The Ottaviani
Intervention
Short Critical
Study of the New Order of Mass
Written by
ALFREDO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI AND
ANTONIO CARDINAL BACCI
And a Group of Roman Theologians
Preliminary
Remarks
The New
Order of Mass was officially promulgated by Pope Paul VI on April 4, 1969. On
June 5, 1969 the present Critical Study was completed; it was sent to
Pope Paul VI on September 25, 1969. By March 1970, there appeared a revised
General Instruction to the New Order of Mass, which sounds semi-traditional,
but which is still contradicted by elements in the New Rite itself. And as late
as 1983, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, chief architect of the "New
Mass", writing in his memoirs, still took great pains to defend the reformed
"Mass" against charges of unorthodoxy.
This is
not at all intended to be an exhaustive critical study of the New Mass,
but it nonetheless raises numerous substantive questions about the results
which the New Order of Mass would have on the faith of the people -- and
unfortunately, these many years later, those things which the authors foretold
would happen have in fact come to pass.
Among
other points, the Study maintains that the faithful "never,
absolutely never asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it
easier to understand." "On many points," the study says,
"it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist
Protestant." Furthermore, "the definition of the Mass is thus reduced
to a 'supper'." "The alter is nearly always called the table."
"The instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a
place apart ... as though it were some sort of relic." "The people
themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers."
"He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant
minister."
These
and many other quotable quotes reflect the seriousness of the charges brought
against the New Mass in this Short Critical Study, most of which have
proved to be true. This is why the Short Critical Study concludes that
to abandon our liturgical tradition in favor of a liturgy "which teems
with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic
Faith is ... an incalculable error." Had it been written in our own day,
with all the advantages of hindsight, the Short Critical Study could not
have proven to be more inexorably true.
We
encourage our readers to obtain the Ottaviani Intervention with a
preface by Fr. Anthony Cekada in book form from TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL. 61105
This
digitized version was made available to IHSV by LeeAnn Olson. We extend our
thanks to her for transcribing this unique and important document for our
internet readers.
The Letter:
Rome
25 September 1969
Most
Holy Father:
Having
carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of
Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) prepared by the experts of the Committee for
the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy
prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set
forth the following considerations:
1. The
accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops,
theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study
shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new
elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are
implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a
striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated
in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite
definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any
heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The
pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons
could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem
sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of
perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well
turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles,
that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be
changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to
which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading
to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of
restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the
clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances
of which come to us daily.
3. We
are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living
voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your
Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the
children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have
always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law,
should it prove to be harmful.
At a
time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church
suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed
in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness
not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the
integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness,
and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.
A.
Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
The Critical Study of
the New Order of Mass:
5 June 1969
A Group of Roman Theologians
Chapter 1:
In October 1967, the
Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an
experimental celebration of what was then called a "standard" or
"normative" Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for
Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very
serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the
results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many substantial
reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions. The
international press spoke of the Synod's "rejection" of the proposed
Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event
in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their
teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:
"They wanted to
make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance
quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the
Mass."
Unfortunately, we now
find that the same "standard Mass, "identical in substance, has
reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by
the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years
that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national
bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter.
The Apostolic Constitution states that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated
on 19 July 1570--its greater part, in fact, goes back to St. Gregory the Great
and even remoter antiquity [1] --was the standard for four centuries whenever
priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the Holy Sacrifice. The Constitution adds
that this Missal, taken to every corner of the earth, "has been an
abundant source of spiritual nourishment to so many people in their devotion to
God." Yet this same Constitution, which would definitively end the use of
the old Missal, claims that the present reform is necessary because "a
deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among
the Christian people." It seems that the last claim contains a serious
equivocation. If the Christian people expressed anything at all, it was the
desire (thanks to the great St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal
treasures of the liturgy. They never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy
be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand. What the faithful did
want was a better understanding of a unique and unchangeable liturgy--a liturgy
they had no desire to see changed. Catholics everywhere, priests and laymen
alike, loved and venerated the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. It is impossible to
understand how using this Missal, along with proper religious instruction,
could prevent the faithful from participating in the liturgy more fully or
understanding it more profoundly. It is likewise impossible to understand why
the old Missal, when its many outstanding merits are recognized, should now be
deemed unworthy to continue to nourish the liturgical piety of the faithful.
Since the "standard Mass" now reintroduced and reimposed as the New
Order of Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was
never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national bishop's conferences,
and since the faithful (least of all in mission lands) never asked for any
reform of the Mass whatsoever, it is impossible to understand the reasons for
the new legislation-- legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the
Church since the 4th and 5th centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore,
for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational grounds to
justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people. The Second Vatican
Council did indeed ask that the Order of Mass "be revised in a way that
will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several
parts, as also the connection between them." [2] We shall now see to what extent the recently
promulgated Ordo responds to the Council's wishes--wishes now no more than a
faint memory. A point-by-point examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes so
great that they confirm the judgment already made on the "standard
Mass"--for on many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the
most modernist Protestant.
