Rorate Caeli

The Roman Rite: Old and New - VI
The New Mass and the Church: the underlying theology of the New Rite is Protestant and motivated by Ecumenism

In the sixth part of of Don Pietro Leone's "The Roman Rite: Old and New", the author reaches his conclusion on the problematic aspects of the theology of the New Mass, as compared with the Traditional Rite, now dealing with the Ecclesiological deficiencies of the New Rite and quoting numerous testimonies on the  Protestant nature of the New Mass, ending this subtantial portion of his study with the ecumenical motivation behind the enactment of the Modern Rite.
________________________________


10. The Church

The Church featured large in the Old Rite: Her three-fold nature: Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant, was clearly manifest, whereas in the New Rite She is hardly recognizable.
The Church Militant, whose goal is Grace, permanent and eternal, has been substituted by the pilgrim Church on the march to a purely temporal goal; Her Faith (as when we pray pro omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus for all worshippers with the orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith) has been substituted by a search with sincere heart (omnium qui te quaerunt corde sincero)[1].
The Church Suffering is no longer mentioned in the three new eucharistic prayers; the Requiem Mass has been abolished; the phrase cum signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis (with the sign of Faith and sleep with the sleep of peace), has been transmuted into obierunt in pace Christi tui (have died in the peace of Christ) with no mention of Faith; and a group of persons has been added: omnium defunctorum quorum fidem tu solus cognovisti (of all the deceased whose Faith is known to You alone) where two of the four characteristics of Faith, namely its unity and visibility, are lacking.

The Church Triumphant has been minimalized:[2] angels and saints have been reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor, and have disappeared as witnesses and judges in the person of Saint Michael in the first part; the angelic hierarchies have been removed from the new preface to the second eucharistic prayer, and Dominus Deus Sabaoth (Lord God of the Heavenly Hosts) in the Sanctus has been translated as Lord God of Power and Might in the English, and Dio dell’Universo [3](God of the Universe) in the Italian version[4].
The popes and martyrs have been removed from the Communicantes; the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles, and all the saints from the Libera nos; the holy apostles Peter and Paul and the other apostles no longer appear at all in the entire Novus Ordo (with the exception of the Communicantes of the Roman Canon); nor are the holy martyrs invoked at the beginning of the Mass.
We notice too that the clause per Christum Dominum Nostrum has been removed, which is the eternal guarantee that God will listen to the prayers of the Church.
The Church was also clearly manifest in the Leonine prayers: those that conclude the Low Mass. These consist of three Aves, the Salve Regina, the prayer: “O Lord, Our Refuge and Our Strength…”, where, “by the intercession of the glorious and Immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God, of St. Joseph her spouse, thy Blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints”, God is asked “mercifully and benignly to hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners and for the liberty and
of Holy Mother Church”; the prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel; and three invocations to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As Michael Davies says (p. 519): “Five prayers less compatible with Protestantism could hardly be imagined. They have been suppressed by the Consilium.”
           
C. Public Testimonies

Lest any doubt remains that the theology of the New Rite is not Catholic but Protestant, we proceed to quote various public testimonies: the first group Catholic, the second group Protestant.
           
1. Catholic Testimonies

i) The first testimony, which is also the most authoritative, as being that of Cd. Ottaviani, erstwhile prefect for the Congregation of the Faith - together with Cardinal Bacci - is found in the letter with which he presents the Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae to Pope Paul VI, as well as in the Critical Study itself: “the Novus Ordo Missae… represents both as a whole and in its detail a striking departure [impressionante allontanamento] from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, as it was formulated in the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent, which by establishing definitively the “canons” of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against all heresy that could touch the integrity of the Magisterium” (Letter 1). It is such “as to satisfy in many aspects the most modernist of Protestants” (Critical Study I).

The other testimonies are taken from the classical critiques of the New Rite in the German, French, and English languages.

ii) Mgr. Gamber in the “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (2nd Edition, 1981 ch.1) speaks of “a frightening rapprochement to Protestant views which sails under the banner of a misconceived ecumenism[5]”; and in “The Liturgical Reform in Question” (French version, 1992, p. 42): “The new organization of the liturgy and above all the profound changes of the rite of Mass…were much more radical than the liturgical reform of Luther - at least in that which regards the external rite - and took less account of the sensibility of the people.”
iii) Prof. Louis Salleron writes in La Nouvelle Messe (Collection Itinéraires, p. 195): “Let it suffice to say that the new Mass is liturgically the “evangelical” Supper with its meal character, its vernacular language, its table, its celebration towards the people, its communion in the hand or under both species, and, in the words and the rites, the suppression of the representation of the sacrifice, of the Real Presence and the ministerial priesthood.[6]
iv) Michael Davies, in his book from which the majority of the material of this first part of the essay is taken, a book which together with the two other volumes of the trilogy “Liturgical Revolution” must rank as the most scholarly and detailed of all the critiques of the New Mass to date, writes: “there cannot be the least doubt that sacrificial language in the Novus Ordo Missae has been deliberately minimized so that it is compatible with the Protestant theory of sacrifice” (p. 520 of the last chapter of this book in which he compares the Old Rite with the New Rite in the light of Cranmer’s “communion service”).

