Replies

In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition.

According to the documentation published at the link I provided (the official GIRM):

"3. The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic elements, which Vatican Council II6 and other documents of the Church's magisterium7 have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith.8 The Mass does this not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that spirit and expression of reverence and adoration in which the eucharistic liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people are invited in Holy Week on Holy Thursday and on the solemnity of Corpus Christi to honor this wonderful sacrament in a special way by their adoration. "

Furthermore, it restores the original practice of receiving under both species ... something NOT DONE in the Tridentine Mass.

"14. Moved by the same spirit and pastoral concern, Vatican Council II was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part.21

Forget all these long citations. Instead, ask yourself some common sense questions.

1. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against kneeling? It is a posture indicating adoration. Why do they have an interest in eliminating it? Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

2. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion on the tongue? It is far more reverent than touching the sacred species with unconsecrated hands. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

3. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion rails? The rails allowed the faithful to kneel easily while receiving communion--a posture of reverence and adoration. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

4. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against tabernacles being given pride of place at the center of churches? The center of the sanctuary is the immediate focal point for anyone entering. Centrality clearly signifies importance. Christ in His Blessed Sacrament is certainly more important than any presider's chair. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

5. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against ringing bells before the Consecration at Mass. In the old Mass bells were rung to alert the faithful that the Mystery of Faith was about to be enacted: the change of bread and wine into Christ's own Body and Blood. In the New Mass the words "Mystery of Faith" now refer to something else, a banal proclamation. Why does the liturgy pay so much attention to Christ's virtual presence in the Liturgy of the Word and in the assembly, but so little attention to his actual Presence as sacrificial victim? Can it be they don't believe in the Real Preence?

Can it be these people want to subvert and suppress a major Catholic dogma? Naaah! They wouldn't do such a nasty, heretical thing as that--would they?

Let me put it still another way. If you really believed Christ is present after the consecration--really and truly present in all his divinity--would you not wish to kneel and adore? If GOD HIMSELF in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity has so condescended--what should our response be? Should it be to sing songs to ourselves and tell ourselves how wonderful we are? Should the focus be on US or on HIM? This is the debate. For two thousand years the focus had been on Christ and his sacrifice. Now instead of adoration, we are casual to the point of bored indifference. I have seen teenage kids rise for the consecration at a Novus Ordo Mass--with their hands in their pockets. That level of informality speaks volumes about what's wrong with the Novus Ordo.

One final word. Much has been said about how we have lost the sense of the sacred with the Novus Ordo Mass. I think there are many reasons for this, but chief among them has got to be the fact that the new liturgy is just too talky. It never shuts up. When the assembly is not giving responses, it's called upon to sing. It's always in action without a letup. So eager were the liturgists to have the faithful "participate actively" that they have eliminated any chance the assembly might have had for real prayerful interiority. Instead everything is superficial and external, with very litte chance for deep spirituality.

We know the Church is indefectable in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, it is impossible for the bishops, in union with the pope, to err on a question of morals for the universal church. And since the “New Mass” is offered by the bishops in union with the pope, it is impossible for it to be immoral or invalid. If they think it is [and obviously they do], then then have lost faith in the indefectability of the Church. God help them.