Chapter 2:
Let us begin with the
definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes
the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:
The Lord's Supper or
Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering
together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. [3] For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely
to a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come
together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20) [4]
The definition of the
Mass is thus reduced to a "supper," a term which the General
Instruction constantly repeats. [5] The Instruction further characterizes this
"supper" as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a
memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in
the very least implies:
- The Real Presence -
The reality of the Sacrifice - The sacramental function of the priest who
consecrates - The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of -
the presence of the "assembly." [6]
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.
Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by "going beyond
them" amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. [7] The second part of Article 7 makes this already
serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ's promise, ( "Where
two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies
to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's promise (which
refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative
level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of
the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction
divides the Mass into a "Liturgy of the Word" and a "Liturgy of
the Eucharist," and adds that the "table of God's Word" and the
"table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass so that the faithful
may receive "instruction and food." As we will see later, this
statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as thought they possessed
equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass,
such as:
- Action of Christ and
the People of God. - Lord's Supper or Mass - Paschal Banquet - Common
participation in the Table of the Lord - Eucharistic Prayer - Liturgy of the
Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic
All these expressions
are acceptable when used relatively--but when used separately and absolutely,
as they are here, they must be completely rejected. It is obvious that the
Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes "supper" and "memorial,"
instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even the phrase
in the Instruction describing the Mass as a "memorial of the Passion and
Resurrection" is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique
Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas the Resurrection is the fruit which
follows from that sacrifice. [8] We shall see later how such equivocations are
repeated and reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout
the Novus Ordo as a whole.
Chapter 3:
We now turn to the ends
or purposes of the Mass--what it accomplishes in the supernatural order.
1. ULTIMATE PURPOSE. The
ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most
Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation,
explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith:
sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." [9] In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared:
- From the Offertory,
where the prayer "Receive, Holy Trinity, this oblation" has been
removed. - From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity,
"May the Tribute of my Homage, Most Holy Trinity" has been
eliminated. - From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity,
formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on the
Feast of the most Holy Trinity.
2. ORDINARY PURPOSE. The
ordinary purpose of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice--making satisfaction to
God for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing
remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses the
nourishment and sanctification of those present. [10] At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed
Sacrament and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite Himself to
us as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before the Blessed
Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in
relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that people
who assist are not bound to receive Communion sacramentally. [11]
3. IMMANENT PURPOSE. The
immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is
essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and
accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the
Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own
right. The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning
it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread,
and God turns it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and
God turns it into "spiritual drink":
Blessed are you, Lord
God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to
offer, fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands, It will become for us
the bread of life (spiritual drink). [12]
The expressions
"bread of life" and "spiritual drink," of course, are
utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same
basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only
spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only
spiritually---and not substantially---changed. [13] In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal
game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the
"Deus qui humanae" and the "Offerimus tibi":
- The first prayer,
recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: "O God, by whom the
dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously
restored." It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his
ransom by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the
Sacrifice from Adam to the present day. - The second prayer, which accompanies
the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it
implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet
fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it
admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice.
In the Novus Ordo, both
these prayers have been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the
repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been
suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and
human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up
scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to
substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce
actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful
themselves--and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the
poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated. The
fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely
obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn
into a philanthropists' meeting or a charity banquet.
Chapter 4:
We now consider the
essence of the Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses
the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, imperceptible to the
faithful. [14] Here are some of the main reasons:
1. THE MEANING OF THE
TERM "EUCHARISTIC PRAYER." The meaning the Novus Ordo assigns to the
so-called "Eucharistic Prayer" is as follows:
"The entire
congregation joins itself to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has
done and in offering the sacrifice." [15]
Which sacrifice does
this refer to? Who offers the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions.
The definition the Instruction provides for the "Eucharistic Prayer"
reduces it to the following:
"The center and
summit of the entire celebration begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of
thanksgiving and sanctification." [16]
The effects of the
prayer thus replace the causes. And of the causes, moreover, not a single word
is said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made
in the old rite with the prayer "Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This
Oblation," has been suppressed--and replaced with *nothing.* The change in
the formula reveals the change in doctrine.
2. OBLITERATION OF THE
ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer explicitly
mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed.
It has been removed from the place it so resplendently occupied in the old
liturgy. In the General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just
once--and that in a footnote which is the only reference to the Council of
Trent. Here again, the context is that of nourishment. [17] The real and permanent presence of Christ in the
transubstantiated Species--Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--is never alluded
to. The very word transubstantiation is completely ignored. The invocation of
the Holy Ghost in the Offertory--the prayer "Come, Thou
Sanctifier"--has likewise been suppressed, with its petition that He
descend upon the offering to accomplish the miracle of the Divine Presence
again, just as he once descended into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is
one more in a series of denials and degradations of the Real Presence, both
tacit and systematic. Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures
and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or
changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:
- Genuflections. No more
than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one of the
faithful at the moment of the Consecration - Purification of the priest's
fingers over the chalice - Preserving the priest's fingers from all profane
contact after the Consecration - Purification of sacred vessels, which need not
be done immediately nor made on the corporal - Protecting the contents of the
chalice with the pall - Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels - Solemn
consecration for movable altars - Consecrated stones and relics of the saints
in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated
outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic
dinners" in private houses.) - Three cloths on the altar--reduced to one -
Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque
practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving--a logical
enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing. - All the ancient
prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced
to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up
reverently." [18]
All these suppressions
only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is
implicitly repudiated.