2. Protestant Testimonies

i) Max Thurian, speaking of the New Rite in La Croix (May 30th1969 quoted in La Nouvelle Messe p.193), writes: “One of its fruits will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the holy supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically it is possible[7]
ii) Dr. Ramsay, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, remarked in a visit to America in 1972: “I have experienced Roman rites which are really very Anglican. If you wish to find rites that are really Roman, visit some of our old-fahioned Anglo-Catholic shrines.” (MD p.274)
iii) The Protestant Hoeheres Konsistorium der Kirche der Augsburgischen Konfession von Elsasz-Lothringen published in the Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace (14th December 1973) stated: “To-day it should be possible for a Protestant to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the Supper instituted by the Lord… the new Eucharistic prayers make it easier for us to rediscover an evangelical theology.[8]
iv) After an ecumenical meeting in the Catholic Academy in Stuttgart-Hohenheim, a participant wrote (to the Rheinischer Merkur no.11 of March 26th1976) that a Protestant parson had celebrated the new Catholic Mass. A Catholic priest, asked how he found it, replied: “It was too Catholic for my liking[9]”. In a subsequent letter (RM no.14), another paticipant replied to the letter explaining that in fact the “Catholic Mass” had been a Protestant service, close to Luther’s “German Mass”, which, he added, would be considered too Catholic by many Catholic priests to-day.
 
D. An Ecumenical Motivation

The distinguished writer Jean Guitton, when interviewed on the radio[10] about the biography of Pope Paul VI by Yves Chiron, stated that the Pope had done all in his power to bring the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Protestant meal theory, and after twice repeating the allegation, concluded as follows: ‘Paul VI had an ecumenical intention of exstinguishing, or at least correcting or diluting, all that was too ‘Catholic’ in the traditional sense of the term in the Mass, and, I repeat, of bringing the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Mass of Calvin.’ 
We may distinguish between an indirect and a direct ecumenical influence on the creation of the new rite.
The indirect influence derives from the liturgical movement in its modernistic stage[11] heralded in by the publication in 1914 of the book La Prière de l’Eglise: principes et faits by the Belgian bendictine Dom Lambert Beauduin. This movement, which notably spread to the abbeys of Klosterneuburg and Maria Laach, fostered the following protestantizing elements: the Mass versus populum and in the vernacular; the communitarianism, participation, and priesthood of the faithful; the shift from altar to mensa; and the disfavour for private devotion and Eucharistic piety.
We have seen how such elements were present in the minds of the Innovators, finding their way into the articles of Sacrosanctum Concilium and into the Institutio Generalis. Professor de Mattei (cf. the last footnote) relates how they were also manifested on the floor of the Council. Of particular relevance was the speech of Msgr. Duschak who sustained the necessity of a Mass celebrated towards the people, aloud, in a vulgar and comprehensible tongue, in the manner of a feast, ecumenical, creating ‘the unity so much desired at least in the eucharistic memorial of the Lord. The People of God would then enjoy the perfect and intimate participation that the Apostles enjoyed in the Last Supper.’[12] 
The direct ecumenical influence on the New Rite is clearly manifest in the contribution made by the ‘Protestant Observers’ present at its creation. This contribution was officially denied, for example, by Mgr. Bugnini, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, and of the Consilium, who stated in the July-August 1974 issue of “Notitiae” (the Congregation’s official journal): “What role did the ‘observers’ play in the Consilium? Nothing more than that of - ‘observers’.” It was similarly denied by the Director of the Vatican Press Office on 25th February 1976 with the words “the Protestant Observers did not participate in the elaboration of the texts of the new Missal” (MD p. 586).
By contrast, Mgr. (later Cd.) Baum had observed in the course of an interview with “The Detroit News” 27th June 1967: “They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal” (MD p. 586). In order to establish the truth on this issue, Michael Davies contacted a certain Canon Ronald Jasper, one of the six Protestants present. The latter explained that the observers were present at the official debates in the morning, where they were not allowed to speak. In the afternoon, however, they had an informal meeting with the periti where they were certainly allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions…. These informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a very frank exchange of views” (MD p. 587). The result was “exactly the type of liturgy and the type of renewal that could have been expected, in view of what they represented.” (Jean Madiran quoted in MD p. 259)
Michael Davies (p. 263-6) gives evidence of a “concerted scheme for different denominations to reform their respective liturgies in the direction of an eventual united Christian rite.” He cites the example of the Anglican “Series III Communion Service”, which comprises elements also added to the New Roman Rite, such as “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” after the consecration, with the apparent purpose of rapprochement with evangelical Protestants. The Ecumenical thrust is all the clearer in virtue of the leading role of Canon Jasper in the compilation of Series III. 
And yet, we must agree with Mgr. Gamber (see above) that this type of ecumenism is “misconceived” because it comprises no union in re but only in appearance: the Catholics, the High Anglicans, and the Evangelicals may celebrate the same rite, but they would produce a different effect. The Catholic priest makes Christ and the Sacrifice of Calvary really Present; the Anglicans and Evangelicals do not. As Mgr. Lefèbvre predicted, this ecumenism “will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith, but will cause countless Catholics to lose it, and will instil total confusion in the minds of many more who will no longer know what is true and what is false” (MD p. 273)[13].
We have argued that the theology of the Old Rite is Catholic and that the theology of the New Rite is Protestant. It follows that only a Protestant (or someone with a Protestant spirit) could coherently wish to substitute the Old Rite with the New - or some-one, of course, who wished to damage the Church, either by debasing the rite or by destroying the Mass itself.
If his intention were to destroy the Mass, he would not, however, have succeeded, because, as Michael Davies explains, the Church has the authority to validate a rite of Mass, and has done so in the case of the Novus Ordo[14].
Michael Davies entertains the idea that the intention to damage the Church was behind the creation of the new rite[15]. He explains how information was placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI to the effect that Mgr. Bugnini was a Freemason, that the latter was “then dismissed and his entire congregation dissolved”, whereupon he was sent as nuntius to Iran.[16]

[NOTES:]

[1] In this connection we note the suppression of the Church Militant from the Feast of Christ the King (qui sub Christi Regis vexillis militare gloriamur who glory to fight beneath the standards of Christ the King) and that of St. Ignatius Loyola (militantem Ecclesiam roborasti: you have strengthened the Church militant) see Fr. Cekada (op. cit.). 

[2] The Blessed Mother of God is no longer descibed as ‘Ever Virgin’ e.g. in the German and Italian versions, which would of course ‘offend’ Protestants.

