Many traditionally-minded Catholics live in an alternative universe where there is never any bad news, where the man they believe is a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter is intent on "restoring tradition" and fighting the "dictatorship of relativism." Others know that the false "pontiff" is a Modernist and that he rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King but believe that they can do an "end run" around him to "rebuild Christendom," that it does not matter whether or not Joseph Ratzinger is really "Pope" Benedict XVI, that they can just kind of overlook his "bad points" and just speak about how "they" can "restore" and "rebuild" Christendom.
There is just one teen-weeny, itsy-bitsy problem with such views: Christendom cannot be rebuilt or restored on a foundation of truth and error. The Catholic Faith makes no terms with error. It is impossible for a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter to teach any error in Faith and Morals. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us n liturgical rite that is defective in any way or is an incentive for impiety and a vehicle for undermining the integrity of the Faith altogether.
If one wants to restore and rebuild Christendom, you see, one has to recognize that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is evil, that it was designed from its very beginning to be the means by which the immutable Faith of our fathers was undermined and eclipsed to rob Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and thus be so unsure of what the Church teaches that they will be open to whatever change the "hierarchy" makes in matters of Faith, Morals and Worship. The doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions of conciliarism have robbed the world of the wellspring of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that it would otherwise have enjoyed and plunged Catholics into being ready participants in a culture of utter barbarism and pagan superstitions.
Although it is my intention to revise and update G.I.R.M. Warfare if my new book can generate some income to permit me to complete volumes two and three of Conversion in Reverse, suffice it to note for the moment that numerous articles on this site alone, to say nothing of the excellent work done by so many others, starting with many others over the course of the last forty-five years, have focused on this abomination that is but a mockery of true Catholic worship. The appendices below provide a summary of some of the pertinent information contained in those articles.
Other articles have focused on the simple truth that Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, that so many self-delusional traditionally-minded Catholics believe "liberated" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was in effect universally in the conciliar church for all of three years (one year with the changes made by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that went into effect in 1961 and then two subsequent years with those changes and the breaking of the Roman Canon with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph, thus completing what is called the "1962 Missal") was nothing other than a trap to lead them by increments to a gradual acceptance of various "changes" in what some of them defended for decades as a "rock of stability" (the 1962 Missal) to break down their defenses against the Novus Ordo itself.
The issuance of Summorum Pontificum five years ago has resulted in the gradual spread of mostly simulated stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in some places, although not in others. Some conciliar "bishops" have been very receptive of the "liturgical pluralism" while others see it as a 'threat" to the hegemony of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. "Bishop" Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, is mandating all of his seminarians to learn how to stage what is called the "extraordinary form" of the "one" Roman Rite in the conciliar structures.
This all sounds very fine.
However, it is not.
First, "Bishop" Morlino is not a "bishop." The conciliar rite of episcopal consecration is invalid. Here is a very concise summary of this fact that was written by Father Louis J. Campbell, the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, in a sermon that he delivered last year:
“Let
no one lead you astray with empty words,” warns St. Paul in today’s
Epistle (Eph.5:6). We must keep the faith, the faith of our fathers,
handed on to us from the Apostles by saints and martyrs, the fathers and
doctors of the Church, and holy popes and bishops. Now it is our turn
to teach the faith, handing it on to the younger generation unchanged
and untainted by heresy, lest the Church become the desolate kingdom
spoken of by Our Lord in the Gospel.
Many,
“with empty words,” have tried to destroy the Catholic faith – Arius,
Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, to name a few. Then came the Modernists,
condemned by Pope St. Pius X, whose heresies lived on to be re-hatched
at Vatican II by the liberal theologians, and canonized by the conciliar
popes.
If
one were to set out to destroy the Catholic faith, a good place to
begin would be to tamper with the Sacraments, the Sacrament of Baptism,
for instance. But every well instructed Catholic knows that the
essential rite of Baptism requires the pouring of water upon the head of
the person (or immersing the person in the water) while saying the
words: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost” (or Holy Spirit).
If
the priest baptizing were to say, “I pour upon you the life-giving
waters of salvation, that you may share the life of the Holy Trinity,”
we would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sacrament was
invalid, and that the person would have to be re-baptized using the form
that is required for validity. We would not have to wait for the
theologians to debate the matter, or for the Holy See to issue a decree
of nullity. Any Catholic in his right mind would know that the attempted
Baptism was invalid. Any attempt by the “liturgical experts” to change
the essentials of the Sacrament would not have been tolerated by the
Catholic faithful.
But
consider some of the other sacraments. Most of us knew little of what
was required, for instance, for the valid consecration of a bishop. In a
ceremony rarely witnessed by most of the faithful, the Sacrament was
administered in Latin amid mysterious and lengthy rites. Change the form
of this Sacrament, and who would notice? Then what better way to
destroy the Catholic Church than to render invalid the Sacrament of Holy
Orders, since true bishops are absolutely necessary if the Church is to
survive?
The
essential matter and form for the valid consecration of a bishop was
determined by Pope Pius XII on November 30, 1947, in the Apostolic
Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 40, 1948, 5-7), a document which appears to have all
the essential characteristics of infallibility. Even if it does not, it
is certainly an authoritative document, which Pope Pius expected to be
taken most seriously. With the laying on of hands, the consecrating bishop was to say the words of the Preface, “of which,” says the pope,
“the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: ‘Fill
up in Thy priest the perfection of Thy ministry and sanctify him with
the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the
ornaments of all beauty’” (Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui
summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis
unguenti rore sanctifica).
At the end of the document Pope Pius XII states: “We
teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no
matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and
order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to
infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to
have the audacity to contradict it...”
Pope
Pius XII’s body had hardly begun “a-mouldering in the grave” when the
agents of change began working in earnest to destroy the Catholic faith.
Paul VI, once the confidant and trusted friend of Pope Pius XII, had
that “audacity to contradict” when he published his own decree in 1968.
In vain did Pope Pius XII “teach, declare, and determine” what was
required for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders. Paul VI would
introduce entirely new words, requiring them for validity, words which were never used for the consecration of a bishop in the Roman Rite: “So
now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the
governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the
Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in
every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your
name” (Pontificalis Romani, June 18, 1968).
As
to why Paul VI found it necessary to discard the essential words of the
traditional form of consecration and replace them with entirely
different words, he says “…it was judged appropriate to take from
ancient sources the consecratory prayer that is found in the document
called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the
beginning of the third century.”
Judged
appropriate? By whom? None other than Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and
his associates of the “Consilium,” who invented the Novus Ordo Mass. And
who on earth was Hippolytus of Rome? He was an anti-pope of the third
century who separated from Rome because of doctrinal differences and
established a schismatic church, although he later returned to the
Catholic Church and died a martyr. Who knows but that his “Apostolic
Tradition” was drawn up for his schismatic sect?
And whatever became of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis? The name Sacramentum Ordinis was even given to another document by John Paul II, probably as a red herring to throw us off the track.
What
conclusion does one draw? The Catechism of the Council of Trent states:
“In our Sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual
deviation from it renders the Sacrament null.” We would never tolerate a
change in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Never! Can we blithely
accept a total deviation in the form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a
change which omits the part of the traditional form declared essential
for validity by Pope Pius XII? I think not! Pope Pius XII changed
nothing of the traditional form, but merely designated which part of the
form was essential for validity. Paul VI omitted that essential part of
the form and replaced it with something entirely new. Not even popes
(certainly not would-be popes) can change the form of a Sacrament. Whom
do we trust, Pope Pius XII who carefully guarded the traditional
sacramental form handed down from ages past, or Paul VI? Paul VI, who on
the flimsiest of pretexts changed the essential form of a Sacrament,
thus rendering it invalid. The result is that we are left with a whole
generation of pseudo-bishops attempting to govern the Church without the
grace of office. A miter and a bishop’s ring do not a bishop make. And
the Kingdom is brought to desolation (Lk.11:17).
But
even among traditionalists many refuse to consider the possibility of
invalid sacramental rites. It’s more convenient to think that if the
pope says so it’s got to be OK. But Paul VI told us the Novus Ordo Mass
was OK, and look where that has brought us. The day must come when all
awaken to the fact that the Church has been brought low by an apostasy
more monstrous than we have been willing to admit. Only then will the
true bishops emerge, a true pope will restore the hierarchy, and the
Church will rise more glorious than ever. “And all mankind shall see the
salvation of God” (Lk.3:6).
(Father Louis J. Campbell, "A Kingdom Brought to Desolation (Lk.11:17)," Third Sunday of Lent, March 27, 2011, Saint Jude Shrine, Stafford, Texas.)
No true bishops, "Bishop" Morlino, no men to ordain to offer the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
2) The so-called "liberation" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has been accompanied by silence about the egregious blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that have been discussed hundreds of times on this site. That some of the priests/presbyters in religious communities that operate under Summorum Pontificum have justified their silence in the face of grave offenses to the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and thus harmful to the souls that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross is repugnant.
3) Although many in the world of Motu madness are just "shocked, shocked, shocked" that the Vatican is going to publish a "revised" version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition will include the "feast days" of the the "saints" that have been "canonized" by the conciliar "popes" and some of the new "prefaces" that are used in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.
Why be so "shocked, shocked, shocked"? Has not Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told the world in his "explanatory letter" that accompanied the issuance of Summorum Pontificum five years ago that it was his intention to make changes in what I thought in my indulterer days was a "rock of stability," the 1961/1962 Missal that was supplanted by the Ordo Missae of Paul VI on Sunday, November 30, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent:
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social
aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the
ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence
will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the
two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new
Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the
old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various
bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical
possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to
the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than
has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to
the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can
unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being
celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical
directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the
theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive
reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating
that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in
the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions
which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one
continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions
were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to
maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that
omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for
the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the
past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable
for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to
attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the
Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians;
our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted
in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2
Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context,
but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this
subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything
that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)
Why are so many people "shocked" to find that Ratzinger/Benedict actually meant what he wrote? His "openness" to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has everything to do with aesthetics, not the Holy Faith, which he believes is expressed by the non-Mass of non-pope Paul VI, and with his seeking to "pacify the spirits" of those "attached" to the "older" liturgy in order to break down "obstinacy" and "one-sided" attitudes.
How do I know this?
Well, once again, my good and few readers, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us so in his own words. So have those under him:
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social
aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the
ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence
will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the
two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new
Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the
old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various
bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical
possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to
the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than
has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to
the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can
unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being
celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical
directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the
theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive
reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating
that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in
the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions
which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one
continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions
were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to
maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that
omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for
the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the
past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable
for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to
attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the
Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians;
our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted
in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2
Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context,
but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this
subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything
that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks
in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church
and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical
consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all
believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls
into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the
effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith -
ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need
for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to
draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their
differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is
inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love
'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the
suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social
dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical
'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope
and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the
Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of
reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of
extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the
opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must
accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to
meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek
reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall
forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the
extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus
avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome
changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and
broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke
down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests,
215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level
institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands
of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the
Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed
their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have
chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy
elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim
Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as
representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation
and unity? What would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on
this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that
community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc.
Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of
touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of
heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous
in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise
made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable
of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader
vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things
have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression
that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance
may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone
dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right
to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or
restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOP)
Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?
Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu
Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those
people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar
with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group,
because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain
culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let
them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the
faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no
opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and
this liturgy.
On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in
accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived
of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this
century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its
development, retains its identity.
Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there
remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an
opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy.
In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment
of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and
must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc....
On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common
participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community,
but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all
believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems
to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the
renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and
episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify
the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the
Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to
set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the
possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that
of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been
seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits
is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt
that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all,
lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the
Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and
never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost,
entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can
only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us
therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle
Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)
There is no need to be "shocked" by the forthcoming "2012 Missal" for the "extraordinary form" of the "one" Roman Rite or to rend one's garments over the fact that it is going to permit the the "new and improved" edition of the "1961/1962 Missal" to be staged facing the people and to have the readings proclaimed in the vernacular. This is all designed to accustom traditionally-minded Catholics to the the eventual merger of the "two forms" into one "renewed liturgy," something that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself desires and has permitted Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, to do so last year at a conference on Summorum Pontificum without a word of rebuke of doing so:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on
use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just
the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's
top ecumenist said.
The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new
rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by
the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch,
president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
said May 14.
In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform
movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid"
progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture
with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.
Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum
Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider
latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was
published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II
liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also
problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect
of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal
said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had
intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.
He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new
reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he
said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen
certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial
dimensions of the Mass.
Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."
"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we
cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the
extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the
church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.
"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided
theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the
pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the
Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.
Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and
see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of
the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized,
Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an
organic process of growth, he said.
On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass
celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair
in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the
liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite
was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)
A "common rite."
All efforts to forestall "changes" in the 1961/1962 Missal that was itself a change in a series of liturgical changes that had begun in 1955 and have no real end point have been for naught. Naught.
To wit, the very first issue of Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture to feature of article, the first of three as it turned out, of mine was dedicated to the theme of "The 1962 Missal: A Rock of Stability." The issue was so dedicated as many in what was then the indult world, including me, were "alarmed" that "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei was using the Society of Saint John (see Exploiting Traditionalists: Orders The Society of St. John and Pray for the Children) to experiment with the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. It was our goal to forestall the imposition of the "1965 Missal" as desired by even some presbyters in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (and, as it turned out, by some of Father Carlos Urrutigoity's followers within the Society of Saint Pius X who had been influenced by him at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, but who were unwilling to betray the memory of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and join Urrutigoity's new society).Liturgical experimentation was quite at the heart of Father Carlos Urrutigoity, whose corrupt Society of Saint John was chased out of the Diocese of Scranton before it resurfaced in Paraguay, where it operates anew under the protection of "Bishop" Rogelio Livares Plano of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este.
Father Urrutigoity told me personally in November of 1999 that it was his intention to see where the liturgy would have "gone" had it not been for the tumultuous events of the of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath. He was backed fully in this regard, as he told me, by "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei. I warned one of the Society of Saint John's major benefactors about this when I spoke with him the next day that he was backing a Trojan Horse, something that he came to recognize on his own about seven months later, thereafter asking me to conduct an investigation on the Society that was rejected ultimately by the Diocese of Scranton and saw me denounced by Urrutigoity as doing the bidding of the devil himself. (Yes, you see, I am kind of used to be denounced rather regularly.)
Well, the grand laboratory of liturgical experimentation has expanded into the entirety of the alternative universe that is the Motu world. Again, however, this is nothing new if one considers the history of the past fifty-seven years.
The modernized Missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 was meant of its nature to be transitory, and that it is precisely what it turned out to be, a transitional bridge between the Missal of 1958 that been approved, so we are told, by the dying Pope Pius XIII on October 3, 1958, six days before his death, and that of some future liturgy conceived to be that veritable Trojan Horse mentioned just above into which could be loaded one Modernist presupposition after another, not the least of which is the belief that everything about the Faith (doctrine, liturgy, morals, Scripture studies, pastoral life) is in flux, in evolution, if you will.
Catholics had to endure truly revolutionary changes in the 1960s in the years leading up to the promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on April 3, 1969, that was staged for the first time on Sunday, November 30, 1969, starting with the aforementioned Ordo Missae of 1965, which eliminated the
recitation of Psalm 42 (Judica me) at the foot of the altar at the
beginning of Holy Mass.
The vernacular language could be used, except in
the Canon of the Mass, which had to be prayed in Latin (until 1967,
that is), if the priest desired. The Last Gospel, which had been
mandated by Pope Saint Pius V when he issued the Missale Romanum of 1570, thereby codifying a de facto practice that had been observed by priests in many parts of Europe as a
private devotion as they left the sanctuary at the conclusion of Holy
Mass dating back to the Twelfth Century, was eliminated. The Leonine
Prayers, which were made "optional" in the modernized version of the
Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo
Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 were eliminated. The
priest could also face the people, if he wished, a revolutionary change
that became institutionalized universally in the life of Roman Rite
Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism with the
implementation of the Novus Ordo service on November 30, 1969. In other words, the changes inaugurated on November 30, 1964, are very similar, although not entirely identical, with those that are to be included in "Extraordinary Form 2.0," if you will.
The nature and the extent of the changes contained in the Ordo Missae of 1965 were bound
to--and did in fact--bewilder many ordinary Catholics. This is why the
following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint
Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate
Conception Church, which operates under the auspices of the Society of
Saint Pius V, to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a
revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full,
active and conscious participation:"
Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the
beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New
Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in
English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in
the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these
prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were
unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the
bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45
a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews.
Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet
or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help
and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr.
Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in
sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their
generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps
even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy
Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and
faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship
of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise."
[Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the
bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located
in Norwood, Ohio.]
The
blitzkrieg of liturgical changes that took place from 1955 and
thereafter institutionalized impermanence and instability in the lives
of those Catholics who still bother to go to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, accustoming many of them to believe that doctrine can change
just as easily and just as regularly as the liturgy. If we pray in
novel ways then we are going to believe in novel things--and to be more
readily disposed to accept novelties as being part of the normal life of
the Catholic Church, which they are not. Indeed, the Catholic Church
has condemned novelty and innovation, repeatedly, something that Pope
Gregory XVI noted very clearly in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there
is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is
necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find
someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic
Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error.
Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation
of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak
here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently
brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from
the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does
not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic
inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain
doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most
conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support
that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
Clinging onto a missal that was itself meant to be but one phase of the liturgical revolution while ignoring the evidence presented above is an exercise in nothing than than willful, deliberate self-delusion. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not possess the Catholic Faith. He is a Modernist to the core of his apostate being, and that particular "expression" of the "one" Roman Rite is now to be "improved." This is simply a logical "evolution" in the trap that went snap a long time ago that goes by the name of Summorum Pontificum.
To have one's spirits completely pacified, however, one needs to Play The Let's Pretend Game.
We do not need to be "shocked" at the Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round stops at a destination of Ratzinger/Benedict's choosing: 1969 and the brave new world he has in mind for Catholics with his "cosmic liturgy." He has told us his plans twenty years ago:
Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the
increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety,
for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on
our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they
represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We
cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)
Ratzinger/Benedict has resisted those "attached" to the "older" liturgy with a brilliantly executed plan of apparent "kindness" and "liberality" of spirit that has been and continues to be a mask to cover his further institutionalization of the conciliar doctrinal and liturgical revolutions to which he has been committed dating back to his seminary days over sixty-five years ago now. One might as well ride the Central Park Carousel and sing "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" than ride the Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round.
As I note very frequently, pray your Rosaries. Know that the Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for that Triumph.
We can console the good God and make reparation for our sins and for those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists, with each Rosary that we pray.
What are we waiting for?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Appendix A
The Liturgical Changes of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII
This a thorough listing of the changes that are reflected in the "Missal of 1962."
At last
we come to "the liturgy of John XXIII," more properly called that of
"middle Bugnini." The following changes were instituted in the Mass, the
Divine Office and the Calendar:
1. The lives of the saints at Matins were reduced to brief summaries.
2. The lessons from the Fathers of the Church were reduced to the briefest possible passages, with the somewhat naive
wish that the clergy would continue to nourish their souls with
patristic writings on their own.
3. The solitary recitation of the Divine Office was no longer held to be public prayer, and thus the sacred greeting Dominus vobiscum was suppressed.
4. The Last Gospel was suppressed on more occasions.
5. The proper conclusion of the Office Hymns was suppressed.
6. Many feast days are abolished,
as being redundant or not "historical, for example: (a) The Finding of
the Holy Cross. (b) St. John Before the Latin Gate. (c) The Apparition
of St. Michael. (d) St. Peter's Chair at Antioch. (e) St. Peter's
Chains, etc.
7. During the Council, the principle of the unchanging Canon of the Mass was destroyed with the addition of the name of St. Joseph.
8. The Confiteor before Communion was suppressed.
It is
to be noted that the "Liturgy of John XXIII” was in vigor for all of
three years, until it came to its logical conclusion with the
promulgation of the Conciliar Decree on the Liturgy — also the work of
Bugnini. (See His Excellency Bishop Daniel L. Dolan, Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass and The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared.)
Father
Francisco Ricossa described what he called the "anti-liturgical
heresies" extant in Roncalli/John XXIII's liturgical changes:
Pius XII
succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical
career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under
a cloud. Here are a few facts:
As
professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for
following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under
Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.
While
papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings
of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow
of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The
powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted
me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of
his personality, his political and social activity."
Named as
Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the
socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he
made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He
also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a
deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false
religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.
The Revolution Advances
John
XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom
Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement,
was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII,
Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he
would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'
On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing
Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956
into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. "We have reached the
decision," he writes, "that the fundamental principles concerning the
liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future
Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman
Missal must not be delayed any longer."
In this
framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a
climate which was already "Conciliar," the Breviary and Missal of John
XXIII were born. They formed a "Liturgy of transition" destined to last —
as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition
between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and
that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II.
The "Antiliturgical Heresy" in the John XXIII Reform
We have
already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as "liturgical heresy"
the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century
inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in
this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John
XXIII.
Since John XXIII's innovations touched the Breviary as well as the
Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary
also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning
the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the
"flavor" and scope of the innovations.
1. Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop
Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the
Breviary in 1736, "reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to
make it shorter." In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins
to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a
third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the
whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture.
Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.
2. Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. "The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect," said Dom Guéranger,
"is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from
Holy Scripture." While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries
on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII's Breviary
suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On
Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.
3. Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday.Dom
Gueranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the
Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not
permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of
a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the
feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an
agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays,
reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection
— shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts
would pass by silently and unnoticed?"
John
XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X,
fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only
nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two
feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist,
Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the
calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of
which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII
abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.
4. Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as
follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged
by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy
prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful
spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly
opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased
fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors,
penetrate into our churches!"
John
XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy
with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank
and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the
ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves
and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office.
Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine
saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the
reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing
them to "Calvinist principles."
Dom
Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the
saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of
first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts
of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick,
and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)
Appendix B
The Novus Ordo Service as a Rejection of Catholic Tradition and an Effort of "Conformism" to Protestantism
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993, Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. The words were spoken by Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Appendix C
Rupture in the Liturgy as Found in the Words of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger
What happened after the Council was something
else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came
fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification,
and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us
about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved
history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical
development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in
this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal
liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can
continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves
intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal: Ratzinger, Preface to
the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now
decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries,
starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a
breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be
tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a
revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which
this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old
building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using
materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans.
There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it
a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction
over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of
this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer
living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical
authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the
impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something
given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)
Appendix D
Letter of the late +Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI Concerning the Novus Ordo Service
COMMENTS ON THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
The Novus Ordo Missae consists in general
norms for the text of the Ordinary of the Mass. Both the text and the
norms propose a new Mass that does not consider sufficiently the
definitions of the Council of Trent concerning this matter, and
constitutes, for this reason, a grave danger for the integrity and
purity of the Catholic Faith. We have only examined here a few points,
that, we believe, establish that which I have affirmed.
I. Definition of the Mass
In its no.7 the new Ordo gives the follow as a definition of the Mass: "Cena
dominica seu Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum
convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum.
Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet
promissio Christi: ‘Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi
sum in medio eorum’" (Mt. 18:10) 1.
In this definition:
-
There is
insistence on the Mass understood as a meal. Moreover, this way of
seeing the Mass can be found frequently, all along the general norms (cf. v.g. nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56 etc.). It seems even that the intention of the new Ordo Missae is to inculcate this aspect of the Mass, to the detriment of the other,
which is essential, namely that the Mass is a sacrifice.
-
In fact, in the quasi-definition of the Mass given in article 7, the character of the sacrifice of the Mass is not signified.
-
Likewise, it attenuates the sacramental character of the priest, that distinguishes him from the faithful.
-
Furthermore,
nothing is said of the intrinsic value of the Mass, independently of
the presence of the assembly. Much to the contrary, it is supposed that
there is no Mass without the "congregatio populi", for it is the "congregatio" that defines the Mass.
-
Finally,
the text allows a confusion to exist between the Real Presence and the
spiritual presence, for it applies to the Mass the text from St. Matthew
which only concerns the spiritual presence.
The confusion between the Real Presence and the
spiritual presence, already seen in article 7, is confirmed in article
8, which divides the Mass into a "table of the word" and a "table of the Lord’s body".
But it also hides the aspect of sacrifice in the Mass, which is the
principal of all, since the aspect of a meal is only a consequence, as
can be deduced from Canon 31 of the XXII session of the Council of
Trent.
We observe that the two texts from Vatican II, quoted
in the notes, do not justify the concept of the Mass proposed in the
text. We also note that the few expressions, that are more or less
passing references, in which are found expressions such as this, at the
altar: "sacrificium crucis sub signis sacramentalibus praesens efficitur" (no.
259) are not sufficient to undo the ambiguous concept, already
inculcated in the definition of the Mass (no. 7), and in many other
passages in the general norms.
II. The Purpose of the Mass
The Mass is a sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity. Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. To the contrary, that which, in the Mass of St. Pius V, shows clearly this sacrificial end is suppressed in the new Ordo. Examples include the prayers "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" from the Offertory and the final prayer "Placeat, tibi, Sancta Trinitas". Likewise the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity has ceased to be the Preface for Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
As well as being the "sacrificium laudis Sanctissimae Trinitatis" 2, the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Council of Trent insists
greatly on this aspect, against the errors of the Protestants (Chapter 1
& Canon 3). Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo.
Here and there can be found a reminder of one or other expression that
could be understand as implying this concept. But it never appears
without the shadow of a doubt. Also, it is absent when the norms declare
the purpose of the Mass (no. 54). In fact, it is insufficient
to express the theology of the Mass established by the Council of Trent
to simply affirm that it brings about "sanctification". It is not clear
that this concept necessarily implies that of propitiation. Moreover the
propitiatory intention, so clearly visible in the Mass of St. Pius V,
disappears in the New Mass. In fact the Offertory prayers Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi and that for the blessing of the water Deus qui humanae substantiae… reformasti have been replaced by other that make no reference to propitiation at
all. It is rather the sense of a spiritual banquet that they impress.
III. The Essence of the Sacrifice
The essence of the Sacrifice of the
Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the Last Supper, and this not
as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the
moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again
historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be
pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for
when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi".3 In the new Ordo there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the
contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is
said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the
Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis" 4 (no. 54 d.) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit" 5 and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem" 6
have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding
general norms (no. 54 d.). We remark that the final phrase of the
(traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis"7 were much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated.
Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes" 8 and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes" 9,
introduce the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas, in
the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally
to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this
intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicandi" 10 is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi" 11. We cannot say this for the Novus Ordo Missae. However, the Novus Ordo Missae ought
to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to
accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice,
especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the
instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of
the younger generations.
IV. The Real Presence
The sacrifice of the Mass is bound
to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Holy Eucharist. The Real Presence is a consequence of the sacrifice. By
transsubstantiation the change of the substance of the bread and wine
into the Body and Blood of the Savior is accomplished, and thus the
sacrifice takes place. As a consequence the perpetual Victim is present
on the altar. The Blessed Sacrament is nothing other than the Victim of
the Sacrifice, who remains once the sacrificial act has been
accomplished. As a consequence of the new definition of the Mass (no. 7)
the new Ordo allows ambiguity to exist concerning the Real
Presence, which is more or less confused with the simply spiritual
presence, indicated by the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my
name".
Moreover, the suppression of nearly all the
genuflexions, traditional expression of adoration in the Latin church,
the thanksgiving seated, the possibility of celebrating without an altar
stone, on a simple table, the equating of the Eucharistic Banquet with a
spiritual meal, all lead to the obscuring of the Faith in the Real
Presence.
The equating of the Eucharistic Banquet to a
spiritual meal leaves open the idea that Jesus’ presence in the Blessed
Sacrament is bound to its use, as his presence in the word of God. From
this it is not difficult to conclude with the Lutheran error, especially
in a society that is little prepared to think on a higher plane. The
same conclusion is favored by the function of the altar: it is only a
table, on which there is not normally place for the tabernacle, in which
the Victim of the sacrifice is customarily kept. The same can be said
for the custom for the faithful to communicate with the same host as the
celebrant. By itself, this gives the idea that once the sacrifice is
completed, there is no longer any place for reserving the Blessed
Sacrament. Thus none of the changes in the new Ordo Missae lead to greater fervor in the Faith towards the Real Presence, but they rather diminish it.
V. The hierarchical priesthood
The Council of Trent defined that
Jesus instituted his apostles priests, in order that they, and the other
priests, their successors, might offer His Body and Blood (Session
xxii, Canon 2). In this manner, the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of
the Mass is an act that requires priestly consecration. On the other
hand, the same Council of Trent condemned the Protestant thesis,
according to which all Christians would be priests of the New Testament.
Hence it is that, according to the Faith, the hierarchical priest is
alone capable of accomplishing the sacrifice of the New Law. This truth
is diluted in the new Ordo Missae.
In this missal, the Mass belongs more to the people
than to the priest. It belongs also the priest, but as a part of the
assembly. He no longer appears as the mediator "ex hominibus assumptus in iis quae sunt ad Deum" 12 inferior to Jesus Christ and superior to the faithful, as St. Robert
Bellarmine says. He is not the judge who absolves. He is simply the
brother who presides.
We could make other
observations to confirm what we have said above. However, we feel that
the points that we have raised suffice to show that the new Ordo Missae is not faithful to the theology of the Mass, as established
definitively by the Council of Trent, and that consequently it
constitutes a serious danger for the purity of the Faith.
+ Antonio, Bishop of Campos
FOOTNOTES
-
Translation
of article 7: The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or
meeting of the people of God, met together with a priest presiding, to
celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of
Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst" (Mt. 18:20).
-
i.e. Sacrifice of praise of the Most Holy Trinity.
-
i.e. in the person of Christ.
-
i.e. the narration of the institution.
-
i.e. the Church commemorates the memory of Christ himself.
Appendix E
The Ottaviani Intervention
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to Paul VI
September 25th, 1969
Most Holy Father, Having
carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus
Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam
Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and
reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and
towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work
of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite
clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations
implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in
different ways, the Novus Ordo 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 XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons"
of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable
barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with
tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the
face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us 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 suspicions 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 for ever.
Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy
could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the
faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an
indubitable lessening of faith.
Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising
crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice
daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your
Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but
find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for
the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been
the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on
the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of
asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.
Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such
painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith
and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to
deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the
fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly
praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole
Catholic world.
A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Brief Summary
I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal
Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal
Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every
possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon
the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of
the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to
remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only
"spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.
V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant
appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true
nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of
worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order
has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of
Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.
VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the
purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the
deposit of Faith.
I History of the Change
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome
was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a
so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad
exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most
serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non
placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4
abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a
"refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the
Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the
Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution
Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass),
identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening
period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to
give their views about it.
In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal
promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part
to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four
centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests
of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has
moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy
people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it
definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time
the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and
intensive among Christians".
This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the
desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X -
they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the
liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be
changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a
better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would
never have wanted changed.
The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear
to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use,
together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller
participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why,
when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have
been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of
Christians.
Rejected by Synod
Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as
the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance
rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial
judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of
all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass
whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new
legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since
the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself
acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it
appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it
acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution
Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be
reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio
clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated
corresponds with this original intention.
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such
magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with
regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every
possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
Let us begin with the
definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at
the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura
Missae":
"The Lord's Supper or Mass
is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together
under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the
Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true
of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
The definition of the Mass is
thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly
repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as
an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the
Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this
in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of
sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or
the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the
people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential
dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition.
Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their
having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their
denial.
In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the
already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for
this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII, 20).
This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with
His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the
greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the
Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.
In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and
Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in
the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of
Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an
altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as
though between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said about
this point later.
This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all
acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are,
separately in an absolute sense.
We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or
Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table;
The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic
Liturgy.
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the
supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the
Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and
Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the
memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the
Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.
We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and
throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and
reiterated.
III Presentation of the Ends
We now come to the ends of the Mass.
1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most
Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the
primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he
saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast
fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).
This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance
of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with
the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface,
which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as
this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so
in future will be heard but once a year.
2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been
deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of
sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and
sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted
the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim
in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self-
immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and
full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This
is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to
communicate, sacramentally.
3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is
absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After
the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other
than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the
offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and
God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life";
man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".
"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity
we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of
the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread
of life (or spiritual drink)".