3. THE ROLE OF THE MAIN
ALTAR. The altar is nearly always called the table: [19] "...the altar or the Lord's table, which is the
center of the whole eucharistic liturgy..." [20] The altar must now be detached from the back wall so
that the priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the people. [21] The Instruction states that the altar should be at
the center of the assembled faithful, so that their attention is spontaneously
drawn to it. Comparing this Article with another, however, seems to exclude
outright the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on the altar where Mass is
celebrated. [22] This will signal an irreparable dichotomy between
the presence of Christ the High Priest in the priest celebrating the Mass and
Christ's sacramental Presence. Before, they were one and the same Presence.
Before, they were one and the same Presence. [23 ]
The Instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place
apart for private devotion--as though It were some sort of relic. Thus, on
entering a church, one's attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but to a
table stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up against liturgical
piety, and altar is set up against altar. The Instruction urges that hosts
distributed for Communion be ones consecrated at the same Mass. It also
recommends consecrating a large wafer, [24 ] so that the priest can share a part of it with the
faithful. It is always the same disparaging attitude towards both the
tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This
constitutes a new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence continues as
long as the consecrated Species remain. [25]
4. THE FORMULAS FOR THE
CONSECRATION. The old formula for the Consecration was a *sacramental* formula,
properly speaking, and not merely a *narrative*. This was shown above by three
things:
A. The Text Employed.
The Scripture text was not used word-for-word as the formula for the
Consecration in the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the "Mystery of
Faith," was inserted into the text as an immediate expression of the
priest's faith in the mystery which the Church makes real through the
hierarchical priesthood.
B. Typography and
Punctuation. In the old Missal, a period and a new paragraph separated the
words "Take ye all of this and eat" from the words of the sacramental
form, "This is My Body." The period and the new paragraph marked the
passage from a merely *narrative* mode to a *sacramental* and *affirmative*
mode which is proper to a true sacramental action. The words of Consecration in
the Roman Missal, moreover, were printed in larger type in the center of the
page. Often a different color ink was used. All these things clearly detached
the words from a merely historical context, and combined to give the formula of
Consecration a proper and autonomous value.
C. The Anamnesis. The
Roman Missal added the words "As often as ye shall do these things, ye
shall do them in memory of Me" after the formula of Consecration. This
formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past event, but to
Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation to recall not merely
His Person or the Last Supper, but *to do* what He did *in the way* that He did
it. In the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, "Do this in memory of
Me," will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed in the
vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the
remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, rather than as its
beginning. The idea of commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the
Mass as a sacramental action. [26] The General Instruction emphasizes the narrative
mode further when it describes the Consecration as the "Institution
Narrative" [27] and when it adds that, "in fulfillment of the
command received from Christ...the Church keeps his memorial." [28] All this, in short, changes the modus significandi
of the words of Consecration--how they show forth the sacramental action taking
place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an
historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative
judgment "This is My Body."[29] Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which
immediately follows the Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O
Lord...until you come"--introduces the same ambiguity about the Real
Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much
as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time,
just at the moment when He is *substantially present* on the altar--as if
Christ's real coming will occur only at the end of time, rather than there on
the altar itself. The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even
more strongly:
"When we eat this
bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in
glory."
The juxtaposition of
entirely different realities--immolation and eating, the Real Presence and
Christ's Second Coming--brings ambiguity to a new height. [30]
Chapter 5:
We now consider the
question of who performs the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in order:
Christ, the priest, the Church and the faithful.
1. The Role of the
Faithful in the New Rite. In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful
is autonomous, absolute--and hence completely false. This is obvious not only
from the new definition of the Mass ("...the sacred assembly or
congregation of the people gathering together..."), but also from the
General Instruction's observation that the priest's opening Greeting is meant
to convey to the assembled community the presence of the Lord:
Then through his
greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is
present. This greeting and response express the mystery of the gathered Church.
[31]
Is this the true
presence of Christ? Yes, but only a spiritual presence. A mystery of the
Church? Certainly--but only insofar as the assembly manifests and asks for
Christ's presence. This new notion is stressed over and over again by:
- Obsessive references
to the communal character of the Mass. [32] - The unheard of distinction between "Mass with
a Congregation" and "Mass without a Congregation." [33] - The description of the Prayer of the Faithful as a
part of the Mass where "the people exercising their priestly office,
intercede for all humanity." [34 ]
The faithful's
"priestly office is presented equivocally, as if it were autonomous, by
omitting to mention that it is subordinated to the priest, who, as consecrated
mediator, presents the people's petitions to God during the Canon of the Mass.
The Novus Ordo's
Eucharistic Prayer III addresses the following prayers to the Lord:
From age to age you
gather a people to yourself, *so that* from east to west a perfect offering may
be made to the glory of your name.