[3] the same title with which God is addressed in the oblation of the bread and of the wine in the Italian of the Novus Ordo.This is no longer the Transcendent, personal God: the Most Blessed Trinity, the Divine Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of us, but some vague abstract concept compatible with any form of theism or pantheism including the wild and heretical vagaries of a Teilhard de Chardin.

[4] where we also note an anti-militaristic tendency (cf. Iota Unum 281 p.620). 

[5] “…eine erschreckende Annaeherung an Vorstellungen des Protestantismus, die im Zeichen eines falsch verstandenen Oekumenismus segelt.”

[6]Qu’il nous suffise de dire que la Nouvelle Messe, c’est liturgiquemnt la Cène “évangélique” - avec son caractère de repas, sa langue populaire, sa table, sa célébration face au peuple, sa communion dans la main ou sous les deux espèces et, dans les paroles et les rites, l’estompage de la représentation du sacrifice, de la Présence réelle, et du sacerdoce ministériel”.

[7]Un des fruits en sera peut-etre que des communautés non-catholiques pourront célébrer la sainte Cène avec les memes prières que l’Eglise catholique. Théologiquement c’est possible.”

[8]es mueszte heute fuer einen Protestanten moeglich sein, in der katholischen eucharistischen Feier das vom Herrn eingesetzte Abendmahl zu erkennen… die neuen eucharistischen Gebete erleichtern es uns, eine evangelische Theologie zu wiederfinden.”

[9]Das war mir zu katholisch

[10]‘...l’intention de Paul VI au sujet de la liturgie, au sujet de ce qu’on appelle vulgairement la messe, c’est de réformer la liturgie catholique de manière à ce qu’elle coincide presque avec la liturgie protestante... Je repète que Paul VI a fait tout ce qu’était en son pouvoir pour rapprocher la messe catholique - au–delà du concile de Trente - de la Cène protestante – aidé par Mgr. Bugnini...Autrement dit, il y a chez Paul VI une intention oecuménique d’effacer, ou du moins de corriger, ou du moins d’assouplir ce qu’il y a de trop ‘catholique’ au sens traditionnel, dans la messe, et de rapprocher la messe catholique, je le repète, de la messe calviniste.’ Lumière 101/ Radio Courtoisie Sunday 19th Dec. 1993.
[11] see Il Concilio Vaticano II - una storia mai scritta, Roberto de Mattei, Lindau 2010 (I.4  and III.8)

[12] In a press conference later that day he expressed his idea of introducing “a Mass that one could really call ecumenical, stripped as far as possible of its historical superstructures – una Messa che veramente si potrebbe chiamare ecumenica, spogliata in tutta la misura del possibile dalle sovrastrutture storiche…”
[13]In this context we may compare the following four forms of cult: the Protestant community meal presented as a community meal (as by the Non-conformists, MD p.414); the Protestant community meal presented as the Sacrifice of Calvary (as by certain High Anglicans); the Sacrifice of Calvary presented as a community meal (as in the new Roman rite); and the Sacrifice of Calvary presented as the Sacrifice of Calvary (as in the old Roman rite). As far as each form of cult aspires to be faithful to Christ’s words: “Do this in memory of me”, we may summarize these forms of cult respectively as follows: False presented as False; False presented as True; True presented as False; True presented as True.

[14] Here we note that the Critical Study raises the question as to whether the words of consecration would be valid if an individual celebrant understood them only as a form of narrative in accordance with the spirit of the Novus Ordo (see above).

[15] This seems likely in view of the thoroughness and meticulous nature of the destruction of the liturgy, and of the fact that the heresiarchs have always begun by attacking the liturgy (cf. the quotation of Dom Guéranger in the second part of the Epilogue).

[16] In this connection, we refer to “The Masonic Plan to Destroy the Holy Mass in Thirty-three Points, promulgated by the Masonic Grand Master and in effect from 1962” (Editions Delacroix BP 18 35430 Chateauneuf) which includes directives to sow doubts on the Real Presence and encourage ecumenism (3); to suppress the Latin liturgy (4), sacred organ music (7), altars in favour of tables (10); to remove tabernacles from altars and eliminate genuflections (11); to suppress the cult of the saints (12) and the statues and images of the angels (15); to introduce lay-ministers of the Eucharist (including women), Communion in the hand, the sign of peace (29), etc. Even if the booklet is no proof of any such plan on the part of the Masons, it shows how these abuses correspond to their way of thinking. In this connection we also quote the prophetic words of the apostate Canon Roca (1830-1893) in ‘L’Abbé Gabriel’ about an ecumenical Council which will give the Roman liturgy a ‘venerable simplicity of the golden age’ while adapting it to the ‘new state of conscience and modern civilization’: “Je crois que le culte divin tel que le règlent la liturgie, le cérémonial, le rituel et les préceptes de l’Eglise romaine subira prochainement dans un Concile oecuménique une transformation qui, tout en lui rendant la vénérable simplicité de l’age d’or apostolique, le mettra en harmonie avec l’état nouveau de la conscience et de la civilisation moderne : I believe that the divine cult, such as it is regulated by the liturgy, the ceremonial, the ritual, and the precepts of the Roman Church, will soon undergo a transformation in an ecumenical council, which, while giving it the venerable simplicity of the apostolic golden age, will bring it into harmony with the new state of modern consciousness and civilization.” (quoted in Mystère d’Iniquité, Pierre Virion, Téqui). In this connection we quote a further prophecy, this time from the Catholic standpoint, concerning such a liturgical eventuality. Cd Louis Billot S.J. (in the passage quoted immediately before the conclusion of the present essay) speaks of the divinized Humanity usurping the true God in the place where the tabernacles of the Lord Jesus have been overthrown with the words. ‘Quelque mystère luciférien des antres ténébreux des couvents maconniques: some luciferian mystery hatched in the dark caves of the masonic convents.’

