(Vanity), For Catholic Freepers: THE MASS

I have noticed over time a lot of debate between Novus Ordo and the Tridetine Mass. I know it is a heated subject, but I admit I haven't followed the debate as closely as I would have liked. I would love to hear everyone's pros/cons of the two masses, which one they prefer, and any predictions for the future. Something else interesting would be in the not-so-proud tradition of the liberal modernists and their design-o-Mass, maybe individual Freepers would care to put their two cents in, I am sure it would be far more reverent than the design-o-mass. PLEASE keep this Civil, I just want to hear all sides. Thank You

My 2 cents worth!

N.O. pros: (1)I think the vernacular may be helpful to some people. (2) I like having 3 reading from the Bible at Mass, we get more exposure to the Bible. (3) I also like the 3 year cycle of readings that are used at Mass. We get more of Christ's life, whereas at the Tridentine Mass we get only the highlights. (4) I think that the idea of greater participation by the congregation, such as singing/saying the responses and the singing of hymns, is a good thing. I just wish that it was done better. See cons below.

N.O. cons. (1) The complete lack of the Latin language in the vast majority of N.O. Masses. I see no reason that the Ordinary and some of the responses are not said/sung in Latin. (2) The lack of silence during the N.O. Mass, except for after the 2 Epistle readings and after Communion. I find these contrived and way too short for any kind of adequate reflection. (3) I think the Canon should be read silently. We all know it or can follow along in the Missalette. It allows for meditation upon the great miracle that is about to happen at the altar. (4) Referring back to pro # 4, I find the participation in the Ordinary and responses to be mechanical. I think in any sung Mass, they all should be sung. Most N.O. Masses that I have attended over the years, the Kryie, Gloria and the responses are seldom sung. The Credo is never sung. The Pater Noster is so seldom sung, that one might as well say never. The same for the Ite Missa Est. The Sanctus and Agnus Dei are routinely sung, but to rather trite melodies. The Responsorial Psalm and Alleluia are also routinely sung, but again to rather trite melodies which generally change every Sunday.

One solution: The Ordinary, Pater Noster and the responses could either be sung, in Latin, using the Gregorian melodies, which are relatively easy for the congregation to learn, or adapt the vernacular to the Gregorian melodies. For the Responsorial Psalm, there are 8 Psalm Tones (melodies)that are simple to learn. Adapt the people's response to any of these. Use them frequently and they will soon be able to sing these short responses every week and not have to learn a new melody, every Sunday, on the fly. The Psalm Tones are also adaptable to the Liturgical Season. Use the sadder sounding tones for say Lent and the happier sounding one for say Christmas and Easter Seasons.

(5)The sad shape of music in the N.O. Mass. Use music that is in a medium range so that the congregation can sing. Too often it is just too high, sometimes way too low. Think "On Eagle's Wings," which has both problems. Bring back the choir and allow them to function as a choir. Get off of the idea that the music cannot be a "performance." This is a perjorative that says we cannot have any good music, because people may actually listen to rather than participate. Guess what? Listening is active participation. The role of the choir is, of course, not to provide entertainment, but to lift the hearts, minds and souls of the congregation to God. While some may be listening to the music, likely they are being helped in their prayers. Also, choirs actually help with congregational singing. Most people are rather shy about singing in public, but will sing along if they feel they are not alone. Another thing, the music should be a good as the parish can provide, as we should give our best to God.

(6) Way too much commotion that at least gives the appearance of a lack of reverence. (7)Way too many options that I believe allow abuses to creep in. Though I think some variety is legitimate, I think the options should be severely curtailed.