There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the
formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean
anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the
definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among
His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially)
changed.
Suppression of Great Prayers
In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results
from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae
substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti"
was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his
present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation
of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment.
The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend
"cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose
clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing
the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no
longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up
scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious
ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union of
priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for
the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host
to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer
will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the
Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity
banquet.
IV The Essence
We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.
The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only
there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these
reasons:
1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex
Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be
united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering
sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)
Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given
to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex
Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the
whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a
prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects
thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The
explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the
"Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation
reveals the change in doctrine.
2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is
quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central
position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic
liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a
quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the
context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)
The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very
word transubstantiation is totally ignored.
The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy
Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations,
as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish
the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the
systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.
Note, too, the suppressions:
- of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the
priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the
Consecration;
- of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
- of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's
fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels,
which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
- of the pall protecting the chalice;
- of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
- of the consecration of movable altars;
- of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon
the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts"
(this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private
houses);
- of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
- of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated,
on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to
Communion standing);
- of all the former prescriptions in the case of the
consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual
direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)
All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.
3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost
always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the
centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid
down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is
possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no.
262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the
faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it
(ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that
the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This
will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the
celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought
about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.
Separation of Altar and Tabernacle
Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place
apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a
question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a
church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon
a stripped, bare table. Once again the contrast is made between
'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up against altar.
In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species
consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the
priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find
reasserted disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every
form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet
another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the
consecrated Species remain.
The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was
properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by
three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline
insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's
faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the hierarchical
priesthood.
b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new
paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental
and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the
centre of the page and often in a different colour, clearly detached
from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper
and autonomous value.
"To separate the
Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things which,
of their very nature, must remain together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to
the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). cf.
also Mediator Dei, 1.5, note 28.
c) The anamnesis ("Haec
quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is
"eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This referred to Christ
operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation
to recall what He did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam facietis") in the way
He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula
("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of
the old - proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will
irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as
the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the
'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration' will certainly once
again take the place of the idea of sacramental action.
The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula "narratio
institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the
anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of
Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of
the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of
modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The
consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as
expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whole Person
the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").
Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after
the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest")
introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity
concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the
expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed
just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost
as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.
This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional
acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and
drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comest",
where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and
eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the
height of ambiguity.
V The Elements of Sacrifice
We come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the
four elements of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church,
4) the faithful present.
In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is
autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening
definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the
priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the
assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua
salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae
mysterium".
A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a
mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and
soliciting such a presence.
This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive
references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the
unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass
without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio
universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the
"sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus
excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to
that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest,
as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the
intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.
In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following
words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people to
yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be
made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear
that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in
the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the
offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous
priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before
long, the people were authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the
consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have
already occurred).
Priest as Mere President
2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly
in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere
president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating
in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de
populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations
are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has
vanished.
In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer
judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no
longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He
is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in
the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".
Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction
between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal
High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in
the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been
suppressed.
Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or
about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the
Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant
minister.
The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in
certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate
even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more
clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned officer"
whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a
little more a man than the rest", to quite the involuntarily humorous
definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table" and the
Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood and
the Word of God.
3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In
one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the Mass
acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord.
no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not
referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and
sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the
sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest
associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones which
would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum
Sanctum Deo Patri".
In this context the follows are to be noted:
1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord",
the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John,
XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);
2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no
other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the
communication of grace;
3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the
communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and
eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people
on the march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers
of Darkness - looking towards a future which having lost its line with
eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.
The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as such in
the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the
place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox
believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all
who seek you with a sincere heart".
Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on
"with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have
died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further
obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the
dead whose faith is known to you alone".
Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any
reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering of those
who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of
this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive
nature of the Sacrifice.
Desacralizing the Church
Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church.
Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints
are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor:
they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St.
Michael, for the first.
The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is
without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the
Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the
Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters
of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became,
with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos
the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer
mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in
time of peril.
The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly
intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new
Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the
Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark
of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in
the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.
A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the
omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the
salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa
est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.
The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of
Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy
of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be
accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the
Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of
the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both
these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in
respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally
relevant here.
The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred
character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for
celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced
by a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a
single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said
with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the
"convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence
Itself.
The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new
procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened
bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie)
being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting
atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest,
deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes commentator
himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is
about to accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of servers or laymen
welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst
others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed
activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who
for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorised to
read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra
presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).
Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by
destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central
figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of
concelebrants.
VI The Destruction of Unity
We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of
the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the
Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are
typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, and
spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the
document - whether in text, rubrics or instructions - would be a vast
undertaking.
By Priest or Parson
No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons,
since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative
criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave
immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II
it has been well said, among other things, that it could be recited
with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest who no longer
believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of
the Mass - hence even by a Protestant minister.
The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral
matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal
Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying
circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic
Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate
variations and adaptations". Besides, Section I of the new Congregation
for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and
'constant revision' of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin
of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says:
"The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of
the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the
individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond
time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations
in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad
congregations."
The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the
Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican
Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of
tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend more
fragrant than any incense".
Council of Trent Rejected
The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of
Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognised as "liturgiae romanae
proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that "principem locum
obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice,
amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual.
From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and
experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away
for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went
with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without
compromise?
It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the
Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the
Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus
Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.
VII The Alienation of the Orthodox
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference
to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from
Eastern Churches. The result - utterly remote from and even opposed to
the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies - can only repel the faithful
of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount
to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching
their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion
sub utraque specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately
shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of
the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman
character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own.
Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to
certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism)
and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more
alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the
various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking
havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her
unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis
without precedent.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the
present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an
instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions
of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical
worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant
Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even
rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given 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 blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was
asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the
Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply,
but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more
serious ones today.
It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every
century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi,
devitans profanas vocum novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to
erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defences of her
dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements.
These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most
complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship
back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and
with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII,
what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we
see today only too clearly - to dismantle all the theological ramparts
erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty
by which it was enriched over the centuries.
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - of the Church's history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not
only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened
but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so
much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical
abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both
the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another
which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless
liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or
manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we
feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Appendix F
A Matter of the Faith, Not of Any Kind of "Personal Preference"
(Adapted from my own G.I.R.M. Warfare)
The wreckage wrought by the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is truly mind-boggling.
A synthetic liturgy, which was the product of men who
believed that a "new age of energy" had dawned upon man, continues to
demonstrate its inherent degeneracy as time progresses. We have, as I
have noted on so many occasions in the past, become a congregational
church. Each parish has its own distinctive ways of "doing" liturgy. The
Mass varies widely from priest to priest even in the same parish.
Sadly, the Novus Ordo contains enough approved options within
it to make it the plaything of a particular priest, who feels free to
give himself a little bit of "variety" now and then by using the options
available to him most arbitrarily. There is nothing of a permanent
nature which is beyond the ability of national episcopal conferences,
diocesan liturgical commissions, parish liturgy committees, or
individual celebrants to tamper with as circumstances dictate. The
result is impermanence and instability, the exact opposite of what a
liturgical rite is supposed to produce.
Although many presbyters who have been installed
(the conciliar rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination
are as bogus as the Novus Ordo itself) since 1969 have come to
appreciate the beauty and the permanence of the Immemorial Mass of
Tradition, some of these men have been coopted by the new order of
things into professing publicly that the Mass of the Roman Rite, the
Mass of our glorious, living liturgical tradition in the West, is merely
a matter of preference, not an exercise of the worship of the Blessed
Trinity which is inherently more perfect, more beautiful, more glorious,
more befitting the dignity of God than the banality offered by the Novus Ordo.
One such priest, who was known once (and not so long ago) for his
stirring defense of the importance of the restoration of the Immemorial
Mass of Tradition for exactly these reasons, has let the allure of a
pastoral appointment and the careerism engendered thereby to lead him to
state that the "same Lord" is present in both Masses, that a preference
for the "old" is a personal matter which ought not to detract from the
objective good found in the new Mass. This is all so reminiscent of what
a fictional character once told a blackmail victim of his as to why it
was so easy to stoop to the use of whatever means deemed necessary to
achieve a particular end: "Once you lose integrity, the rest is easy." And the Novus Ordo makes it easy for men once known for their courage to lose their
integrity and to try to convince others positivistically that what is a
matter of objective truth is simply a matter of personal preference,
which is nothing other than the method used by liberals to attempt to
reduce all matters of worship and doctrine to the level of subject
preference rather than objective truth.
Adoration
The principal end of the Mass is the worship of the
Blessed Trinity. The nature of God demands that we, His creatures,
worship Him. However, the worship we are to offer the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth must befit His dignity as God.
It must of its nature be an expression of beauty. We are creatures who
have bodies and souls. Our bodies contain within them the senses which
are affected by the environments in which we find ourselves. Even the
smallest detail of the environment in which we find ourselves affects
our senses, whether or not we realize it. Thus, a Catholic is called to
recognize the fact that every aspect of his home life, for example, is
to reflect beauty and order. We are to remind ourselves that we,
although sinners who have marred the beauty of our sins by the stain of
our sins, are meant to live for all eternity in the glory of beauty
Himself, the very Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
If this is so in the right ordering of our domestic lives, how much
more is it to be the case with respect to the Sacrifice of the Mass?
As a work of beauty, the Mass must reflect
permanence and stability. The infinite perfection of God is of its very
nature permanent and stable. As far as is possible, therefore, the
Sacred Mysteries must convey the Infinity, Permanence, Transcendence,
and Stability of the Blessed Trinity. This is why the various Eastern
liturgies are rich in symbolism (melodious chant, icons, grails
signifying the "holy of holies" beyond which the laity are not to pass).
A solemn High Latin Mass conveys this symbolism different than do the
Eastern liturgies. However, the glory of Gregorian chant, the waft of
incense, the fixed, prescribed rituals (such as the thirty-three Signs
of the Cross which are made by a priest during the celebration of Mass
in the Traditional Latin Rite), the singing of the Asperges me, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Lesser Alleluia, Gospel, Offertory, Preface, Pater Noster, Communion, Postcommunion, and Ite, Missa est, and the dignity of the priest acting in persona Christi convey
collectively a beauty and order reflective of the organic nature of its
development over the first centuries of the Church. No human being
could have created such beauty and order synthetically. Its development
over time itself is expressive of how Catholics began to appreciate and
understand the nature of the Mass and the beauty and reverence due God
in His Infinity as God.
As I have noted in the past, there are those who have justified the Novus Ordo on the basis of an appeal to antiquarianism, the exaltation of what is
alleged to have been the simpler rites of the first three centuries of
the Church. As Monsignor Klaus Gamber pointed out in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, the efforts of early Twentieth Century liturgists such as Pius Parsch to discover the "roots" of the liturgy were based on false assumptions and bad history. Indeed, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei,
November 20, 1947, said antiquarianism was really little else than an
effort to project back onto the past a reality which never existed in
order to justify "reforms" which were at odds with the whole history of
authentic liturgical development and destructive of the ends of the
Mass.