43 comments:

RogerThat said...

Please, someone tell that to the Pope!

LeonG said...

Informed commentators have been saying this since it came out in 1969. Nothing new about it - the NO is definitely protestant, anthropocentric and defies all that Pope St Pius V and The Tridentine Councils have taught us about The Holy Mass. It is a subversive liturgical instrument meant to destroy "bastions" in The Church. The Pope will never listen to this message because he is intent on hybridisation as he is eclectic liturgically speaking. He wants a modern liturgy with a few traditional elements. Is it not time most of you woke up and recognised this fact. He is not in favour of restoring The Latin Mass as such. To imagine this is to misrepresent his objectives and to misunderstand his perspectives on liturgical praxis.

Jonvilas said...

I'm joining in. I mean, really, please, send these testimonies to our Holy Father. Although, I am sure, that he knows this problem pretty well.

Tom said...

If the Novus Ordo is tremendously deficent in as many areas as numerous "experts" have claimed, then why are Pope Benedict XVI, Latin Church Cardinals and bishops throughout the world unshaken in their determination to bring the Novus Ordo to the Faithful?

Tom

George said...

Rorate Caeli, what do you say in regard to countless Catholics who support the Novus Ordo Mass?

And please don't argue that only liberals favor the Novus Ordo Mass.

Archbishop Chaput, a staunch cconservative, according to conservatives, promoted recently by the Pope, said the following about the Novus Ordo Mass:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/glorify-god-by-your-life

Archbishop Chaput, June 30, 2010:

"In this regard, the Novus Ordo, the new order of the Mass promulgated after the council, has been a great blessing to the Church.

"Our liturgy gives us the zeal for the evangelization and sanctification of our world.

"The vernacular has opened up the liturgy’s content in new ways.

"It has encouraged active, creative participation by all the faithful — not only in the liturgy but in every aspect of the Church’s mission.

"By the way, for the record, I’m also very grateful that the Holy Father has allowed wider use of the older Tridentine form — not because I personally prefer it, in fact I find the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated, a much richer expression of worship; but because we need access to all of the Church’s heritage of prayer and faith."

George

anne said...

Did not Archbishop Lefebvre's comment in the article make any sense? He stated the defective Novus Ordo would not make major converts to the Church but cause many Catholics to lose their Faith....are we all that blind to the current state of the Church today that the new rite has been a major cause of unbelief? A too-high percentage of today's generation of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence and even view the Church as just another denomination amongst many.
To answer Tom's questions above: Is it not possible for bishops and clergy to lose the Faith as well?

Jery said...

I agree with Leon. I am glad to see these books and testimonies coming to light that would have not received such a wide audience even 10 years ago..and/or would have been condemned.
The more the world knows about the faulth NO the better. Period. Archbishop Lefrebre and others were right along.

New Catholic said...

Dear George,

We have a very high regard for Abp. Chaput, and we perfectly understand that familiarity with a liturgical practice is a very powerful sentiment that cannot be underestimated. In fact, as then Cardinal Ratzinger frequently emphasized, one of the key problems with the Novus Ordo (we would almost say, one of its original sins), even if there were no other problems with it, was the way it eroded centuries and centuries of liturgical familiarity of Catholics with their act of public worship: this rupture, which happened precisely in a moment of immense societal upheaval, may have had an impact in the abandonment of the Sacraments by Catholics the precise dimension of which we will just never know (like the unknown soldier's name, this dreadful information is known only to God).

This will be developed in a future post.

NC

Matthew M said...

I can't find this book anywhere. What up with that?

New Catholic said...

You can find it only here, in Rorate Caeli, for free, thanks to the generosity of Don Pietro Leone! As soon as we end the serialization of the book, and correct minor errors, we will make the entire book available.

A Loyal Reader said...

George, The "countless" Catholics who support the NO have probably never had the opportunity to hear a TLM. It is plain that Paul VI & company effectively replaced the Catholic Mass of all time with a "banal, on-the-spot production, a fabricated liturgy" (Crdl. Ratzinger) and made the hearing of the TLM next to impossible for the average person. Only recently have they admitted that the TLM was never abrogated. (Because they could not abrogate an approved and received rite of the Church). If they could have, they would have! Now it for those of us who love the TLM to return to our home parishes and demand that the pastor comply with Summorum Pontificum. Then we'll see which rite the "countless" Catholics prefer. I believe we know which one God prefers.

I am not Spartacus said...

Now it for those of us who love the TLM to return to our home parishes and demand that the pastor comply with Summorum Pontificum.

Ahhh, such trust :)

When I used to encourage my N.O. Pastor to petition for the permission of The Indult, he would tell me, "There is only one Indult for this Deanery and it has already been dispensed. But, if at some future time more Indults are granted, I'd love to offer the Old Latin Mass."

Once Summorum Pontificium was promulgated, I made my same request and I was turned-down.

Frankly, many Pastors love the revolutionary mass because its endless options allow the Pastor's personality to take center stage.

Knight of Malta said...

Ahhh, the writer is finally getting to the heart of the new mass: it is ecumenical in praxis, as even Cardinal Stickler the new mass is geared towards meal, rather than Sacrifice (as it had been 2,000 hitherto).

Vatican II was a revolution in the Church on-par with the French Revolution. Vatican II was a Modernist Revolution in the Church, still reverberating, and destroying...

Brian said...

Tom said...
If the Novus Ordo is tremendously deficent in as many areas as "experts" have claimed, then why are Pope Benedict XVI, Latin Church Cardinals and bishops throughout the world unshaken in their determination to bring the Novus Ordo to the Faithful?


Tom,
You have aptly captured the "state of emergency" in the Church.

William Phelan said...