Tridentine pros: (1)The sense of mystery and reverence that pervades the entire Liturgy. This is due to a combination of the Latin, the music and the structured ritual. (2)The periods of silence that are natural to the Tridentine Rite. The Canon is said quietly and immediately after the Agnus Dei before receiving Holy Communion are the 2 major period of silence that allow reflection on the great mysteries of the Mass and also allows for times of prayer that everyone has the option of praying along with the priest by following along in the missal or by adding one's personal prayers to those of the priest. (As an aside, someone on this thread said that singing in choir seems to take away from the participation at Mass. I have found this true in the N.O. Mass but not so much in the Tridentine Mass. This is due to these 2 periods of silence. The music comes to a halt and the choir has time for joining in the most important prayers of Mass. Also, we are singing the Ordinary and Proper parts of the Mass, so we are very actively participating in the Mass.)

(3) Music again. Generally speaking, the music is of a better quality at least from a musical standpoint. How it is sung varies according to the abilities of the singers, the director and organist, but that is only natural. (4)I think the fixed rubrics of the Mass are a good thing. Mainly everyone knows what to expect next. It makes for following the Mass much easier. For instance, in the N.O., there are at least 3 options for the Penitential Rite, (Kyrie and Confiteor). Somtimes other options are used that are not in the Missalette, or the 3 options are mixed. It makes it difficult to follow along. (Try being the poor organist who has to give an introduction to the Gloria, if it is to be sung, with no clue as to when its time. Been there and done that.)

Tridentine cons: Quite honestly, I love the Tridentine Mass so much, that I personally can't find anything wrong with it. What a few people have commented though is that they find 1-1/2 hours for a High Mass to be too long.

The one con that I can think of right off hand, and it varies according to the congregation and even the priest, is whether or not the people sing or say the responses and Ordinary. I've been to a couple of Tridentine Masses where I've been lucky to escape being burnt at the stake for daring to sing during Mass. At our apostolate though, we have always encouraged the congregation to join in the singing or saying of the responses and Ordinary, just like Pius XII encouraged. One of the most thrilling things at Mass is during the Credo, at the Et in unam, sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam, I am playing full organ, the choir of 20 members is singing at the top of their lungs, and rising from below is the sound of the congregation out singing us. It doesn't happen all the time, but when it does, it is absolutely thrilling beyond what words can describe.

62 Reasons Why...
In Conscience, We Cannot Attend the New Mass

Compiled by the priests of the diocese of

CAMPOS, BRAZIL

The Traditional Mass	The New Mass
2,000 years of venerable usage Tried and True	Fabricated in 1969 Experimental
Clearly a Sacrifice An Altar, A Priest	Clearly a Meal A Table
Centered on God Structured for reverence	Centered on Man Loose structure invites abuses
Completely Catholic One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic	Half Protestant Lacks all Four Marks
Codified at Council of Trent By a Pope Saint (Pope St. Pius V)	Contrived For approval of six Protestant ministers
Fruitful! Multitudes of saints, martyrs, religious vocations!	Barren! Empty seminaries, decreased Mass attendance, massive defections!
TRADITIONAL MASS Never Abrogated by Holy Mother Church!	The New Mass An Experiment That Failed!

Note: all quotes followed by an asterix "_*" are from the Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25,
1969 enclosing "A Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae."