To the extent, however, that the rites were simpler
in the first few centuries of the Church, there are two very simple
explanations as to why this was so. First, the Church was underground in
most of the world until the Edict of Milan was issued by Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. Yes, there were churches and basilicas which had been
erected prior to that time. However, given the fact that various Roman
emperors engaged in periodic, episodic persecution of the first
Catholics between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., a good deal of the reason why
the earlier rites were simpler in form and rubric was that the Mass was
said "on the run" a good deal of the time. This is why priests
celebrated Mass in their street clothing (a chasuble was garb worn by
ordinary Roman citizens) so that they would not be suspected of
"anti-state" activities while walking above ground-and so that they
could escape readily if they had to flee the place where they were
celebrating Mass. Interestingly, this vitiates one of the arguments made
by supporters of women's ordination to the priesthood. The fact that
women wore chasubles during Mass did not mean they were priestesses or
deaconesses. Chasubles were simply street garments. Period. Thus, part
of the reason the rites were simpler in the first few centuries than
they later became is explained by the necessity of the times. When the
period of persecutions ended with the Edict of Milan, Catholics came to
realize over time the beauty which was due God. It was then that huge
cathedrals and basilicas began to be built. It was then that the rites
began the steady process of growing in their ornateness and beauty.
Second, as the late Dr. Adrian Fortesque noted so ably in his works, the Mass of the Roman Rite underwent few changes (principally effected by Pope Gregory the Great)
from the fifth century forward. And the changes which did manifest
themselves occurred slowly, organically, imperceptibly. Indeed, the
Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V in
1570 so perfectly reflected the grandeur of tradition that it was
adopted universally in one diocese after another even though the Holy
Father had permitted places which had rites of their own dating back
more than 200 years to keep those rites. With several exceptions,
including the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, Italy, and the Mozarabic Rite in
Toledo, Spain, the Missale Romanum was embraced everywhere as a fitting expression of what had developed into a fixed rite over a thousand years beofre.
In addition to the splendor of the rites, the beauty
which is owed God in the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries concerns
the appearance of a church itself. The High Altar, positioned in the
back of the sanctuary so that the priest is in conversation with God, is
of utmost importance. The altar conveys the sacrificial nature of the
Mass, in contradistinction with the use of a table (almost a requirement
by many diocesan liturgical commissions today for the building of new
churches and the wreckovation of older ones), which conveys a mere meal
or banquet.
The steps leading to the altar convey the fact that
we must make an effort to approach God, that we need His ineffable grace
to climb the stages of spiritual perfection so as to offer our own
lives right readily in a sacrificial manner in union with the Sacrifice
offered in an unbloody manner at the hands of a priest. The Communion
railing signifies several things, including the distinction between the
priesthood of the ordained priest (which is different both in degree and
in kind from that possessed by the lay faithful as a result of their
baptism) and that we possess by virtue of our baptism. Thus, the
communion rail also signifies that the holy of holies is reserved for
those who are themselves consecrated to handle the Sacred Species as
well as for those chosen to assist them during the unbloody
representation of Calvary. The communion rail also signifies the
distance which separates us in this vale of tears from eternity.
Although we desire Heaven-and are given a foretaste of Heavenly glories
in the celebration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (as well as in
the Eastern Divine Liturgies), we are still in this vale of tears. There
is a distance which separates us from eternity.
Additionally the beauty befitting God in a Catholic
church, which is meant to provide a fitting ambiance for the celebration
of the Sacred Mysteries, requires that there be a Crucifix to orient us
to the fact that there is no other path to Heaven than by embracing our
own individual crosses on a daily basis. There must be images of the
Sacred Heart, the font of Divine Mercy formed out of the Sorrowful and
Immaculate Heart of Mary. Statues of the Blessed Mother, who made
possible our salvation by her perfect acceptance of the will of the
Father at the Annunciation, must be visible to remind us that she stood
so valiantly by the foot of the Cross. Representations of Saint Joseph,
the head of the Holy Family and the Patron of the Universal Church, must
be present, as well as statues of the individual patron saints of the
church and/or diocese. We, the faithful, must not be positioned in the
"round." As our participation in the Mass is principally interior
(requiring an active effort on the part of the intellect and the will),
our attention and reverence will be affected necessarily by our being
positioned in direct view of the High Altar, which is the focus of our
attention during Mass, and upon which is placed the tabernacle where the
Eucharistic King awaits our worship before and after Mass.
The music, therefore, which is sung or played during
the Mass must uplift our souls to God, not reflect the banality of this
world. It is meant to reflect the beauty, solemnity, reverence,
permanence, stability, honor, dignity, and glory that are due God the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Though, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei,
new musical compositions are not to be excluded from the celebration of
the Mass just because they are new, any composition which proposes
itself to be played in Mass must of its nature reflect the elements
noted above. What we have seen in the counterfeit church of
conciliarism is the canonization of the profane to such an extent that
the music played in stagings of the Novus Ordo service is meant to
reflect the spirit of the world rather than to reflect the permanence
and beauty and solemnity of the Sacred Mysteries. There is simply no
substitute for Gregorian Chant in the Roman Rite. It is more than a
little telling that the various Eastern rites have never permitted
profane compositions to be included in their ancient chants. The
destruction of order, reverence, nay, even belief in the Real Presence,
in the Latin rite has been made all the more possible by the profane
music introduced in the past forty years.
Finally, and so very importantly, we must present
souls to the Blessed Trinity which are as beautiful as they can be.
Though we may have much to do to make reparation for our forgiven mortal
sins and for our unforgiven venial sins (as well as for our general
attachment to sin), we are to be minimally in a state of sanctifying
grace in order to receive Holy Communion worthily. The inherent nature
of the Mass does not depend upon the beauty of our souls. However, its
efficacy in our own lives depends upon the extent to which we prepare to
root out all that is ugly, selfish and thus displeasing to the Blessed
Trinity. An important symbolic representation of this is the attire we
choose to wear when hearing Holy Mass. An outward display is frequently a
pretty good sign of an interior disposition (or lack thereof).
A second constituent element of the end of Adoration
is solemnity. Calvary was no joke. It was not a gabfest. Our Blessed
Mother did not say to Saint Mary Magdalene, "Hey, Mary! You look great
today." The Mass does not need endless improvisation or adaptation. It
is what it is. Our Lord embraced the will of the Father in His Agony in
the Garden. He offered Himself up on the wood of the Cross to pay back
in His own Sacred Humanity what was owed to Him in His Infinity as God,
that which we could not pay back on our own with our finite bodies. Our
Lord paid back to Himself the blood debt of our own sins. Our puny,
finite little minds cannot possibly even begin to fathom the horror and
the pain Our Lord experienced as He effected our redemption on the
heights of Golgotha. Our Lord fulfilled the Father's will so that His
Infinite Mercy could be extended to us sinful creatures, who do not
merit that mercy but who are the beneficiaries of this gratuitous,
unforced gift of gifts. There were silence and tears among the several
faithful souls who stood by the wood of the Cross. They were not
distracted by the flies and the heat and the noise of the crowd busily
jeering Our Lord. Our comportment must be exactly that which was
demonstrated by the Blessed Mother, Saint John the Evangelist, Saint
Mary Magdalene, and the handful of others who were at the foot of the
Cross on the first Good Friday.
Every aspect of the Mass demands solemnity,
sobriety, reverence. The priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition did
not come out to greet the people (quite a significant change in all
liturgical tradition, both in the East and in the West). He came out to
pray at the foot of the steps leading to the High Altar, preparing
himself and the faithful gathered (if any) for the perfect prayer which
is the Mass. He is in conversation with God. We unite our prayers with
those of the priest. However, the focus of a priest in the Immemorial
Mass of Tradition is not the people. It is Christ, the King.
Although there are responses that the coir sings in a
Solemn High Mass, the priest addresses us as a priest, not as an
entertainer who has to add something of his personality or his own
wordiness to "make" the Mass a more "complete" experience for us. The
entirety of the Mass must convey solemnity, especially at that sublime
moment when the priest utters the glorious words, Hoc est
enim Corpus Meum. . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et
aerteni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis
effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The very solemn
nature of the Roman Rite did this. No priest had to exaggerate the
elevation in order to convey that which is lacking in the essence of the
Mass (as some do in the Novus Ordo). No priest had to
improvise words to emphasize that the words of consecration are indeed
the most important part of the Mass (as some do quite idiosyncratically
in the Novus Ordo). Every aspect of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed reverence and solemnity.
Solemnity is also conveyed in the Immemorial Mass of
Tradition by the very positioning of the priest in conversation with
God (or ad orientem, in the case of the actual, Eastward orientation of
the High Altar of a particular church). As I have noted on other
occasions, the first person to celebrate a "liturgy" facing the people
was Martin Luther. Father Joseph Jungmann,
who was a supporter of "liturgical reform" but was intellecdtually
honest about some points despite the questionable nature of much of his
other research, noted, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was
always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and
repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." We do not need to
look at the priest and he does not need to look at us. Both priest and
people are called to focus their attention on God, not on each other.
While a particular priest celebrating a particular Mass is important in
that there would be no Mass celebrated at that time without his having
been ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, his individual personality is unimportant, totally irrelevant.
We need to focus on the work he is doing in persona Christi by
virtue of the powers given him by God at the moment of his priestly
ordination. The orientation of the priest toward the High Altar of
Sacrifice is an important constituent element of the solemnity befitting
the Adoration of the God the Father through the God the Son in Spirit and in Truth.
Permanence and Transcendence are two other
constituent elements related to the end of Adoration found in the Mass. A
rite is meant of its nature to be fixed, not ever changing. Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei in 1947 that the human elements (or accidentals) of the Mass are
subject to change. If such change should occur, he noted, it should
occur organically, slowly over the course of time. Rapid change
bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations
that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests) lead
people to conclude that doctrine itself must be subject to the sort of
change and evolution evidenced in the liturgy. Everything is up for
grabs, including the nature of God Himself. Nothing is fixed in the
nature of things or by the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the
Church through the Apostles. That this is one of the chief goals of the
liturgical revolutionaries is plain for all to see, and is something
that has been the fodder of much discussion over the past forty years.
A liturgical rite is meant to reflect permanence. God
is unchanging. Our need for Him is unchanging. His truths are
unchanging. As the liturgy is meant to provide us with a sense of same
sort of security we find in our earthly dwellings, our homes, as a
foretaste of the security we will know in our Heavenly dwelling if we
persist until our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace, it is
obviously the case that it should reflect the permanence and
transcendence of God and of the nature of His revelation. The Immemorial
Mass of Tradition conveys this sense of permanence by virtue of the
fixed nature of the rites (the gestures, the stability of the liturgical
calendar, the annual cycle of readings, the repetition of the readings
of a Sunday Mass during the following week if no feast days or votive
Masses are celebrated on a particular day). It also conveys the sense of
permanence and transcendence by its use of Latin, a dead language.