As a lucid seventy-two year old who lived through every moment of the Church since my birth, I would like to add two comments. We discuss defections among the laity. We always forget that between 70,000 and 110,000 priests left the priesthood in the years following Vat. II. What Alter Christus would want to become a presider? To answer Tom-these Council fathers and their periti have invested their reputations in the decisions made at this Council. They will never admit they were wrong! All of this generation will have to pass before this period can be analyzed and discussed objectively. The analysis and discussion HAVE ALREADY BEGUN!

LeonG said...

"It has encouraged active, creative participation by all the faithful..." George Said

Herein lurks one of its major subversive features. "Active participation" means women all over the now "worship space"; anyone touching what were once "sacred vessels"; trite, ephemeral modern music and profane instruments; lay members inappropriately "having their say" during the NO service; noise, endless futile chatter, applause; incessant purposeless movement; illicit new norms with dancing, nakedness, political pandering and presbyterial entertainment. This was never, is never and will never be a Roman Catholic liturgical rite on that score alone.

"not only in the liturgy but in every aspect of the Church’s mission.'

Which rationale must explain why the church missions are almost at a standstill today because ecumenical and interreligious sensitivities have displaced the divine mandate to go out into the whole world and preach The Gospel in the Name of The Most Holy Trinity. Moreover, the concomitant chaos throughout the new catholic world commentated upon by Fr Paul Marx OSB (RIP) and other contemporaries reflect the disastrous chief indicators of the church in decline. Perhaps you have not noticed but almosy every part of the new catholic church is in decline - vocations to the presbyterrate and religious houses especially nuns, seminaries, number of churches, sunday attendance, collapsing membership and an abandonment of orthodox Roman Catholic norms, values and mores. Even the new church's surveys validate this view.

"I find the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated, a much richer expression of worship; but because we need access to all of the Church’s heritage of prayer and faith."
You are entitled to your subjective opinion but the objective evidence of increasing systemic liturgical abuse and decline in ecclesiastical infrastructure are against you. Therefore, how can the NO Rite be "richer" as you so impertinently claim? There is no valid basis for this perspective. In fact, "properly celebrated" the NO is still protestant, anthropocentric and wholly vernacularised making it anathema to The Faith by the objective measures of how the Latin Mass embodies The Roman Catholic Faith. Pope St Gregory The Great, Pope St Pius V and The Tridentine Councils, among many, are against the NO by definition because they have conciliar discernment enough to understand how ecclesiastical unity and harmony are maintained in The Latin Mass of All Times. It is this unity and harmony which has been utterly destroyed by Bugnini's Rite and with this intention.

When we look back and assess the last 50 troubled years of the church, in the cold light of day, the church has been rendered ineffective and sacramentally neutralised by the Novus Ordo. As time passes, this becomes increasingly manifest laying waste every argument in its favour. It embodies revolution and liturgical protestantism. It is born out of these liberal modernist preferences for action - to destroy "bastions" in the orthodox Catholic Church (this has been stated explicitly in the past) and to have everyone in the church behave as though they were priests, women included. In these two objectives they have succeeded.

Indeed, a rite of service and a form absolutely "fabricated" in every sense of the word, as Cardinal Ratzinger rightly described it. In which case it remains absolutely astounding that such as he continue to imagine liturgical hybridisation as a solution. Nearly every shred of evidence demonstrates the contrary.

Alexander said...

George, The "countless" Catholics who support the NO have probably never had the opportunity to hear a TLM.

Exactly. On top of this I would argue most Catholics do not even understand what the Mass is; a true propitiatory sacrifice, Calvary brought to the present.

Lack of understanding + not knowing what the TLM is or experiencing it to the point of familiar = "countless" Catholics "supporting" the NO.

Jose said...

How would you explain many cradle protestants who converted to Catholicism because of the new mass such as Scott Hahn?

Nathaniel said...

George,

You ask good questions. The answers, however, are painful.

First, the New Mass has created a very different Church and a very different priesthood. Ultimately, many Catholics have become material Protestants without even knowing it (much like the Cranmerian "reforms" accomplished in 16th century England).

As for your question about the staunch conservative Archbishop Chaput (and other "conservatives" like him), I ask the same question of all conservatives: just exactly what, after the revolution within the Church, are you conserving? The obvious answer: the revolution. Every pre-conciliar philosophical, theological, and liturgical principle has been sacrificed. This has been achieved because the conservatives imploded the notion of Catholic orthodoxy into the virtue of obedience; the great spiritual writers tell us that whenever any one aspect of the Faith is made paramount to the detriment of the fullness of Faith, heresy soon follows.

George, I truly say these things, not to annoy, but to articulate my personal conviction as to the nature of the Church's crisis.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

The message of this book is that one should avoid the Novus Ordo Missae like the plague!

JMR said...

When I inform people that I go to the Mass in Latin, the most horrified response I have received was from Catholics. Not just nominal Catholics but Catholics that go to Mass every Sunday!
One in particlar that surprised me was a lady in her mid-seventies who must have been in her late twenties when the changes were introduced.She was horrified as though I was about to attend some kind of Satanic ritual!
I assumed that I was spreading the good news when I started to inform Catholics that there was a Mass in Latin less than an hour's drive away but the most benign response I have received is one of perplexity. I have since given up bothering to inform people.
Non- catholics on the other hand are often quite interested and admire the fact that someone would drive 60 km ( 20 km on a dirt road) every Sunday to get to Mass.
I have been trying to account for this reaction which I have received both in Brazil, where I live, and amongst the Irish Catholic community in England, where I am from.
The N.O.Masses are very different in each country. Brazil has been heavily influenced by the touchy-feely charismatic movement which is probably more in sympathy with the national character .It's all about the music,singing , hand -waving and ego-centric perfoming priests that act like MCs. The Churches are, however, full.
The Masses I have been to in England have been very dry,no music and bureaucratic; similar I imagine to those Protestant meeting houses to be and the Curches are half -empty.
I grew up with the Latin Mass rebelled before the changes of 1969 and stopped going to Mass throughout the seventies. I went back to the Church when I had children in the early eighties.
At the time,I was totally ignorant of theology but I had an almost visceral antipathy towards the new Mass. I went from Church to Church looking for a reverent Mass and there was always a voice hammering in my head "This is not a real Mass!"
The Catholics that have been most negative in their comments have been the "good Catholics"; the ones that didn't rebel and kept going to Church through all the changes.I wonder if some kind of subtle brain -washing was going on during this period?
What I find strange though is that the only things really Catholic about them is that they religiously go to Sunday Mass baptise their children and send them to Catholic schools and have on the whole not divorced.
In everything else such as their views on homosexuality, socialism and contraception their views are indistingushable from those of pagans. Their adult children have on the whole ceased to be practising Catholics.
So I am very doubtful when people say that the only reason "Catholics" don't go to the Latin Mass is that because they don't know it. I think that subtley thay have imbibed an antipathy towards the Latin Mass from attending the N.O. Mass and if that is not the devil at work ,I don't know what is!