The "so that"
in the passage makes it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are the
indispensable element in the celebration. Since it is never made clear, even
here, who offers the sacrifice, the people themselves appear as possessing
autonomous priestly powers. [35] From this step, it would not be surprising if,
before long, the people were permitted to join with the priest if pronouncing
the words of Consecration. Indeed, in some places this has already happened.
2. The Role of the
Priest in the New Rite. The role of the priest is minimized, changed, and
falsified:
- In relation to the
people, he is now a mere president or brother, rather than the consecrated
minister who celebrates Mass "in the person of Christ." - In relation
to the Church, the priest is now merely one member among others, someone taken
from the people. In its treatment of the invocation to the Holy Ghost in the
Eucharistic Prayer (the epiclesis), the General Instruction attributes the
petitions anonymously to the Church. [36] The priest's part has vanished. - In the new
Penitential Rite which begins the mass, the Confiteor has now become
collective; hence the priest is no longer judge, witness and intercessor before
God. It is logical therefore that he no longer recites the prayer of absolution
which followed it and has now been suppressed. The priest is now
"integrated" with his brothers; even the altar boy who serves at a
"Mass without a Congregation" calls the priest "brother." -
Formerly, the priest's Communion was ritually distinct from the people's
Communion. The Novus Ordo suppresses this important distinction. This was the
moment when Christ the Eternal High Priest and the priest who acts in the
person of Christ came together in closest union and completed the Sacrifice. -
Not a word is said, moreover, about the priest's power as
"sacrificer," his consecratory action or how as intermediary he
brings about the Eucharistic presence. he now appears to be nothing more than a
Protestant minister. - By abolishing or rendering optional many of the priestly
vestments--in some cases only an alb and stole are now required [37] --the new rite obliterates the priest's conformity
to Christ even more. The priest is no longer clothed with Christ's virtues. He
is now a mere "graduate" with one or two tokens that barely separate
him from the crowd [38] --"a little more a man than the rest," to
quote from a modern Dominican's unintentionally humorous definition. [39] Here, as when they set up altar against altar, the
reformers separated that which was united: the one Priesthood of Christ from
the Word of God.
3. The Role of the
Church in the New Rite. Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to
Christ. In only one instance--in its treatment of the form of the Mass without
a Congregation--does the General Instruction admit that the Mass is "the
action of Christ and the Church." [40] In the case of Mass with a Congregation, however,
the only object the Instruction hints as it "remembering Christ" and
sanctifying those present. "The priest celebrant," it says,
"...joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ
in the Spirit to the Father" [41] --instead of saying that the people join themselves
to Christ who offers Himself through the Holy Ghost to the Father. In this
context, the following points should likewise be noted:
- The many grave
omissions of the phrase "through Christ Our Lord," a formula which
guarantees that God will hear the Church's prayers in every age. [42] - An all-pervading "paschalism" --an
obsessive emphasis on Easter and the Resurrection--almost as if there were no
other aspects of the communication of grace, which, while quite different, are
nevertheless equally important. - The strange and dubious
"eschatologism" --a stress upon Christ's Second Coming and the end of
time--whereby the permanent and eternal reality of the communication of grace
is reduced to something within the bonds of time. We hear of a people of God on
the march, a pilgrim Church--a Church no longer *Militant* against the powers
of darkness, but one which, having lost its link with eternity, marches to a
future envisioned in purely temporal terms.
In Eucharistic Prayer IV
the Church--as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating the
Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic and
Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart.
The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for
those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who
have died in the peace of Christ. To this group--with further detriment to the notion
of the Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great
crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to You alone." None of
the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for
those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the
dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive
nature of the sacrifice. [ 43] Everywhere desacralizing omissions debase the
mystery of the Church. Above all, the Church's nature as a sacred hierarchy is
disregarded. The second part of the new collective Confiteor reduces the Angels
and the Saints to anonymity in the first part, in the person of St. Michael the
Archangel, they have disappeared as witnesses and judges. [44] In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II--and this
is unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also
suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy
Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt,
these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed
under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The prayer after the Our Father, the
"Libera Nos," now suppresses the mention of the Blessed Virgin, the
holy apostles and all the Saints; their intercession is thus no longer sought,
even it times of danger. Everywhere except in the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo
eliminates not only the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the
Church in Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles, the foundation and
mark of the one and universal Church. This intolerable omission, extending even
to the three new Eucharistic Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church. The
New Order of Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion of Saints by
suppressing the blessing and the salutation "The Lord Be with You"
when the priest says Mass without a server. It also eliminates the "Ite
Missa Est," even in Masses celebrated with a server. [45] The double Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass
showed how the priest, vested as Christ's minister and bowing profoundly,
acknowledged himself unworthy of both is sublime mission and the
"tremendous mystery" he was to enact. Then, in the prayer "Take
Away Our Sins," he acknowledged his unworthiness to enter the Holy of
Holies, recommending himself with the prayer "We Beseech Thee, O
Lord" to the merits and intercession of the martyrs whose relics were
enclosed in the altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said
previously about elimination of the two-fold Confiteor and Communion rite is
equally relevant here. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, a sign of its
sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, the new provisions for celebrating
Mass outside a church: a simple table, containing neither a consecrated
altar-stone nor relics and covered with a single cloth, is allowed to suffice
for an altar. [46] Here too, all we have said previously in regard to
the Real Presence applies--disassociation of the "banquet" and the
Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself.
