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
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.
I've never heard of such a thing. Do you have any evidence of this? I can cite present-day examples that would refute this. Both the new GIRM and the third Roman Missal are in Latin, and were first promulgated as such. We had "unofficial" translations of the GIRM to look at before an official one was made.
If it was in English first, then why the delay?
The Third Missal is the subject of the new ICEL and Vox Clara effort to produce a faithful translation into English. The Vatican rather harshly slapped down many errors in the second edition translations. We never have had an approved text for the second missal.
So why all the fuss aobut translating the Latin Missal into English? According to you, the missal was written in English first.
SD
Exactly. If we can not trust the Church to provide us with a valid Mass, then of what use is She?
SD
Yes, exactly. Thank you for the discussion. The point is is the decay in faith symbolized and facilitated by the irreverence tolerated in the NO Mass, or is it caused by the New Mass.
I have a hard time believing causation here.
SD
There's two seperate issues here. On a matter of form, if the wrong matter or the wrong words are used, the sacraments can not be valid.
On the matter of intent, it is not dependent upon each individual priest having the proper understanding. Rather, the priest will effect a valid sacrament if he intends to do what the Church does.
SD
For a valid sacrament there are 3 elements required: matter, form and intent. The lack of any 1 element will invalidate the sacrament.
For Baptism, the matter is water -- beer or soda pop is invalid. The eucharist requires plain unleavened bread made with flour and water. Any signicant amount of other matter invalidates it. Many Masses for the past couple decades have been invalid due to matter. My sister-in-law says that every Mass she attended for 4 years at Notre Dame was invalid due to lack of proper matter (they always used invalid bread).
The form is the specific words that cause the effect. In Baptism, one must say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Just recently a priest in Canada was forced to track down dozens of families of children he had baptized in the past couple years because they were all invalid because he said, "I baptize you in the name of Christ, the Savior" (or something to that effect -- leaving out the rest of the Trinity). The words that are necessary to the form in order to validly confect the eucharist are printed in traditional missals separate from the rest of the text and in all capital letters so that the priest doesn't accidentally make a mistake at that part of the Mass which would be more serious than an error in another part. In the New Mass these words were changed significantly such that they mean something different than they used to mean. Thus the "form" of the Mass is different.
The third element is the intent. The priest has to intend to do what the Church intends to do. He does not have to personally intend everything, nor does he have to understand everything perfectly. Even if his understanding is heretical, as long as he intends to do whatever it is that the Church intends him to do, then "ecclessia supplet," the church supplies whatever may be missing in his personal intent. But if he intends to do something different from what the Church intends, if he deliberately does something different in order to have a different result, then the sacrament is invalid.
Did she not, at the time, realize it was invalid? I can't imagine going to a Mass that I knew was using invalid matter.
SD
Why do you ask this silly bait question? Can you imagine going to an English Novus Ordo Mass that uses improper form?
That is certainly one issue, but another issue is that the Church has given an opening to those who were looking for one. Once you agree that something needs to be changed, or can be changed, then it becomes just that much easier to say that it needs another change. The first change was an opening for a strategy of incremental change.
Uh, not necessarily. If I say that the blue widgets should now be red, this is not an authorization for them to be green, or totally non-existent.
One change, and authorized change does not mean that any change whatsoever is hereby authorized. It is, as I said, a failure to police and control the actions of bishops and priests. If the first person to start ad libbing was disciplined, then further change would have been inhibited.
Don't you see this?
"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."
But...everybody would have picked up on it right away, and would have known it was not authorized. There would have been delegations to bishops, like in Don Camillo.
Um, there are rubrics for the NO Mass. And those of us familiar with them do indeed "pick up" on it right away and we know what things are not authorized.
It's really not that hard to look at your missalette and see that the priest is deviating.
The difference is that complints about such thing fall on empty ears at the chanceries. Which is why I said it is not a function of the language, but of the lack of discipline and policing of the actions of bishops and priests.
Say you attended an Indult Tridentine Mass, and the priest decided to violate the rubrics. Would the local bishop pay special attention to your complaint because the Mass was in Latin instead of English?
Without getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, if we are agreed that it is made easier by being in the vernacular, IMO it stands demonstrated that the vernacular should never have been authorized.
Is it possible that you are looking at only one side of the equation? Are there no benefits to having parts of the Mass in the vernacular?
SD
Why? Really. Serious question.
Cause society was going to hell in a bucket anyway. Do you really think all these miscreant priests and "progressive" people (many of whom came from pre-Vatican II seminaries) would not have pushed their agenda, if they had to say the Mass in Latin?
That's naive. Troublemakers will make trouble. They set out to make trouble and that is what they would have done. Regardless of the language of Mass.
SD
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.