Matthew said...

When I was first beginning to prepare to enter the Church via RCIA at just-your-average NO parish, I innocently asked the priest, a liturgical scholar who used to be a professor at Mundelein, about the Latin Mass. He said the diocese had offered it at one place and it is there, but not many are interested in it and he generally gave me the impression that it's off in a dark corner and nobody really gives a *&%$.

This is in the Archdiocese of Chicago, where St. John Cantius has become quite the phenomenon with the Traditional Mass, the ICRSS has a parish, and as PKTP has informed us, the archdiocese is one of the most TLM-rich dioceses in the world.

I too have gotten curious interest from non-Catholics, and between consternation from the aforementioned priest and others at the parish to simple bewilderment. But we try to bring our friends to the TLM, and they seem interested too, and moved by the beauty.

And in response to JMR, I think some simply don't know (especially those of the younger generation) and many have been catechized in a religion rather alien to authentic Catholicism, so it makes sense that the would rather dislike the TLM.

Jack O'Malley said...

Many thanks to Rorate and especially to Fr Leone for this series.

I agree with William Phelan. The tragedy is that those of us who remember the Usus Antiquior will no longer be around when it is ultimately restored to its preeminent place in the Liturgy of the Church. Magnopere dolendum est.

JMR said...

Mathew,
The Catholics that I have contact with are about my age (60) and older and received a traditional Catholic education and were taught the traditional Catechism and went to the traditional Mass in their childhood and adolescence. This is what intrigues me. Why am I the only one to have had this visceral antipathy towards the N.O.Mass?
These people are good Catholics in the sense that they never rebelled and stopped going to Mass as I did.I was far more sinfulin my adolescence and youth. Now they regard me as being seriously weird because I have come to value and love traditional Catholic teachings,history,culture and above all the Mass.

Alex said...

"Indeed, a rite of service and a form absolutely "fabricated" in every sense of the word, as Cardinal Ratzinger rightly described it.

"In which case it remains absolutely astounding that such as he continue to imagine liturgical hybridisation as a solution."

Why? The Pope described Summorum Pontificum as merely an act of tolerance.

He has said that the TLM won't replace the Novus Ordo.

He knows that the Novus Ordo is deficient in many respects.

Therefore, he will fuse the strengths from each Mass into a hybrid Mass.

We know that the Latin Church cannot continue its two-faced approach to the Roman Liturgy in regard to the Novus Ordo and TLM.

A parish cannot be unified if it were to become Novus Ordo-TLM.

Altar girl Masses...altar girls forbidden.

Communion in the hand allowed at 9:00 A.M. Mass...disallowed at 11:00 A.M. Mass.

All-vernacular Mass...Mass in Latin.

Drums, guitars Marty Haugen...Gregorian Chant.

Mass versus popolum...Mass ad orientem.

Father Ad-lib, jokes, chatter, hand-clapping at 9:00 A.M. Mass...Father Reverent at 11:00 A.M. Mass.

Something must give in regard to the two-faced Novus Ordo/TLM situation.

Solution: One Mass. Hybrid Mass.

Matthew said...

Mr. O'Malley:

I second your thanks to Rorate and Fr. Leone. With regards to your sadness about the restoration of the true Roman Rite, please at least accept the gratitude I and others of a younger generation have toward you and others who persevered in the Faith during dire times, and work to preserve the fullness of the Faith and the Church's liturgy. While you may not see the restoration during your time in the Church Militant, I shall pray that you be rewarded for your labors and see it from the vantage point of the Church Triumphant.

LeonG said...

The NO is deficient in every respect - it has nothing of any merit to offer the complete Latin Mass of All Time. Mix fabrication with the total organic embodiment of The Roman Catholic Faith? The proposal of hybridisation is destined to fail as much as its vernacular predecessor. Only a revisionist liberal modernist could advance such a liturgical venture. Thge protestant, anthropocentric and vernacular liturgy cannot be allowed to corrupt what has become the perfect expression of Roman Catholic beliefs. No matter how much cream one mixes with mud the result is always mud.

The liturgical hybrid is a paradigm absolutely repugnant to those who love the Traditional Roman Rite liturgy in its proper authentic language using the Rite as laid down by doctrinally infallible guarantee. It would be a crime to exploit this in order to prolong a dying ever-changing novelty.

Maynardus said...

pace Jose (re: "cradle protestants who converted to Catholicism because of the new mass such as Scott Hahn"):

I am not one of Mr. Hahn's admirers, but I did read his conversion story and found it most edifying. But it is simply unfounded to say that he - or any of the other "superstar" converts, e.g. the "Suprised by Truth" folks - were converted to Catholicism "because of the new mass[sic]".