The process of
desacralization is made complete, thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for
the Offertory Procession, the reference to ordinary (rather than unleavened)
bread, and allowing servers (and even lay people, when receiving Communion
under both Species) to handle sacred vessels. [47] then there is the distracting atmosphere created in
the church: the ceaseless comings and goings of priest, deacon, subdeacon,
cantor, commentator--the priest himself becomes a commentator, constantly
encouraged to "explain" what he is about to do-- of lectors (men and
women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to
their places, while others carry and sort offerings. And in an era of frenzy for
a "return to Scripture," we now find, in contradiction of both the
Old Testament and St. Paul, the presence of a "suitable woman" who
for the first time in the Church's history is authorized to proclaim the
Scripture readings and "perform other ministries outside the
sanctuary." [48] Finally, there is the mania for concelebration,
which will ultimately destroy the priest's Eucharistic piety by overshadowing
the central figure of Christ, sole priest and Victim, and by dissolving Him
into the collective presence presence of concelebrants. [49]
Chapter 6:
We have limited
ourselves above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most
seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon
deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete study of all the pitfalls,
dangers, and psychologically and spiritually destructive elements the new rite
contains, whether in texts, rubrics, or instructions, would be a vast
undertaking. We have taken no more than a passing glance at the three new
Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already come in for repeated and
authoritative criticism. The second gave immediate scandal to the faithful due
to its brevity. [50] Of Eucharistic Prayer II it has well been said that
a priest who no longer believed in either Transubstantiation or the sacrificial
character of the Mass could recite it with perfect tranquillity of conscience,
and that a Protestant minister, moreover, could use it in his own celebrations
just as well. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as an "abundant
resource for pastoral work," as "a text more pastoral than
juridical," which national bishops' conferences could adapt, according to
circumstances, to the "spirit" of different peoples. Section One of
the new Congregation for Divine Worship, moreover, will now be responsible
"for the publication and *constant revision* of liturgical books."
This idea was echoed recently in the official newsletter of the Liturgical
Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria:
- The Latin texts must
now be translated into the languages of different nations. - The "Roman
style" must be adapted to the individuality of each local Church. - That
which was conceived in a timeless state must now be transposed into the
changing context of concrete situations, and into the constant flux of the
universal Church and its myriad congregations. [51]
The Apostolic
Constitution itself, in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae, deals a deathblow
to the Church's universal language when--contrary to the express wish of the
Second Vatican Council--it unequivocally states that "in great diversity
of languages, one [?] and the same prayer will ascend, more fragrant than
incense." The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted,
Gregorian chant--which Vatican II recognized as a distinctive characteristic of
the Roman liturgy, decreeing that it "be given pride of place in
liturgical services" [52]
--will logically follow, given,
among other things, the freedom of choice permitted in choosing texts for the
Introit and the Gradual. From the outset, therefore, the new rite was
pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship
has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the
faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended
without compromise? It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention
of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith
that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of
the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.
Chapter 7:
The Apostolic
Constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus
Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed
from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can
only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified. What do these
ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for
the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none of which approaches their Eastern
counterparts' complexity or beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both
Species and the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to
have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman liturgy came
closest to the Eastern Rites. [53] At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and
immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually
precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite
closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism.
At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further
alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In
compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the
verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak
havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in
doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.
Chapter 8:
St. Pius V had the Roman
Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an
instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the
Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either to liturgical
worship or to the faith itself, then threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The
grave situation fully justified--and even rendered prophetic--the saintly
Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his
Missal:
Should anyone presume to
tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty
and His holy Apostles Peter and Paul. [54]
When the Novus Ordo was
presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently asserted that
conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer exist.
Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now are infinitely
worse. It was precisely to repel those snares which in every age threaten the
pure Deposit of Faith, [55] that the Church, under divine inspiration, set up
dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses. These in
turn immediately influenced her worship, which became the most complete
monument to her faith. Trying to return this worship to the practices of
Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of
ancient times is to engage in that "unhealthy archaeologism" Pius XII
so roundly condemned. [56] It is, moreover, to dismantle all the theological
ramparts erected for the protection of the rite and to take away all the beauty
which enriched it for centuries. [57] And all this at one of the most critical moments--if
not the most critical moment--in the Church's history! Today, division and
schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside the Church, but
within her as well. [58] The Church's unity is not only threatened, but has
already been tragically compromised. [59] Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated,
but are--as has been likewise acknowledged--now forcibly imposed through
liturgical abuses and aberrations. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for
four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, [60] and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to
the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of
division--a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against
the integrity of the Catholic Faith--is, we feel bound in conscience to
proclaim, an incalculable error.
