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

[Domestic Church]

"How about I teach my kids the faith, and you do the same, OK?"

"That's not the way it's supposed to work.That's Protestantism, not the Catholic Faith."

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.

[NYer]

You don't consider praying "participatory"? Do you attend Mass in order to be entertained or amused?

Don't get me started! The Novus Ordo mass is built around participation by the congregation. In the Liturgy of the Word, it is the congregation that "prays" through the Responsorial Psalms.

Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good,
for his mercy endures forever.
Let the house of Israel say,
"His mercy endure forever."

In the Tridentine Rite, the priest prays, the altar boys give the responses and the choir sings. It is so disconcerting to sit in a church where each congregant is doing his own thing ... some are following along in the missal, others are praying the rosary.

The mass should arouse our souls and lift them heavenward, reminding us of God's eternal promise. It has been said that the greatest form of prayer is song. My voice may not be the best, but I have been choked by emotions, at times, by the music WE sing at the mass.

Shepherd me, O God, beyond my wants, beyond my fears, from death into life.

God is my shepherd, so nothing shall I want. I rest in the meadows of faithfulnss and love. I walk by the quiet waters of peace.

Gently you raise me and heal my weary soul. You lead me by pathways of righteousness and truth, my spirit shall sing the music of your Name.

Though I should wander the valley of death, I fear no evil, for you are at my side, your rod and yur staff, my comfort and my hope.

I'll grant you that nothing surpasses the Midnight mass in the Latin vulgate especially the Litany of the Saints. Here again, the congregation "participates" through their response of "Ora Pro Nobis".

As for the entertainment aspect of the mass, that is a very crude suggestion on your part. If your soul is moved by watching a priest say a mass, then good for you. As for me, my spirit is moved by an active participation in the mass. It is enjoined with that of my Creator and lifted, for that hour, to a higher plane.

We can discuss this ad infinitum ... and never reach a consensus. I have found the mass the draws me closer to God and it is the one said in my parish at 11am each Sunday, with the choir. Still others find it in the more contemporary approach to music. Most importantly, we are following the REAL mass, as given by Christ through His vicar on earth, the pope.

[Domestic Church]

"To explain the point of the Eucharist as proclamation is to suggest that Eucharist is something commemoratiive and symbolic, done by the people and receiving its meaning and validity from us. Even those who should know better can be affected subliminally by gratuitous imprecision in speech."

Well put and worth repeating!

[PaxChristi]

How untraditional an analysis...the Church knows what belongs to the substance of the liturgy and never wavers from it.

Council of Trent on the Mass and the "Substance of" Tradition

"The Holy Council declares moreover: The Church has always had, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being saved, the power to decide or to modify what she judges better to suit the spiritual utility of those who receive them or with respect to the sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.--- The Council of Trent, Dz 1728; also Dz Herder ed, 1955, #931, p. 256"

The whole Catholic world accepts the eucharist as the eucharist in the new missal. Only less than 1% of all Catholics constantly cavil against it. They simplistically blame the liturgy for the decadent times which more than accounts for people turning away from religion (Lk 18:8)

[traditionalist]

In the Tridentine Rite, the priest prays, the altar boys give the responses and the choir sings. It is so disconcerting to sit in a church where each congregant is doing his own thing ... some are following along in the missal, others are praying the rosary.

What you describe is not the pre-Vatican 2 norm, but an Irish fluke, and by extension an American fluke, since the American Church was dominated by the Irish.

My parents grew up in Poland before Vatican 2. Everyone sang at Mass, not just the choir, and everyone gave the responses, not just the altar boy. The situation in places like Germany, Austria, Bohemia, and other countries was similar, from what I have read and heard. In Italy people seldom made the responses, but they sang.

The congregation at the traditional parish I went to when living the NY city, St. Agnes, also sang the parts of the Mass and made the Latin esponses. Unfortunately, the parish here in Boston, Holy Trinity, is mainly Irish, so everyone just sits quietly.

Bottom line: the traditional rite of Mass does not not prohibit or inhibit congregational particpation in the form of audible prayer or song, and in many places it is said with plenty of both.