As Dr. Adrian Fortesque pointed out
in his works, Latin is by no means a necessity for the celebration of
the Mass. The various Eastern rites are offered in different idioms. And
Latin itself was once the language of the people. (Indeed, one of the
ways to rebut the charge made so sloganisticaly by Protestants that
Catholics desired to "hide" the Bible from the people prior to the
Protestant Revolt is to point out that when Saint Jerome translated
the Bible from the Hebrew and the Greek into the Latin Vulgate, he did
so to make it accessible to the people. Latin was the language of the
people at that time.) The fall of the Roman Empire in the West, however,
led to Latin's falling into disuse as the vernacular of the people.
This was an "accident" of history, admitting, obviously, that all things
happen in the Providence of God. This "accident," however, wound up
serving to convey the sense of permanence and transcendence which is so
essential to the Adoration of the Blessed Trinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As Latin is now a dead language, it is no longer
subject to the sort of ideological manipulation and deconstructionism
found in a living language. A dead language is what it is. Its words
have a permanent meaning. This "accident" of history, which, of course,
has occurred within the Divine Providence of God, has helped to convey
the sense that God is permanent, His truths are permanent, our need for
Him is permanent, and our worship of Him must reflect this permanence.
Furthermore, Latin conveys the universality of the Faith. A dead
language is beyond the ability of anyone, including a priest, to
manipulate. Thus, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the same everywhere. It
is the same in New York as it is Spain. It is the same in the United
Kingdom as it is in Japan. It is the same in Nigeria as it is in
Argentina. It is the same in its essence in 2010 as it was 1571. This
furthers the sense of permanence as a constituent element of the end of
Adoration.
Latin also conveys the sense of the Mysterium Tremendum.
Although it is possible to pray the Mass with a priest by the use of a
good Missal (such as the Father Lasance Missal), even those who are
fluent in ecclesiastical and scholastic Latin understand that Latin
conveys of its nature a sense of mystery. The Mass after all contains
within it the mysteries of salvation. We know intellectually what the
Mass is and what takes place therein. However, not even the greatest
theologian in the history of the Church understands fully how these
mysteries take place. We accept them as having been given us by Our Lord
through Holy Mother Church. We want to plumb their depths by means of
assiduous prayer and study. No human being, however, can possibly claim
to understand the mystery of God's love for His sinful creatures, no
less His desire to reconcile us to Himself through the shedding of His
own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Latin conveys the
sense of the tremendous mystery which is the Mass.
Again, it is not an incomprehensible language, as
some defenders of the new order of things contend so arrogantly. Even
illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages understood the Mass as a result
of their being immersed into it week after week after week. Indeed, they
had a better understood of the nature of the Mass (and of its ends)
than do the lion's share of Catholics today, immersed as they have been
in almost forty years of vernacular and banality. Nevertheless, Latin
conveys the beauty and the glory and the honor and the permanence and
the transcendence and the mystery associated with God and His
Revelation.
To be sure, Latin is not an absolute guarantor of
such qualities. The constituent prayers of the Mass must express the
fullness of the Holy Faith, something which is not done in the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo. A simple comparison of the prayers found in the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and the Novus Ordo of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI demonstrates that the expression of the faith has been changed quite radically (as I noted when analyzing Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in Change for change sake). This is especially the case with feasts of the Blessed Mother, as I noted in last months' analysis of GIRM.
That those responsible the current synthetic liturgy felt free to
tamper with the expression of the faith indicates that it is not simply
Latin in se which is the guarantor of the permanence associated with the
Adoration of God in the Mass. It is the use of Latin and the prayers
which most fully express within themselves the Deposit of Faith which
convey such permanence and universality. And, naturally, as Latin is the
Mass of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, it does not
need to be translated into a living language for its celebration by the
priest, who thereby is simply an agent to whom has been entrusted our
glorious liturgical tradition, to be celebrated in all of its beauty and
splendor.
Reparation
The second end of the Mass we need to examine is
that of reparation. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice offered by a
sacerdos, that is, one who is able to offer a sacrifice. By its
perpetuation in an unbloody manner of the Sacrifice offered by the Son
to the Father in Spirit and in Truth, each celebration of the Mass adds
honor and glory to God and grace to the world. Satisfaction is thereby
given to God for the sins of men. The fruits of this satisfaction may be
applied to a specific soul presumed to be in the Church Suffering in
Purgatory (which is one of the principal reasons for having Masses said
for the dead). Additionally, however, the faithful are to remind
themselves that they have an opportunity in each Mass to make reparation
for their own forgiven mortal sins, their unforgiven venial sins and
their general attachment to sin. Almost all of the prayers contained
within the Immemorial Mass of Tradition reflect man's duty to do penance
for his sins and to be aware of a God Who, though merciful, is also
just. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the Confiteor, and the Kyrie
do this in a very specific way at the beginning of Mass. Many of the
Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions
also do this.
Consider, for example, the following, said by a
priest as he ascends the steps to the High Altar following the prayers
at the foot of the altar: Aufer a nobis, quaesimus Domine,
iniquitates nostras: ut ad Sancta Sanctorum, puris mereamur mentibus
introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Take away from us
our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart
we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ Our
Lord. Amen."
Consider also, the Collect for Septuagesima Sunday: Preces
populi tui, quaesumus Domine, clementer exaudi: ut, qui juste pro
pecatis nostris affligimur, pro tui nominis gloria misericorditer
liberemur. Per Dominium. "Do Thou, we beseech Thee, O Lord,
graciously hear the prayers of Thy people, that we, who are justly
afflicted for our sins, may be mercifully delivered for the glory of Thy
name. Through Our Lord." Also, Quinquagesima Sunday, which fell on
February 10, 2002: Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine clementer
exaudi: atque a peccatorum vinculis absolutos, ab omni nos adversitate
custodi. Per Dominum. "Of thy clemency harken unto our prayers, O
Lord, loose us from the bonds of sin, and keep us from all adversity.
Through Our Lord."
Consider also the prayers at the blessing of the ashes on Ash Wednesday: Oremus,
Deus, qui non mortem, sed penitentiam desideas peccatorum: fragilitatem
conditionis humanae benignissima respice; et hos cineres, quos causa
proferendae humilitatis, atque promerandae veniae, capitibus nostris
imponi decernimus, benedicere pro tua pietate, dignare: ut, qui cinerem
esse, et ob pravitatis nostrae demeritum in pulverem
reversuroscognoscimus; peccatorum omnium veniam, et praenia
paenitentibus repromissa, misericorditer consequi meramur. Per Christum
Dominum nostrum. Amen." O God, Who desirest not the death of
sinners, but their repentance, most graciously regard the frailty of
human nature; and, of Thy loving-kindness, deign to bless these ashes,
which we intend to put upon our heads to express our lowliness and win
Thy pardon, that we, who know that we are but ashes and for the guilt of
our fall shall return to dust, may be worthy to obtain, through Thy
mercy, the forgiveness of all our sins and the rewards promised to the
penitent. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."
Finally, consider one of the Collects to be said in Votive Masses in honor of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady: Cordibus
nostris, quaesumus, Domine, gratiam tuam beningus infude: ut peccata
nostra catsitgatione voluntaria cohibentes, temporaliter, potius
maceremur, quam supplicis deputemur aeternis. Per Dominum. "Of Thy
goodness pour Thy grace into our hearts, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that,
bridling our sinful appetites with voluntary discipline, we may suffer
temporal mortifications rather than be condemned to eternal punishments.
Through Our Lord." There are no such expressions in the Novus Ordo whatsoever. It is an expression of a different faith, of, the belief
that the force of the energy unleashed by "the general will" can effect a
new spirit in man and thus in the Church.
These are clear expressions of the Reparation as one
of the four ends of the Mass. And it is this spirit of reparation which
is supposed to uppermost in our minds and our hearts as we hear Mass,
mindful of our own need to make reparation for our own sins by
cooperating with the graces we receive in Holy Communion, as well as the
actual graces which flow out in the world as a result of the offering
of each Holy Mass. As penitents who are aware of the debt we owe but
cannot pay back on our own, we are supposed to be reminded by the very
spirit of the Mass that we are to called to be co-redeemers of Our Lord
by our patient and loving embrace of whatever crosses (physical,
emotional, spiritual) we are asked to bear to make satisfaction for our
own sins, to say nothing of offering the merits we earn for the Poor
Souls in Purgatory and for the conversion to repentance and the true
Faith of all erring, unrepentant sinners. Indeed, black was required as a
liturgical color in Masses offered for the dead to remind us that
physical death is a punishment for Original Sin. We are to grieve over
what sin has done to the order of God's creation while at the same time
we give thanks to Him for His ineffable mercy. The Mass, therefore, is
supposed to remind us of the great mercy extended to us by God in
permitting us to endure redemptive suffering for our own sake and for
the sake of the salvation of the whole world.
As the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the
Cross, the Mass teaches us that there is no other path to an unending
Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise than the Cross. That is why, you see,
the replacement of the Crucifix in churches with representations of the
"Resurrected Jesus" or of barren crosses coincide with an expression of
the faith which no longer stresses a spirit of interior penance or of a
need for external acts of penance. Souls which grow to love God with a
fever pitch voluntarily take unto themselves whatever sufferings and
humiliations which come their way without complaint, understanding that
their sins deserve far worse than they are asked to bear in this vale of
tears. None of us suffers as his sins deserve. Our Lord is infinitely
merciful. He only permits us to bear what we have the capacity to bear
by means of the graces He won for us on Calvary, and which are extended
to us in each and every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
One who loves God understands his need at all times to make reparation.
Those who are totally consecrated to Our Lady give her, who is our
Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, all of their sufferings and
merits to be used as she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Blessed
Trinity and for the salvation of souls. What a tremendous trust in our
Blessed Mother and a surrender of our attachment to our merits to give
to the one who stood at the foot of the Cross as her Immaculate Heart
was pierced with a sword of sorrow all of our merits gained by our acts
of penance and mortification. Such a spirit can develop only when the
Mass emphasizes our need for reparation, which is why its solemn and
reverent celebration is so essential to the right ordering of individual
souls.
The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass
of Tradition expresses the desire on the part of both the priest and the
faithful to express sorrow and contrition for sins. Confiteor Deo
omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo,
beato Joanni Baptistate, anctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus
Sanctis et vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et
opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam
semper virgenem, beatum Michaelem archangelum, beatum Joannem
Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Pualm, omnes Sanctos, et vos
fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. "I confess to
almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the
archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and
Paul, to all the saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned
exceedingly in thought, word, and deed; through my fault, through my
fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed
Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the
Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you,
brethren, to pray to the Lord our God for me." It is no accident that
the Confiteor found in the editio typica of the Novus Ordo has been much simplified. Although it does contain the triple mea culpa,
there are no references to Saint Michael the Archangel or to Saint John
the Baptist or to Saints Peter and Paul. There are reasons for this,
and they relate to de-emphasizing the end of Reparation in the Mass.