Corpus Domini 5 June
1969
ABBREVIATIONS
DB:
Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchrindion Symbolorum." 32nd edition. Barcelona,
Frieburg and Rome: Herder, 1957.
DOL:
"Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial
Texts." Translated, compiled, and arranged by the International Committee
on English in the Liturgy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982
GI:
General Instruction on the Roman Missal. "Institutio Generalis Missalis
Romani." 1st edition, 6 April 1969. In Paul VI, "Missale
Romanum...Pauli VI Promulgatum: Ordo Missae," 12-76. 2nd edition. March
1970. Translated in DOL 1391-1731, with variants between 1975 "editio
typica altera" and 1st edition provided in footnotes.
PTL:
"Papal Teachings: The Liturgy," selected and arranged by the
Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by the Daughters of St. Paul. Boston:
St. Paul Editions, 1962.
SC:
Vatican Council II. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy "Sacrosanctum
Consilium," 4 December 1963. Translated in DOL 1-131.
FOOTNOTES
1.
"The prayers of Our Canon are found in the treatise "De
Sacramentis" (4th, 5th centuries)...Our Mass goes back without essential
changes to the epoch in which it developed for the first time from the most
ancient common liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance of that primitive
liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world and hoped to extinguish the
Christian faith' times when our forefathers would gather together before dawn
to sing a hymn to Christ as their God...There is not in all Christendom a rite
so venerable as that of the Roman Missal." (Rev. Adrian Fortescue).
"The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great.
Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today
that can boast such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would
be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans
and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a
denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church." (Rev. Louis
Bouyer)
2. SC
50, DOL 50.
3. A
footnote in the Instruction refers us to two texts of Vatican II. But nothing
in the texts justifies the new definition, as it is evident from the following:
"Through the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests...In
exercising sacred functions they therefore act as the ministers of him who in
the liturgy continually fulfill his priestly office on our behalf....By the
celebration of Mass people sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ."
Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests "Presbyterum Ordinis," 7
December 1965, Section 5, DOL 260. "For in the liturgy God is speaking to
his people and Christ is still proclaiming his Gospel. And the people are
responding to God both by song and prayer. Moreover, the prayers addressed to
God *by the priest,* who presides over the assembly *in the person of Christ,*
are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present." SC 33,
DOL 33. One is at a loss to explain how the Instruction's definition could have
been drawn from these texts. We note too how the new definition of the Mass
alters what Vatican II laid down in Presbyterum Ordinis Section 5: "The
Eucharistic assembly is the center of the congregation of the faithful."
Since the center in the New Order of the Mass has been fraudulently spirited
away, the congregation has now usurped its place.
4. GI
7, DOL 1937 fn.
5. GI
8, DOL 1398; GI 48, DOL 1438 fn. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fin; GI 56, DOL 1446.
6. The
Council of Trent reaffirms the Real Presence in the following words: "To
begin with, the holy council teaches and openly and straightforwardly professes
that in the blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of
the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really
and substantially contained under the perceptible species of bread and
wine." DB 874. Session 22 which interests us directly in nine canons (DB
937a-956): 1) The Mass is not a mere symbolic representation, but rather a
true, visible sacrifice, instituted "to re-present the bloody sacrifice
which [Christ] accomplished on the cross once and for all. It was to perpetuate
his memory until the end of the world. Its salutary strength was to be applied
for the remission of the sins that we daily commit." DB 938. 2)
"Declaring himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of
Melchisedech, [Our Lord] offered his body and blood under the species of bread
and wine to God the Father and he gave his body and blood under the same
species to the apostles to receive, making them priests of the New Testament at
that time...He ordered the apostles and their successors in the priesthood to
offer this sacrifice when he said, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' as the
Catholic Church has always understood and taught." DB 938. The celebrant,
offerer and sacrificer is the ordained priest, and not the people of God or the
assembly: "If anyone says that by the words, 'Do this in remembrance of
me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or that he did not decree that
they and other priests should offer his body and blood: let him be
anathema." Canon 2, DB 949. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true
propitiatory sacrifice, and not a simple memorial of the sacrifice offered on
the cross: "If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an
offering of praise and of thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the
sacrifice offered on the cross, and not propitiatory, or that it benefits only
those who communicate; and that it should not be offered for the living and the
dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be
anathema." Canon 3, DB 950. Canon 6 should likewise be kept in mind:
"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that it
should therefore be done away with: let him be anathema." DB 953. Likewise
Canon 8: "If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone
communicates sacramentally are illicit and should be done away with: let him be
anathema." DB 955.
7. It
is perhaps superfluous to recall that, if a single defined dogma were denied,
all dogma would fall ipso facto, insofar as the principle of the infallibility
of the supreme hierarchical magisterium, whether conciliar or papal, would thereby
be destroyed.
8. In
light of the first prayer after the Consecration in the Roman Canon (Unde et
memores), the Ascension could also be added. The Unde et memores, however, does
not lump different realities together. It makes a clear and fine distinction:
"calling to mind...the blessed passion, and also His rising from the dead
and His glorious Ascension into Heaven."