[traditionalist]

Nothing protects the Church from making poor prudential decisions, including adopting a liturgy that can be misleading and insufficiently clear about the sacramental doctrines. Of course, a pope has the authority to make such decisions, but we as layity have every right to critique them.

If you think that 99% of Catholics believe the eucharistic doctrines, you are in denial.

[Domestic Church]

You assume too much. I accept the Eucharist as the Eucharist and have never said I didn't.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Most importantly, we are following the REAL mass, as given by Christ through His vicar on earth, the pope.

You do realize in saying this you are guilty of exactly what you accuse the traditionalists of? You clash so severely with them because you are exactly the same, just with a different focus.

[Land of the Irish]

It was called a dialogue Mass and your right, it was never that prevalent in the U.S.

On the dialogue Mass:

Here is a quote from the instruction "De Sacra Musica" issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 3, 1958:


"31. A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.
There are four degrees or stages of this participation:

a) First, the congregation may make the easier liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo;

b) Secondly, the congregation may also say prayers, which, according to the rubrics, are said by the server, including the Confiteor, and the triple Domine non sum dignus before the faithful receive Holy Communion;

c) Thirdly, the congregation may say aloud with the celebrant parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei;

d) Fourthly, the congregation may also recite with the priest parts of the Proper of the Mass: Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion. Only more advanced groups who have been well trained will be able to participate with becoming dignity in this manner.

32. Since the Pater Noster is a fitting, and ancient prayer of preparation for Communion, the entire congregation may recite this prayer in unison with the priest in low Masses; the Amen at the end is to be said by all. This is to be done only in Latin, never in the vernacular.

33. The faithful may sing hymns during low Mass, if they are appropriate to the various parts of the mass.

34. Where the rubrics prescribe the clara voce, the celebrant must recite the prayers loud enough so that the faithful can properly, and conveniently follow the sacred rites. This must be given special attention in a large church, and before a large congregation. "

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I've been to an Episcopal service. It's virtually the same thing. The only difference? The Episcopalians still kneel for Communion.

[Land of the Irish]

I have been to both dialogue and non-dialogue Tridentine Masses and I have no preference. I always participate, whether it's vocally at the dialogue Mass or by silently following my English-Latin missal during a non-dialogue Mass. I have never heard any traditionalist complain about a dialogue Mass.

[potlatch]

We are creatures of habit and prefer what we are used to. As a child, I attended and recited the words of the Latin Mass. The Mass, choir and organ music had a mystical beauty that is absent in todays Mass.

I believe they started having children sing and play guitars, etc thinking it would draw children to Mass. I hate seeing people pick up the Host, put it in their mouth and CHEW it as they walk back to their seat!

[Aloysius]

I have never heard any traditionalist complain about a dialogue Mass.

But what make YOU Feel GOOD? Remember it's all about YOU and What YOU like. Don't worry about pleasing God. If you're happy He's happy. /sarcasm

[traditionalist]

I've heard the term "dialogue Mass" before, but I don't think this was an official designation, like "low Mass" or "high Mass." It seems as this was just an unofficial descriptive term as to how certain congregations assisted at Mass.

At St. Agnes, the congregation does a, b, and c. I don't think it would be realistic for most congregations to do d.

[traditionalist]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the lack of participation that traditionalists prefer over the numerous responses in the N.O.?

Absolutely not! The principal objections to the NO are:

1) Lack of reverence
2) The scrapping of highly poetic yet doctrinally clear traditional prayers for docrinally ambiguous and banal ones.
3) Lousy modernist music.
4) As Cardinal Ratzinger puts it, the replacing a liturgy that was the fruit of millenia of development for a fabrication of a commitee.

[traditionalist]

Typo on point 4: the replacing OF a liturgy that was the fruit of millenia of development for a fabrication of a committee.

[tiki]

As much as people like to malign them if it wasn't for them the Indult would not exist and the Traditional Mass would have been eradicated.

Having gotten what they wanted and fought for, why did they then separate themselves?