The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass
of Tradition has the priest and the server (praying for the people)
confession sorrow for sins to almighty God and to the Blessed Mother,
Saint Michael, Saint John the Baptist and to Saints Peter and Paul. Why?
Well, the Blessed Mother was conceived immaculately without any stain
of sin on her soul. Sin is what caused her to undergo her Seven Dolors.
It grieves her now, which is why she has visited us sinful, ungrateful
men on so many occasions in the past 470 years. Saint Michael is the one who won the victory over Lucifer when he rebelled against God in Heaven. Saint John the Baptist was freed from Original Sin at the Visitation when he leapt for joy in
his mother's womb as he heard the voice of the Mother of the One Whose
precursor he was meant to be pierce his ears. He lived a live of austere
penance and mortification, calling sinners to a symbolic baptism of
repentance to prepare the way for his Lord and Savior. Saints Peter and Paul were sinners. Saint Peter denied Our Lord three times. Saint Paul persecuted the infant Church, presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen,
the first Christian martyr. However, their fidelity to the spread of
the Gospel brought them to Rome, the seat of the most powerful empire in
the history of the world. They were willing to shed their blood for Our
Lord, thereby planting the seeds for the growth of the Church which
itself would be headquartered from thereon out in Rome. They were
purified by their martyrdom, giving us an example of how we must be
willing to die to all things, especially to the influence of sin in our
lives, in order to be prepared to die a martyr's death in behalf of the
Faith. We need their intercession to help us avoid sin and to embrace a
spirit of mortification and penance in our daily lives. Thus, you see,
there is no place for such expressions in a synthetic liturgy created by
men who no longer believed that there was a need for penance and
mortification, no less the invocation of those who lived sinless
lives-or were purified of sin by means of their willingness to die for
the Faith.
Alas, the most telling expression of the end of
Reparation found in the Mass is in the words of the Consecration of the
Chalice: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni
testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in
remissionem peccatorum. "For this is the Chalice of My
Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, which for you and for many
shall be shed unto the remission of sins." ". . . . Which for you and
for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins." Although we cannot
offer of ourselves the propitiatory sacrifice offered once by Our Lord
to the Father on the wood of the Cross-and although we in the laity
cannot do so by uttering the words of Consecration, we can and must
nevertheless be inspired by the Mass and fortified by the graces
received therein to make a sacrifice of our lives in reparation for our
sins and those of the whole world. There is no other path to Heaven than
by doing so, which is why it is so essential for the Mass to
communicate its end of Reparation clearly and unequivocally.
Petition
The third end of the Mass to be discussed is that of
Petition. It is in the Mass, which is the perfect prayer, that the
priest prays for us to the Father through the Son in Spirit and in
Truth. Petitions are made for the forgiveness of sins, as well as to
help us to cooperate with the graces we receive in the Mass. Many of the
Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions
found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition make very direct petition to
God for our needs, especially as they relate to the salvation of our
immortal souls. Indeed, the Offertory Prayers recited at the Offering of
the Host and the Offering of the Chalice petition God in a most
beautiful way that we might have the right disposition to enter deep
into the sublime moment of the Consecration.
All of that being true, however, it is in the Roman
Canon (and in the Prefaces) that we find the most perfect expression of
this end of petition in the Mass.
The priests asks first of all the Father to bless
"these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we
offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that
it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her,
throughout the world; as also for [there is, of course, no true pope at
this time] our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who
profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."
You see, there is no need for the silly, inane, often ideologically laden "petitions" which are offered in the Novus Ordo during what is now called the General Intercessions. All of the
petitions and needs of the Church and the world are contained in the
very structure of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, especially as they
are expressed in the Roman Canon.
The first part of the Roman Canon asks God to bless
the gifts and sacrifices which are about to be offered up to Him, in the
first place for the Church, the holy Catholic Church, as well as for
the Sovereign Pontiff, the local Ordinary, and for those who "are
orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."
Words count. Words matter. We do not ask God's blessing on heretics,
apostates, schismatics, or dissenters. We ask for God's blessing on
those who are true believers in the Deposit of Faith. The Roman Canon is
not an exercise in religious indifferentism (can the same be said of
the recently composed "Eucharistic Prayers"of the Novus Ordo?). This is a very important petition.
"Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants (here the
priest and the faithful remember interiorly those in the Church Militant
they desire to pray for; there will be more concern This is a beautiful
summary of the true needs of others, starting first with the salvation
of their immortal souls. None of us is guaranteed to persevere until the
point of our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace. No one is so
guaranteed, including our closest friends and relatives. We must pray
ceaselessly for our-and their-spiritual well-being, both now and at the
hour of our deaths, which not even a terminally ill person knows. There
is thus no need for people to pray out loud in church during Mass about
this sick relative or that sick relative, thus descending into endless
displays of narcissism and sometimes even false piety. The Canon
expresses all of our needs so perfectly. Isn't it a petition of our
prayers to pray for all of the needs of the faithful?
"Having communion with and venerating the memory
first, of the glorious Mary, ever a vigin, mother of Jesus Christ, our
God and Our Lord: likewise of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs Peter and
Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew,
Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius,
Cyprian, Lawrence, Chysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of
all Thy saints; for the sake of whose merits and prayers do Thou grant
that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy Protection.
Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen."
Again, it is no accident that a priest or a presbyter in the Novus Ordo has the option of omitting almost all of the saints listed in what is
now called Eucharistic Prayer I (The Roman Canon). There is a need to
"rush" through the Canon after what is usually an excessively long
"Liturgy of the Word" (including the General Intercessions). If the
Roman Canon is used at all, long lists of saints should be omitted.
Their absolute inclusion in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, however,
indicates that we are to be grateful to them for their fidelity, and to
offer our petitions to them, who have gained the crown of eternal glory,
for our protection and help by the grace of God. We need the help of
the saints to become saints ourselves.
"Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to
receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole
family, offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; command that we
be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine
elect. Through Christ Our Lord Amen."
Asking God to receive the oblation which is being
offered up by the priest and the people (who unite their prayers with
his by their interior participation in the Mass), the priest asks God to
dispose our days in His peace, not the peace of this passing world, and
to command that we be saved from eternal damnation in order to be
numbered among the flock of His elect. We are not assured of our
salvation. We must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We
are reminded of this in no uncertain terms in this part of the Roman
Canon, the Hanc Igitur.
Following the Consecration of the Host and the
Chalice, thanks is given in the second part of the Canon as the priest
asks God to look upon the gifts just offered "with a gracious and
tranquil countenance." In the Supplices te rogamus the priest
asks that God's holy angel will take the offerings to His altar on high,
"that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of
Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every
heavenly blessing and grace." After this point, though, the Canon
petitions God directly for the needs of particular souls of the dead for
whom he and the faithful pause to pray as well as for all of the souls
of the faithful departed. Memento etiam Domine, famulorum
famuliarumque tuarum (name of deceased) qui nos praecesserunt cum signo
fidei, et dorminunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine, et omnibus in Christo
quiestcentibus, locum refrigerii lcuis et pacis, ut indulgeas,
deprecamur, per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Be mindful
also, O Lord, of Thy Servants (name of deceased), who have gone before
us with the sign of peace and who sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O
Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of
refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen."
No need for maudlin displays of sentimentality or pompous expressions of
concern for the decease. Everything is included in the Canon.
The Nobis quoque peccatoribus continues
with a petition that "To us sinners also, Thy servants, who put our
trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and
fellowship with Thy holy apostles and martyrs; with John, Stephen,
Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcelinus, Peter, Felicitas,
Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and will all Thy
saints. Into their company do Thou, we beseech Thee, admit us, not
weighing our merits, but freely pardoning our offense: through Christ
Our Lord."
Obviously, the Pater Noster itself is a
prayer of petition offered by the Divine Redeemer Himself. However, the
Immemorial Mass of Tradition does not contain the Protestant doxology
which has found its way into the Novus Ordo. The prayer as
uttered by Our Lord Himself is recited by the priest. Each of the
individual petitions found in the Pater Noster have been the subject of
extensive exegesis by sound theologians over the centuries (including
entire chapters dedicated to the subject in both the Catechism of the
Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Each
petition provides food for meditation, summarizing, if you will, the
entirety of a Catholic's interior life of prayer. Although the prayer is
recited by the priest, the faithful do not remain inert and inactive.
They pray the prayer to themselves, meditating on our constant need for
God's help, mindful, especially, of the fact that we who have been
forgiven much are called to offer that forgiveness right readily. People
who are about to partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man must understand that the
Lord they receive in Holy Communion means to conform them to Himself in
all aspects of their lives. This prayer of petition summarizes the
Catholic Faith and the Mass itself.
The prayers said by the priest after the Pater Noster and the Agnus Dei are his own personal petitions for the needs of the Church and to
prepare himself for the reception of Holy Communion. Once again, the
faithful are called to read those prayers silently, understanding how
succinctly the truths of the Mass are summarized just prior to the
priest's completion of the sacrifice by his partaking of the Sacred
Species. The Novus Ordo simplifies all of this, leading in most instances directly from the Agnus Dei to the priest's and to the faithful's reception of Holy Communion, thus
de-emphasizing our need to petition God just prior to our encounter
with our Eucharistic King.
While it is the ordained priest acting in persona Christi who perpetuates the Sacrifice of the Cross in and unbloody manner, the
faithful do offer their petitions in union with those offered by the
priest in the name of the entire Church. It is in this way that the
laity exercise the common priesthood they have by virtue of their
baptism. The common priesthood of the lay faithful is exercised in the
context of Holy Mass by means of fervent, interior prayer of the heart,
mind, and soul, which is offered up to the Father in Spirit and in Truth
as they are sanctified by the worthy reception of Holy Communion and by
the fruits which flow forth from the Mass. No member of the laity needs
to have a "role" in order to feel "involved" in the Mass. The laity do
not belong in the sanctuary as readers or extraordinary ministers of the
Eucharist (the proliferation of which has resulted in what the
revolutionaries desired: a blurring of the distinction of the priesthood
of the ordained priest and the common priesthood each Catholic has by
virtue of his baptism). They do not have to engage in elaborate
processions bearing various gifts to the altar, where they are greeted
invariably by a "presider" who tells them a little joke or two before
sending them back to their pews. They do not have to be "ministers of
hospitality" or "ministers of greeting." The mania for activity, a total
rejection of the true concept of active participation found in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei,
has resulted in the replacement of true interior participation with
mindless activity and verbosity, all of which detract from the nature of
the Mass, turning what purports, ableit falsely, to be the Sacred
Mysteries into an anthropocentric, communitarian exercise of mutual
self-congratulations.
The participation of the lay faithful in the end of
Petition found in the Mass requires them to be recollect before Mass, to
spend time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to pray some of the
wonderful prayers found in the various Latin-English hand missals, many
of which have been reprinted in recent years. True participation in the
Mass requires us to follow the Mass carefully, meditating upon the
beauty of the prayers, some of which have been cited in this commentary.
