith appeals to us on both levels -- the physical and the spiritual -- and so our worship should be cognizant of that. Therefore, our manner should be different when in the physical presence of God, our songs should be different, our language should be different -- different meaning *special* -- something reserved for God. Something that, in its form and function, resembles and embodies the "other worldliness" that is part and parcel of the Catholic faith.
I would say that using Latin for the Mass (whether NO or Tridentine) is a compelling argument. I'm not sure though -- even though I personally prefer it -- that you could likewise argue that either the NO or the Tridentine rite (aside from the language) is better at conveying a sense of "otherworldliness."
I'm not sure how you could argue one way or the other. Certainly, I think we would both agree that kids joining hands around the altar table, with folk "kumbaya" music playing, accompanied by a full drum kit and bass player dressed in baggy jeans and an unbuttoned torn flannel shirt, parishioners dressed in T-shirts and flip-flops, and a Church filled with modern "interpretation" art depicting the stations of the Cross and the Crucifix --- this sort of scene would certainly not convey that sense of "otherwordliness." The question is -- are Tridentine Rite parishes impervious to this kind of practice? I guess it would take a pre-Vatican II person to offer anecdotal evidence, but it would be interesting to hear whether, prior to Vatican II, when everyone was still saying the same Mass, in the same language, throughout the entire world --- were there parishes that allowed the "world" to seep in, at the expense of holiness, sanctity and "otherworldliness".
But if the priest was saying the *technically* incorrect words, but with the *correct* meaning and understanding (that is, he's saying it meaning the appropriate belief regarding Christ's blood shed for men), wouldn't Trent allow for that? Conversely, a priest could say the correct words, but internally disbelieve or mean something else by the words -- would it still be a validly consecrated host?
I would imagine not -- and the reason why being the intent of the priest. But that's just my opinion. Feel free to correct me.
I can't answer for all major religions, but surely it's true of Judaism. They use as a cautionary example the Jewish community at Alexandria, which translated the Scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint). "What Jewish community at Alexandria?", you might ask. Indeed, it dissolved not that long thereafter.
As for Reform Judaism, let me illuminate with a joke I heard when I studied Hebrew: Briefly, a grandmother wanted to have a "Chanukah bush" for her grandson who wanted one desperately. She asked her Orthodox rabbi if he would say a brachah (blessing -- the Jewish Siddur has blessings for all sorts of things -- special occasions, daily occurences, rare occurrences, natural phenomena) over it. He practically threw her out. She went to a Conservative rabbi; he was more gentle, but said it would be impossible. She went to a Reform rabbi, who was all smiles and agreed: "Just one question -- what's a brachah?"
This quote is probably more on point with regard to the "wreckovators" than language, but the spirit is the same. It's from one of Lucile Hasley's essays on converting from Protestantism to Catholicism in the 40's:
I can still see the big gilt organ pipes and the minister's platform with its wooden pulpit, flanked by the American flag at one end and the potted palm at the other [in the Protestant churches of her youth]. Empty, empty boredom.Stage properties, naturally, have nothing to do with religion, per se, but I have since been in incredibly ugly and garish Catholic churches (outraging every possible tenet of good taste) and still found what was needed -- a sense of prayer and a sense of mystery. One need not even know about the Blessed Sacrament to catch the general idea that here is a place to kneel, not just sit and be talked to.
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.