1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics!
2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation." (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass)
3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." *
4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." *
5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." *
6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of Faith." *
7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).
8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..." *
9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50%! (Holy See Statistics)
10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition ... do not seem to us sufficient." *
11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.
12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).
14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran :"Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant error that all the people are priests.
16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.
17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!
18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the True Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian (co-consulter for the 'New Mass' project) said that a fruit of the New mass "will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be ale to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69)
21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant Thesis)
22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic Doctrine).
23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar; facing people instead of tabernacle; Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g., Mass is only a meal; priest only a president of the assembly; Eucharist is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but merely a piece of bread, etc.)
24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have abandoned the false (sic) perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69)
25. Because we are faced with the dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshipping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass, the "Mass of All Time."
26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)
27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be ... the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13)
28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.
31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.
32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English Martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate in a Mass such as the New Mass!
33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized t to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julien Green, asks: "Why did we convert?"
34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! And the number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those coming in.
35. Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it ..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)
36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.
37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.
39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priests fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar clothes (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated." *
41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and a 33rd degree Freemason, i.e., Msgr. A Bugnini who was later exiled from the Vatican because of his ties with Freemasonry.
42. Because the errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.
43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity and permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid consecrations: "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo Missae with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it!" *
44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.
45. Because in places where the Traditional Mass is preserved, the Faith and fervor of the people are greater. Whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires #69, 8/81)
46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)
47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainments in order to appeal to the people.
48. Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).
49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical church embracing all ideologies and all religions -- right and wrong, truth and error -- a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.
50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a denial of, and disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.
51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things which of their very nature, must remain together." (Pius XII)
52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.
53. Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council itself declared its desire to conserve and promote the Traditional Rite.
54. Because the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Roman Catholic Church by which the faithful may fulfill their Sunday obligation.
55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure (Papal Bull "Quo Primum")
56. Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. "The rite ... by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition ..." (11/19/69)
57. Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England, if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not our intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."
58. Because "In the Libera Nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril." *
59. Because in none of the tree new Eucharistic Prayers (of the New Mass) is there any reference ... to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*
60. Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.
61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles." (Dnz 3070)
62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God before men." (Acts 5:29)

* Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI A Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae."

---

I also think that for ministers of music (and I speak from experience), there is no way to properly assist at Mass when performing the functions of the ministry. It takes too much concentration. Just MHO, so if I cantor and songlead, I go twice.

Desdemona, I am responding to this, not so much for your benefit as I believe you already know this, but for others who also feel this way. I hear this from both N.O. and Tridentine musicians. So my purpose is to explain the musician's function at Mass so that both the musicians and non-musicians can better understand the role of the musicians. To make things simpler, I will be speaking generically, using the word choir, but will mean all musicians, whether instrumental, cantor/songleader, or any ensemble, unless otherwise noted. Also, I will be speaking from the Tridentine perspective, but I believe that it equally applies to the N.O. as well.

I agree with you that it is difficult to concentrate on the Mass during the N.O. (At times it is during the Tridentine too.) (1) One reason is that the N.O. has so much constantly going on, that the choir has no time to recollect themselves. (2) The N.O. downplays the role of the music in my opinion. It seems to exist more for adornment than for giving praise to God. (3) It follows then that the choir does not, at least in appearance, have an important function at Mass. and (4)the over-emphasis on the congregation doing the singing.

At the Tridentine Mass, the choir is second in importance to the priest. No choir, no High Mass. The choir is not there for decoration, though in reality, and of very minor importance, it does add a certain amount of beauty to the Mass. The choir exists, and still should exist, to give honor and praise to God, and to lift the hearts, minds and souls of the congregation to God. (Actually,the classical definition of great art.) The choir also exists to lead the congregation in the singing of the responses, the Ordinary of the Mass, and any hymns that pertain to the congregation. I think that currently, this is lost on most of the N.O. crowd and that it desparately needs to be rediscovered.

One should always remember that to be a member of the choir is a great priviledge, for one is functioning at a higher level than the congregation and even has a greater calling.

Due to this higher calling, the choir is not a part of the congregation. The choir is fulfilling an office and has it's own duties. The same as for the priest, deacon, altar servers, and in the N.O, the Lector and EEMs.

In fulfilling this office, the choir is praying the Mass in a more sublime and perfect fashion.

The choir should also keep in mind St. Augustine's famous adage, "he who sings, prays twice." It is as if the choir has attended 2 Masses for the price of 1. (Pardon the expression.)

Lastly, the choir needs to remember that because their function is different than the congregation's, that they are not doing something inappropriate at any particular time. To illustrate: Every so often, several members of our choir will return from Holy Communion, kneel down and begin their thanksgiving. The choir director and I then have to poke and prod these members to join with the rest of us in the Communion Motet(s). I then later remind them that the kind of thanksgiving that they periodically want to do, is the congregation's role. The choir's role is to sing at this time. That what they are doing is singing their thanksgiving. That this is to assist the congregation in their thanksgiving. That the choir's sung thanksgiving is on a higher plane than if they were a part of the congregation. And finally, I remind them of what St. Augustine said about singing.