The Mass is ever ancient, ever new. Its fixed nature conveys the
inestimable treasures contained in all of its rites and prayers.
There is constant food for thought, no matter how
many times we have celebrated a particular feast day or have heard a
particular reading. And just as it is the case that honor and glory are
added to God and grace is added to the world each time a priest
celebrates Holy Mass, so is it also the case that our prayerful,
interior participation in Mass (and the prayers we offer therein, as
well as those we offer before and afterward) helps to build up the
Mystical Body of Christ. Each ligament in the Mystical Body helps to
support each other, as Saint Paul noted. None of us in the laity knows
the efficacy of our prayers here in this vale of tears. But we are
called to be faithful to our prayers, both the formulaic prayers found
in the Mass and in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and our own mental
prayer, the development of which is an important part of passing through
the stages of spiritual perfection. It is the Mass which provides us
the perfect framework to become more perfect lovers of the Blessed
Trinity who are ever eager to serve Him in all aspects of our daily
lives. Indeed, our very lives are meant to be offerings of praise and
petition to God. That is why we are to be prepared for Holy Mass. For it
is in the Mass that we are reminded day in and day out to conform
everything about our very being to the standard of the Sacrifice of the
Cross, which is re-presented before our very eyes in the greatest
miracle we can ever behold in this mortal life.
As I noted throughout my own analysis of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in G.I.R.M. Warfare,
the Mass is complete and valid even when offered by a priest without a
congregation, something which has been under attack by liturgical
revolutionaries for some time now. No member of the laity needs to be
present to make a Mass "valid." A priest celebrating Mass by himself
without a congregation is praying in the name of the whole Church. And,
as noted earlier, an entire company of witnesses is with him mystically
as he offers Holy Mass. While it is good for the faithful to attend Mass
during the week to receive the spiritual fortification they need to do
battle with the forces of the world, the flesh, and the Devil, the
petitions offered by the priest for the entire Church, including the
faithful, are all that are necessary for the good of Holy Mother Church.
The rubrics and the prayers of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey
this throughout.
The Eastern liturgies contain numerous, sometimes
even repetitive, prayers of petition to the Blessed Trinity. As is the
case with the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, the Eastern liturgies
emphasize man's dependence upon God in all of its prayers. However,
"modern" man, who believes in his own essential goodness, wants to
reduce expressions of petition found in the prayers of tradition and to
replace them with ever-changing prayers of topicality, which are to be
prayed aloud by people seeking narcissistically to be noticed in the
context of the production called "the weekly liturgy." It is the
Immemorial Mass of Tradition in the Latin Rite which orients man
properly in his petitions to God, respecting the hierarchy Our Lord
Himself established for the offering of those petitions.
Thanksgiving
The final end of the Mass is Thanksgiving. As each
of us knows, the word "Eucharist" mean Thanksgiving. It is in the Mass
where the priest and the laity (if any are assembled) give thanks to God
for all He has given them, starting with the great gift of our Catholic
Faith and all of the treasures contained therein. Quid retribuam
Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam et
nomen Domini invocabo. Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis
salvus ero. "What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things
that He hath rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and
call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the
Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies." The rubrics and the
prayers found in the Missale Romanum are found with expressions
of gratitude. "Is there no one else to return thanks but this
foreigner?" We, who are adopted sons and daughters of the living God by
virtue of Our Lord's Redemptive Act, are called to be ever thankful to
God, understanding that it is in the context of Holy Mass that we are to
give such thanks as we are given the privilege of transcending time at
the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary.
We are to give God thanks for everything. We thank
Him for his many blessings to us, especially having the privilege of
being fed by Holy Communion. We thank Him for the crosses and
humiliations He sends us to make us more dependent upon Him and detached
from our pride and selfish desires. We thank Him for the unmerited gift
of His Divine Mercy, extended to us so freely in the baptismal font and
in the confessional. We thank Him for not treating us as our sins
deserve. We thank Him for the Deposit of Faith entrusted to Holy Mother
Church. We even thank Him for living in these difficult times. We are to
thank Him for living in these difficult times as He has known from all
eternity that we would be living in them and that the graces won for us
on Calvary are more than sufficient for us to deal with the difficulties
we face. We thank Him for the gift of our families and friends. We
thank Him for keeping us close to Him. For, as Saint Paul notes in his
Epistle to the Romans, it is only God Who can prompt us to love Him more
fully an to keep close to Him at every moment of our lives. And we
thank Him for giving us our Blessed Mother to be our intercessor and
true Heavenly mother, as well as for giving us all of the angels and
saints who desire to assist us as we walk the rocky road that leads to
the narrow gate of Life Himself.
Part of the way we express our Thanksgiving to God in
the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is in the very beauty of the sacred
rites. The beauty of the rites and the care taken to appoint a
particular church demonstrate not only our desire to adore God but also
our desire to thank Him for enlightening our intellects and
strengthening our wills by means of the true Faith. God is due honor and
glory. He is also due ceaseless acts of Thanksgiving. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et justum est. "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is meet and just." Indeed,
every single one of the sixteen prefaces found in the Immemorial Mass of
Tradition begins with an expression of thanks: Vere dignum et
justum est, aequem et saltuare, nos tibi semper, et ubique gratias
agere: Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus. "It is truly
meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all
places to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father
almighty, the everlasting God." (The Preface for Sundays, Missale Romanum).
As is the case with each of the ends of the Mass,
the end of Thanksgiving is meant to flow out of the Mass. The beauty and
solemnity of even a low Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey a sense of
security and stability conducive to urging the faithful to stay after
the conclusion of the Prayers after Low Mas added by Pope Leo XIII.
As the Mass is a foretaste of Heaven, which is our true home, it is
right and fitting that we should desire to stay after Mass for more than
a token period of time to express our thanks for the sublime privilege
of having been kept alive for one more day to hear Holy Mass one more
time and to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. None of us knows whether
the Mass he has just attended will be his last. None of us knows when
he is going to die. Each of us needs to pause in order to give thanks to
the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth. And one of the
fruits of the end of Thanksgiving found in the Mass is our desire to
spend extended times in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament outside of
Mass. Although I have written about Eucharistic piety extensively in
these pages, suffice it to say that our love of the Mass should impel us
to offer our own adoration and thanks to God before the Prisoner of the
Tabernacle. Eucharistic piety is the key to developing a more intimate
love of God and a greater appreciation of the mysteries contained within
Holy Mass.
As Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:
"The fact that the sacred
function, liturgically considered, has come to an end does not dispense
him who has communicated from making his thanksgiving. On the contrary
it is most seemly that after he has received Holy Communion and after
the Mass is over he should collect his thoughts and, in close union with
his Divine Master, pass such time as circumstances allow in devout and
salutary converse with Him. It is therefore an error, due to paying more
heed to the sound of words than to their meaning, to say that such
thanksgiving out not to be prolonged after the ending of Mass, on the
ground that the Mass itself is a thanksgiving, and also that it comes
under the category of private devotions and is not directed to the
benefit of the community.
"On the contrary, the very nature of the Sacrament
require that Christians should become holier by receiving it. The
congregation has been dismissed, it is true, but the individual members
of it, united with Christ, ought to continue to sing in their souls a
hymn of praise, 'giving thanks always for all to God and the Father in
the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.' The liturgy of the Mass itself
recommends this, when it bids us recite the following prayer: 'Grant, we
beseech Thee, that we may remain for ever in thanksgiving . . . and
never cease from praising Thee.' And so, if at all times we must thank
God and never cease from praising Him, who shall dare to find fault with
the Church for urging her priests and the faithful to remain for some
time after Communion in converse with the Divine Redeemer, and for
having inserted in the liturgical books special indulgenced prayers for
priests to recite in preparation for Mass and Communion and in
thanksgiving afterwards?
"Far from discouraging the interior sentiments of
individual Christians, the liturgy fosters and stimulates them in order
to increase their likeness to Christ and through Him to guide them to
the heavenly Father. And this is why it requires those who have
communicated at the altar to render due thanks to God. The Divine
Redeemer loves to listen to our entreaties, to speak with us familiarly,
and to give us a refuge in His Heart which burns with love for us.
"Indeed, these acts of
private devotion are quite necessary, if we are to receive in abundance
the supernatural treasures in which the Eucharist is so rich, and to
pour them out upon others according to our powers, in order that Christ
Our Lord may reach the fullness of His power in the souls of all."
As the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is
Christocentric of its nature, its very sense of reverence and beauty and
splendor and mystery impel the faithful to say a while longer after
Mass in a prayerful thanksgiving. Can the same be said of the Novus Ordo service, wherein the cacophonous noise and activity and "simplicity,"
which appeal so much to those who have a limited span of attention and
whose faith has been attenuated by the banality found in the context of a
bogus liturgical service? Are the faithful prone to make a good
thanksgiving after their service in the Novus Ordo world? And
is their tendency to bolt right out of the pew not related to the
inherent invalidity and other flaws and inadequacies contained within
the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Concluding Remarks
Those priests presbyters who contend while offering
or simulating celebrating the Mass of our fathers that a commitment to
the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is simply a matter of personal
preference are either fooling themselves or engaging in a dangerous,
positivistic game in order to secure their own pastoral privileges. No
right thinking priest who has to do all of the work involved in the
celebration of the Missale Romanum can contend that the Novus Ordo communicates the ends of the Mass as beautifully, splendidly,
permanently, reverently, solemnly, and universally as the Immemorial
Mass of Tradition. Indeed, no right thinking priest who has celebrated
the Immemorial Mass of Tradition cannot come to recognize over the
course of time the inherent harm contained within the Novus Ordo precisely
because of its being a synthetic product of revolutionaries bent on
changing the expression of faith (which has resulted by and large in a
destruction of the faith and a loss of belief in the Real Presence and
of the sacerdotal and propitiatory nature of the Mass itself).
A mere matter of preference? All one needs to do is
to look at the heritage of the preceding 1500 years prior to the
unprecedented changes wrought by the Novus Ordo to see the
fruit produced in souls by the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, it
was the Immemorial Mass of Tradition which served as the bulwark of the
Faith when it was under siege by the Protestant Revolutionaries and, in
due course, by the various ideological revolutionaries in Europe and
here in the United States. Even though the life of the Faith was indeed
being attacked violently in Europe and Latin America in the Nineteenth
Century and undermined more subtly in the United States in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, those many Catholics who remained in
the one sheepfold of Peter were true believers. It was the Mass which
kept them from having their faith entirely eclipsed by the forces set
loose in the world during the Renaissance and have been permutating ever
since. Once the Mass was replaced with a synthetic concoction, however,
the bulwark was gone. The Novus Ordo service thati represents
itself falsely as a Catholic Mass became a place to canonize the profane
and to glorify the spirit of the day. Gone was the need for personal
penance and mortification. In were endless efforts to sin against the
supernatural virtue of Hope by presumption. Gone was reverence. In came
showmanship and spectacles to tickle the ear and to delight the eye. A
mere matter of preference? Not at all.