9. Ps.
50:7-9, in Heb. 10:5.
10. GI
54, DOL 1444.
11.
This shift of emphasis occurs in the three new Eucharistic Prayers, which
eliminate the Memento of the Dead and any mention of souls suffering in
Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice is applied.
12. See
"Mysterium Fidei," in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism
together with the new theories of "transignification: and
"transfinalization": "...it is not allowable...to stress the
sign value of the sacrament as if the symbolism, which to be sure all
acknowledge in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhaustively the meaning of
Christ's presence; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without
mentioning the marvelous changing of the whole substance of the bread into the
body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, as stated
by the Council of Trent, so that only what is called 'transignification' or
'transfinalization' is involved." Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"
on the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, 3 September 1965, Section 11, DOL
1155.
13.
"Mysterium Fidei" amply denounces and condemns introducing new
formulas or expressions which, though occurring in texts of the Fathers, the
Councils, and the Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense that is
not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they form an
inseparable whole (e.g., "spiritual nourishment," "spiritual
food," "spiritual drink," etc.): "Not only the integrity of
the faith, but also its proper mode of expression must be safeguarded, lest,
God forbid, by the careless use of words we introduce false notions about the
most sublime realities." He quotes St. Augustine: " 'We, however,
have the obligation to speak according to a definite norm, lest the
carelessness of our words give rise to impious ideas about the very realities
signified by these words.' " He continues: "We must religiously
respect the rule of terminology; after centuries of effort and under the
protection of the Holy Spirit the Church has established it and confirmed it by
the authority of councils; that norm often became the watchword and the banner
of orthodox belief. Let no one arbitrarily or under the pretext of new science
presume to change it...In like manner we must not put up with anyone's personal
wish to modify the formulas in which the Council of Trent set forth the mystery
of the Eucharist for belief." Sections 23, 24; DOL 1167-8.
14.
Contradicting what Vatican II prescribed. (Cf. SC 48, DOL 48).
15. GI
54, DOL 1444.
16. GI
54, DOL 1444.
17. GI
241 fn. 69, DOL 1630.
18. GI
129, DOL 1629.
19. The
Instruction recognizes the altar's primary function only once: "At the altar,
the sacrifice of the cross is made present under sacramental signs." GI
259, DOL 1649. This single reference seems insufficient to remove the
equivocation resulting from the other, more frequently used term.
20. GI
49, DOL 1489. Cf. GI 262, DOL 1652.
21. GI
262, DOL 1652.
22. GI
262, DOL 1652, and GI 276, DOL 1666. 23.
23.
"To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by
their origin and nature should remain united." Pius XII, "Allocution
to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy." 22 September 1956, PTL
817. See also Pius XII, Encyclical "Mediator Dei," 20 November 1947,
PTL 550, quoted below.
24.
Rarely does the Novus Ordo use the word hostia. In liturgical books this
traditional term has a precise meaning: "victim." Again we encounter
a systematic attempt to emphasize only "supper" and "food."
25.
Following their customary practice of substituting one thing for another, the
reformers made Christ's presence in the proclaimed word equal to the Real
Presence. (See GI 7, 54; DOL 1397, 1444). But Christ's presence when Scripture
is proclaimed is of a different nature and has no reality except when it is
taking place (in usu). Christ's Real Presence in the consecrated Host, on the
other hand, is objective, permanent and independent of the reception of the
Sacrament. The formulae "God is speaking to his people," and
"Christ is present to the faithful through his own word" (GI 33, DOL
1423) are typically Protestant. Strictly speaking, they have no meaning, since
God's presence in the word is mediated, bound to an individual's spiritual act
or condition, and only temporary. This formula leads to a tragic error: the
conclusion, expressed or implied, that the Real Presence continues only as long
as the Sacrament is in the process of being used--received at Communion time,
for instance--and that the Real Presence ends when the use ends.
26. As
the General Instruction describes it, the sacramental action originated at the
moment Our Lord gave the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under
the appearances of bread and wine. The sacramental action thus no longer
consists in the consecratory action and the mystical separation of the Body
from the Blood--the very essence of Eucharistic Sacrifice. See "Mediator
Dei," esp. Part II, Chapter I, PTL 551, ff.
27. GI
55.d, DOL 1445 fn..
28. GI
55.d, DOL 1445.
29. As
they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could
be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no
longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi
verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old
rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New
Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who
receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the
intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at
Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it.
30. Let
it not be said, following the methods of Protestant biblical scholarship, that
these phrases being in the same Scriptural context. The Church always avoided
superimposing and juxtaposing the texts, precisely in order to avoid confusing
the different realities they express.
31. GI
28, DOL 1418
32. GI
74-152, DOL 1464-1542.
33. GI
209-231, DOL 1599-1621.
34. GI
45, DOL 1435.
35.
Against the Lutherans and Calvinists who teach that all Christians are priests
and offerers of the Lord's Supper, see A. Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae
Dogmaticae," (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1930), v. III: "Each and
every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary minister of the Sacrifice of
the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal minister. The faithful offer *through
the intermediary of the priest, but not in a strict sense*." Cf. Council
of Trent, Session 22, Canon 2, DB 949.