So, I hope this helps those who have a role in either Mass to better understand the importance of their role, and that it is not a distraction, but an opportunity to deepen their relationship with God. Or to look at it another way, recall the parable of the Master who gave three of his servants some money to safeguard while he was away. One buried it so no one could steal it. The other 2 risked his money and invested it, returning the original money and the interest to their Master. Well, we who are called to an office at Mass are not to, (I don't mean this prejoratively), bury our talents among the congregation by being the congregation. We are to "invest" and return our talents and the interest to God, through our office. These dividends then lift the congregation upward to God and make the Mass "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven."

I would love to hear everyone's pros/cons of the two masses, which one they prefer, and any predictions for the future.

Preferences? The changes to the mass, wrought by VCII, were not made out of boredom with the older Latin Rite, nor with the intention to offer catholics "preferences". To understand how the Novus Ordo rite came into existence, you need to understand the origins of the mass itself, up to and including the Tridentine Rite. This was not a willy/nilly decision made in some smoke filled back room, as the SSPXers would have you believe.

What follows is some of the historicity on the mass, as written by a Franciscan priest. Hopefully, it will encourage you to to your own investigative research, less than rely on the *opinions* of some forum members.

COMMENTARY ON MSGR. KLAUS GAMBER'S THE REFORM OF THE ROMAN LITURGY: ITS PROBLEMS AND BACKGROUND

"Pius V did indeed do something unprecedented in the history of the Church, and that was to freeze, in effect, the liturgy as it had developed up to that point in the 16th century. In doing this, Pius V stabilized, homogenized and thus preserved the unity of the Church during a turbulent time of mass apostasy by preserving the venerable and sacred liturgy of the centuries. His act, unprecedented though it was, was yet done out of a perceived necessity given the Protestant Revolution. The fruits of this unprecedented act of Pius V certainly were evidenced in the number of great saints whose lives were nourished by the holy Eucharist presented by this august and venerable rite. This could include many illustrious personages even of today, whose Catholicism of their youth was nourished by this ritual, e.g. St. Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Padre Pio, and St. Maximilian Kolbe, just to name a few.

