Replies

The use of the vernacular was always only a small part of the objection to the new missal. The problems are multiple, but here is a brief summary of what they are.

1. The emphasis of the new Mass is on the memorial meal, not on a re-enactment of Calvary. This is a clear violation of Trent which prohibited this interpretation and is in keeping with Protestant theological understanding. To Protestants the liturgy is a memorial service. To Catholics the liturgy is a here-and-now sacrifice to the Father of the Son.

2. The new Mass changes the meaning of "sacrifice" to the Protestant theological understanding of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Again, Trent specifically rejected this interpretation and insisted the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in expiation for our sins. This Catholic dimension is suppressed in the New Liturgy. Instead, there is a heavy emphasis on the Resurrection rather than on the Crucifixion. It is a celebration of our salvation primarily rather than an occasion for remembering our unworthiness as sinners who have need of the sacrifice of Jesus.

3. The New Mass does all it can to emphasize the virtual presence of Christ and to suppress any awareness of the Real Presence following the Consecration. Genuflections have been reduced. Kneeling for Communion has been eliminated. In many places kneelers have been removed from the pews, the tabernacle is no longer central, Communion is taken in the hands, communion rails have been ripped out. The focus is chiefly on ourselves as a congregation in the Protestant fashion, rather than on the individual encountering a personal Christ as a Real Presence. This focus on ourselves is emphasized by the priest's now facing the congregation rather than East, which is a symbolic facing towards the Father. Equal emphasis is given to Christ's virtual presence in Scripture as well as to his virtual presence in the congregation--in the Protestant way. Almost no attention is given to the worship due to Christ when he is really and truly present on the altar. This reality, in fact, is deliberately ignored and undermined, though it is the central fact of traditional Catholic theology. This is why Holy Hour devotions are springing up everywhere--in the effort by good Catholics to compensate for this suppression of our awareness.

4. The uniqueness of the priesthood has been compromised by the muliplicity of ministers in the sanctuary. Ordinary laypersons now handle the sacred vessels, the text repeats that the priest's sacrifice (of praise and thanksgiving only) is "our" sacrifice, with everything done according to the Protestant understanding that the Priest is just another minister, that it is the congregation of the baptized who offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, along with the priest who becomes a mere presider and not someone who makes a genuine and real sacrifice of propitiation of the Son to the Father. Again, this violates Trent.

5. In the New Mass Communion is the apex of the Mass, the sharing of a memorial meal in fellowship. In the old Mass it is the act of Consecration--the fact of Transubstantiation--which is the apex of the Mass. The emphasis in the New Mass once again is on ourselves; the emphasis in the Traditional Mass is on adoration of the Real Presence prior to His immolation to the Father. Again, the traditional Mass focuses on offering the Father the reality of the Son in expiation for our sins. The new Mass suppresses this Catholic understanding.

Thanks for your detailed comments.

1&2: Could you provide some specific examples?

At my indult parish the "Vetus Ordo" is celebrated weekly. The NO in English is celebrated on weekdays. On Sundays the NO is celebrated also, but with a difference: The Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei are all untranslated, as is the Eucharistic Prayer. Both priest and people face liturgical East. There is no kiss o' peace. The people kneel from the Sanctus through Communion -- on kneelers, of course. Communion is distributed at the rail, to kneeling communicants (who usually receive on the tongue), by ordained ministers or else men selected from a small team of extraordinary ministers. Apart from rare invitations to religious sisters to deliver post-communion charitable appeals (never from the pulpit, which we have and use), no women enter the sanctuary during Mass, nuch less act as ministers of Holy Communion. Given these circumstances -- not a hypothetical, but the current and regular practice -- where would you find fault?