36. GI
55, DOL 1445.
37. GI
298, DOL 1688 fn..
38. We
note in passing an unthinkable innovation which will have disastrous
psychological effects; employing *red* vestments on Good Friday instead of
black (GI 308.b, DOL 1698)--as if Good Friday were the commemoration of just
another martyr, instead of the day on which the whole Church mourns for her
Founder. (Cf. Mediator Dei, PTL 550, quoted below.)
39.
Rev. A. M. Rouget, OP, speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany at
Plessit-Chenet.
40. GI
4, DOL 1394. Cf. "Presbyterum Ordinis," Section 13, DOL 265.
41. GI
60, DOL 1450 fn.
42. See
Jn. 14:13-16, 23-24.
43. In
some translations of the Roman Canon, the phrase a place of refreshment, light
and peace was rendered as a simple state: "blessedness, light,
peace." What can be said then of the disappearance of every explicit
reference to the Church Suffering?
44. Amidst
this flurry of omissions, only one element has been added: the mention in the
Confiteor of "what I have failed to do."
45. At
the press conference introducing the Novus Ordo, Rev. Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp,
professing a purely rationalist faith, discussed changing the priest's
salutations in Mass without a Congregation from plural to singular ("Pray,
brother," for example, replaces "Pray, brethren.") His reason
was "so that there would be nothing [in the Mass] which does not correspond
with the truth."
46. GI
Section 260, 265; DOL 1650, 1655.
47. GI
244.C, DOL 1634.
48. GI
70, DOL 1460, fn.
49. It
now seems lawful for priest to receive Communion under both species at a
concelebration, even when they are obliged to celebrate Mass alone before or
after concelebrating.
50. It
has been presented as "The Canon of Hippolytus," but only a few
traces of that original text remain in the new rite.
51.
Gottesdienst no. 9 (14 May 1969).
52. SC
116, DOL 116.
53.
Consider the following elements found in the Byzantine rite: lengthy and
repeated penitential prayers; solemn vesting rites for the celebrant and
deacon; the preparation of the offerings at the "proscomidia," a
complete rite in itself; repeated invocations, even in the prayers of offering,
to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; invocations of the choirs of Angels at
the Gospel as "invisible concelebrants," while the choir identifies
itself with the angelic choirs in the "Cherubicon;" the sanctuary
screen (iconostasis) separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church and
the clergy from the people; the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine
mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes; the position of the priest who
celebrates facing God, and never facing the people; Communion given always and
only by the celebrant; the continual marks of adoration toward the Sacred
Species; the essentially contemplative attitude of the people. The fact that
these liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an hour and are
constantly defined as "awe-inspiring, unutterable...heavenly, life-giving
mysteries" speaks for itself. Finally, we note how in both the Divine
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil, the concept of
"supper" or "banquet" appears clearly subordinate to the
concept of sacrifice --just as it was in the Roman Mass.
54.
Bull "Quo Primum," 13 July 1570. In Session 23
(Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent announced its
intention to "uproot completely the cockle of the damnable errors and
schism which in these fateful times of ours and enemy has sown (see Matt.
13:25) in the teaching of the faith about the Holy Eucharist and about the use
and worship of the Eucharist. In addition to his other purpose, our Saviour
left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired
to unify and unite all Christians." DB 873.
55.
"Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties
of words." (1 Tim. 6:20)
56.
"Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and
affection to the sources of the Sacred Liturgy. For research in this field of
study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance
towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the texts and sacred
ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to
reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some
instances, one would be straying from the right path were he to wish the altar
restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color
for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and
statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine
Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings...This way of acting
bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the
illegal Synod of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series
of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for
those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the
ever watchful guardian of the "depositum fidei" committed to her
charge by her Divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn."
"Mediator Dei," I.5, PTL 548, 549.
57.
"Let us not deceive ourselves with the suggestion that the Church, which
has become great and majestic for the glory of God as a magnificent temple of
His, must be brought to its original and smallest proportions, as though they
were the only true ones, the only good ones." Paul VI, Encyclical
"Ecclesiam Suam," 6 August 1964.
58.
"A practically schismatic ferment divides, subdivides, splits the
Church." Paul VI, Homily "In Coena Domini," 3 April 1969.
59.
"There are also among us those "schisms" and
"separations" which St. Paul sadly denounces in I Corinthians."
Paul VI, ibid.
60. It
is well-known how Vatican II is now being repudiated by the very men who once
gloried in being its leaders. While the Pope declared at the Council's end that
it had changed nothing, these men came away determined to "explode"
the Council's teachings in the process of actually applying it. Unfortunately
the Holy See, with inexplicable haste, approved and even seemingly encouraged
through Consilium an ever-increasing infidelity to the Council.. This
infidelity went from changes in mere form (Latin, Gregorian Chant, suppression
of the ancient rites, etc.) all the way to changes in substance which the Novus
Ordo sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have attempted to point out
here, we must add those which, with an even greater effect psychologically,
will affect the Church's discipline and teaching authority by undermining the
respect and docility owed the Holy See.