So what were some of the changes that were needed, according to the Council Fathers? Sometimes in their fervor for promoting the traditional Mass, traditionalists blind themselves by the following erroneous propositions: (1) to cast the blame entirely on the twenty first ecumenical Council of Vatican II as the cause of all the invalid, sacrilegious and innovative liturgical experimentation of today. Vatican 11, albeit a pastoral Council, was still protected by the Holy Spirit, attended by twenty-five hundred or more bishops; convoked by a validly elected Pontiff who prepared schema for two years, which were orthodox, dogmatic, and definitive outlines of our Faith; the promise of Our Lord never to leave His Church; the indefectibility of the Church of Christ; all these defeat this proposition of the traditionalists. (2) The second erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the form of the Mass, frozen by Pius V, was the Mass celebrated by the early Christians in apostolic times. In answer to this erroneous proposition, overwhelming historical evidence exists for any serious student of the liturgy to know that it took almost five centuries to form the very core of the Roman Rite Mass, the Roman Canon. To prove this, all one has to do is to study the list of the saints that are presented in the Roman Canon, some of the most favorite and popular saints of the Roman Church, whose lives span several centuries. (3) The third erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the rite of the Mass is identified with the very sacrament of the Eucharist. Two basic facts oppose this view: (1). The very fact that there are 17 oriental rites (give or take a few variations), that are officially recognized by the official Church, and whose development also hearken back to the ancient Church. (2). The second fact that opposes this third assumption of the traditionalists is that historical evidence itself reveals the human development of the rites of the Mass. The essence of the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father being made present by the power of the Holy Spirit through the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the consecration of the Mass. The essence of the Mass as the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father is expressed by the various rituals that surround this essential fact. The Eucharist, that is, the presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is the reality of the Mass. For sacrifice, the three necessary elements of each Mass are: the offering of the o blat ion; the consecration of the bread and wine (the calling down of the power of the Holy Spirit), in the epiklesis; and the final element of the communion of the priest celebrant of the Mass. It is naive, at least, to insinuate that the elaborate development of the Mass by the fifteenth century was present from the earliest times. (4) The fourth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that nothing in the traditional Mass needed reform or clarification. In answer to this, in fact, for the student of the liturgy, many things were confusing about the tradition a I Mass which needed clarification. (Admittedly, these items were not of the essence of the liturgy nor detrimental to the flow of the sacred action. Still, had Pius XII lived longer, he would probably have addressed these cloudy areas of the Mass, as effectively as he had reformed the rites of Holy Week in the mid '50s). Following are some examples of the areas that needed to be addressed: in an effort to show the distinctiveness of the priesthood of the celebrant of the Mass, and the "priesthood' of all believers," the traditional Mass constantly had the priest recite the same prayers and antiphons of the people and the choir, such as the Introit, 'the Gradual, the Communion verse, the Gloria, the Credo, and others. This was due, of course, to the prevalency of private and low Masses in which no choir and general public may have been present. Yet at a sung Mass, all these similar prayers were reduplicated by both priest and choir , instead of being able to be sung by both priest and people together. Another example, is that the traditional Mass, especially a sung Mass, seemed to put an emphasis on endings of prayers, e.g., the Doxology of the Secret (per omnia saecula saeculorum), the very end of the final Doxology (per ipsum...), the ending of the libera nos, etc. This made for a very confusing emphasis on sung endings, instead of the whole prayer. The third area revolves around some "vestigial organs" of previous ancient rites whose vestiges in the traditional Mass provoked some questions on the parts of scholars. One such notable example is the priest turning to the people after the Creed to greet them and invite them to prayer, to a prayer which never follows. It is at this point in history that the prayer of the faithful, or the "bidding prayers" followed, gradually atrophied, and then only the introduction of the rite remained. (5) The fifth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. This proposition is the most serious of all, for it undermines the whole indefectible nature of the Church, that She could be guilty of promoting invalid sacraments. As absurd as this proposition is, many either explicitly or implicitly hold to this viewpoint. To give some examples: Once, while giving a mission at a traditionalist parish (at the time in which I celebrated only the Novus Ordo Latin Mass with Canon #1), wherein I could not celebrate my private Novus Ordo Latin Mass on the altar of the main chapel, the chapel which had a charter and constitution that forbade the Novus Ordo Mass from being celebrated on it. Instead, I was forced to celebrate my Mass on a table in the library off from the side of the chapel, Another incident was on the occasion of a visit to a traditionalist order of sisters who claimed union with our Supreme Pontiff. But when asked what Missal I was to follow, and what Mass I was to say, and after responding that I say the same Mass as the Holy Father, was consequently refused access to celebrate Mass in their chapel. Arid I asked the dear Mother Superior, "Do you mean to tell me that if the Holy Father were to come to your convent, you would not allow him to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass, even if he used Latin and the first Canon, as I was planning to do?" And she answered, "Yes." These incidents clearly display an ignorance of Church history, of the history of that liturgy, of ecclesiology, and of sacramentology. For the failure to distinguish between the essential elements of the Mass common to all liturgies of all rites, and the accidental elements of other rites which are found in those liturgies is a true root cause for all of the above erroneous propositions.

As much as we can find fault with the origin, implementation, and the interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass, we may never call into question its validity. Also, Catholics may not question the power of the Holy Father to implement another Rite."

Predictions?

While I am NO seer, it seems obvious that there is still a strong demand for the Latin Rite. To accomodate that demand and assuage the SSPX, I believe the pope will issue a general indult this year. This will generate a renewed interest in the Latin mass. With time, I tend to think the two rites will meld into something ressembling the EWTN mass.

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.