My recollection is that most of these folks "read" themselves into the Church, a la Newman; and were in many cases put-off by the banality and theological impovershment of the Novus Ordo.

As one of my many convert friends often says, "THAT was not what I intened to convert to!". I hardly need mention which Mass he attends.

If anyone can name a single well-known convert, of unquestionable orthdoxy, who has ever publicly asserted that they converted to Catholicism specifically because of the Novus Ordo; I will eat my 1962 Missal!

Hank said...

"The NO is deficient in every respect - it has nothing of any merit to offer the complete Latin Mass of All Time."

The Pope disagrees with you. Therefore, guess whose liturgical vision will rule the day?

Jack O'Malley said...

JMR,

"Visceral" is exactly the right word. It is my feeling as well. There is a level on which one instinctively knows that the novus ordure is a phony mass. Even if it is occasionally celebrated "validly", it is the aesthetic equivalent of a lodge meeting. To paraphrase Horace, odi vulgare fanum et arceo.

But these naïve novus ordo-ites think that this "fabricated" service that was foisted upon the Church is their birthright. It is incomprehensible to me except that most of the handwaving hand-shaking hand-holding pew puppies are piskies at heart. And indeed they want their liturgical ladies lolling about the sanctuary and their altar girls and their lay readers and their puppets and balloons and banjos. And the smoke of Satan swirls from the thuribles. Oh wait, do they have thuribles or do they just burn the sulphur over a can of sterno? I'm not sure which the rubric calls for.

Matthew,

Thank you very much for the kind words. If I make it past the ticket taker at the Pearly Gates, I'll put in a good word for you. More likely I'll be doing a tour or two among the Church Suffering which will be OK as long as they have a TLM there. If they have novus ordo, I'll just throw in the towel altogether.

A Loyal Reader said...

Jose, 10 years ago, my protestant mother-in-law, when asked how she liked the NO 1st Communion Mass of my son, replied that it was "the same as ours" -that is the Second Reformed Church of ----. I was astounded and wondered how they could be "the same". Then I discovered the TLM and began to realize the extent of the sea-change in the Church. I guess the converts don't feel that there is all that much difference between what they left and what they "joined". They aren't made to abjure their error or even to be conditionally Baptized. My m-in law is still protestant. Why would she convert?

Thomas Putnam said...

Mr. O'Malley: I believe you meant to write "Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

While steering clear of the common herd, a fortiori the NOM, has much to say for it--and not merely on the social level--surely, writing off those who have been immersed in conciliar neocatholicism through little or no fault of their own is hardly a heroic stance (or even a Catholic one) for a Trad, of whatever complexion, to adopt.

As with everything else about Catholic life post-Vatican II, discerning the appropriate balance in this matter is as taxing and potentially dangerous as driving at night in a blizzard with fitfully functioning windshield wipers and tires long since ready for replacement.

Saving one's own soul while helping others save theirs was never a breeze, even in the best of times. With today being rather closer to the worst of times, the task is immeasurably tougher. Thus, keeping one's distance from the conciliar crowd may have become prudentially necessary, but if it doesn't provoke the odd mauvais quart d'heure, one might consider asking himself why.

Anonymous said...

The most memorable recollection of my youth is when I attended a Dominican parish, where all the friars had to say their daily mass, and there were no evening or night masses, so when I arrived two friars were celebrating low mass at two side chapels in the front of the church, at the sides of the main altar (the ones corresponding to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady). When mass was under way at the chapel where I was, the friar at the other side altar was elevating the Sacred Host. I was perplexed at which mass to follow. It seemed such a splendid Eucharistic exhuberance¡¡¡
C.M-

Thomas Putnam said...

Mr. O'Malley: Upon reflection, I see that your paraphrase of Horace was precisely what you meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Barbara said...

I second Matthew's thank you to all those who, by the Grace of God "knew about this in 1969" and who "held the fort" so to speak.I have also shown my gratitude to them here at Rorate on several occasions in the past.

People like myself underwent a kind of conditioning and brainwashing in the post-Vatican II Church. But, for the life of me, I knew in my heart that the Mass of the Council was lacking that "indefinable something" that became clearer to me after 2007. What nameless suffering many Post VII Catholics can udetgo too, not only those who experienced the reform head on!

I wish the people who lived directly throught the "revolution of the Mass" would refrain from saying things like: "Informed commentators have been saying this since it came out in 1969." and others who complain that essays like Don Leone's are repetitive. For the massive majority in the Church this is Big News and should be repeated as often as necessary until many more of the faithful "get it" that there is an abyss between the Mass of the Council and the Traditional Mass. The difference is heartbreaking - our whole Catholic Identity hangs upon it.

Much repetition is necessary to save souls,for that matter, there is also considerable repetition in the comment box, different ways of saying the same thing can be edifying...or boring depending if affirmations are based on truth or falsity and the manner in which they are delivered...

Barbara

Barbara said...

I second Matthew's thank you to all those who, by the Grace of God "knew about this in 1969" and who "held the fort" so to speak.I have also shown my gratitude to them here at Rorate on several occasions in the past.

People like myself underwent a kind of conditioning and brainwashing in the post-Vatican II Church. But, for the life of me, I knew in my heart that the Mass of the Council was lacking that "indefinable something" that became clearer to me after 2007. What nameless suffering many Post VII Catholics can udetgo too, not only those who experienced the reform head on!

I wish the people who lived directly throught the "revolution of the Mass" would refrain from saying things like: "Informed commentators have been saying this since it came out in 1969." and others who complain that essays like Don Leone's are repetitive. For the massive majority in the Church this is Big News and should be repeated as often as necessary until many more of the faithful "get it" that there is an abyss between the Mass of the Council and the Traditional Mass. The difference is heartbreaking - our whole Catholic Identity hangs upon it.

Much repetition is necessary to save souls,for that matter, there is also considerable repetition in the comment box, different ways of saying the same thing can be edifying...or boring depending if affirmations are based on truth or falsity and the manner in which they are delivered...

Barbara

LeonG said...

Barbara

Like it or not, I shall continue to say it. Lest we forget - 50 years ago, the vast majority of Catholics were ready to consign Sacred Traditon to the philistine liberal modernist waste basket of history. This included The Latin Mass of All Times. However, some bold well-counselled souls put their Faith in the infallibility of Conciliar and Papal guarantees governing The Roman Rite. When "Quo Primum" grants the right "in perpetuum", this is what it means. Almighty God through His Son Jesus Christ has vested such a liturgical Rite with His complete divine authority throughout almost all of New Testament time.
Yes, it needs to be repeated as often as possible by as many ardent souls as left in The Church. I certainly did not complain about the latest statements. On the contrary, we have to keep saying it loud and clear.

Nevertheless, we must remember from whence we came and whither we are headed. The Latin Mass we love and cherish as life itself and yet more, cannot and must not become a hyridised compromise. It has to be restored imperatively because it is that which Sacred Tradition and right magesterial autority guarantees us: The Latin Mass of All Times, entire and whole and unsullied by the very people who have led the modern church astray. This is what the Fr De Pauws and the Archbishop Lefebvre's of their day determined had to be achieved. Are we ready to do likewise? I hope so, for the ultimate great benefit of Christendom & those who await conversion to The Roman Catholic Church.

Nothing else will suffice, liturgically for the Latin Rite Church.

JMR said...

With regard to converts;I remember reading a conversion account of an American Philosophy Lecturer (unfortunately, I can't remember his name ) who had been an atheist but had been persuaded of the existence of God and the truth of the Catholic Church as a result of philosophical arguments with one of his students.
He converted and started going to the NO mass but after a while his attendance at Mass became irregular. Then one Sunday by chance (or Divine Providence), he wandered into a Church where the traditional Mass was being celebrated. He recounts that as soon as he heard the words "Et introibo ad altare Dei" He knew that he had arrived "home". I can't remember how he phrased it. But I remember feeling gratified that someone who had no previous experience of the Latin Mass had immediately recognised it's essential and intrinsic'holiness"

Barbara said...

Leon G,
Thank you for this. Actually I have come to deeply appreciate most of your posts and have learned a lot from them as well as others well-versed in the Traditional matters so dear to all of us. I probably misinterpreted your comment on this thread. Excuse me for that. It's just that sometimes I detect in certain comments that "we know all this already" attitude, which annoys me a bit... I, like you, am not budging from Catholic Tradition -an immense grace from Our Lord.

"The Latin Mass we love and cherish as life itself and yet more, cannot and must not become a hyridised compromise."

I agree completely with this.

Barbara

Barbara said...

That's great story JMR! I had a similar experience at my first TLM - tears of joy!

Barbara

Gratias said...

Dear JMR:

It is a blessing to drive 60 km to Holy Mass. God counts every minute you invest. We drive a bit more here in Southern California but roads are all paved, but it is also well worth it.

Indeed, most of our co-religionists have never seen a Latin Mass. This is why it is so important to have TLM in Dioscesan parishes, not just isolated FSSP personal parishes. Many of our present parishioners just walked in one day thinking it would be an ordinary mass. Veni, vide, stayed.

It is particularly important, JMR, that you are living your Catholic Faith in Brazil. As you know, half the Catholics live in Latin America, yet the Latin Mass is ferociously repressed by the bishops. The Jesuit Cardinal of the huge Diocese of Buenos Aires does not allow a single every-Sunday Latin Mass. Similarly, there is not a single Missa Extraordinaria in the entire Republic of Uruguay. Liberation Theology, a modernist invention of Latin Americans is an unforgiving enemy within our Catholic Church. So every time you drive those 60 km you are making a real difference. Muitas Gratias.

JMR said...

Dear Gratias,
Thank you for your kind words. Believe me,I know how lucky I am.I had spent 20 years wandering in the N.O. wilderness when God took pity on me. Perhaps if I had not gone through this spiritual drought, I would not have been so appreciative of the Latin Mass. I know that if anyone had told me when I was an adolescent that one day I would drive 60km to get to a Latin Mass, I would have thought they were crazy.
I have recently finished Shusaku Endo's book "Silence" and now at the back of my mind I have an image of all those Japanese souls who managed to keep their faith for 225 years without access to the Mass , Sacraments or Priests.I imagine their envy as I negotiate the mud and the potholes!
And many people that attend my Church do the journey by bus and have to walk along the dirt road.I have it easy in comparison!
It is not inconceivable that the Catholic Church in Europe and Brazil will go through a similar period of persecution as in Japan.
David Cameron the "Conservative" English P.M.wants to legislate so that homosexuals will be allowed to 'marry" in Church. I pray and hope that I would be able to keep my faith under far more adverse circmstances.

happyhockeymom said...

Maynardus:

I completely agree with this as a convert:
"My recollection is that most of these folks "read" themselves into the Church, a la Newman; and were in many cases put-off by the banality and theological impovershment of the Novus Ordo.

As one of my many convert friends often says, "THAT was not what I intened to convert to!". I hardly need mention which Mass he attends."

I couldn't figure out what I was missing or dissatisfied with for years, but one day shook my fist and said, "God, if there isn't more than this, I'm outta here!"

My journey to tradition began not long after that with classes on good theology and the book "Fire Within" by Fr. Thomas Dubay (RIP). St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross were my first teachers.

The more I read, the more I couldn't figure out what was what and got frustrated. In the mean time, I ended up at several NO Masses that taught out right heresy. I decided that I was better off to go to that "horrible Latin Mass that the Church got rid of because people can't understand it" than to listen to heresy.

At first, after being used to all the sit, stand, sing, shake hands, etc, it took me time to get used to the TLM. Gradually, I discovered I could no longer stand the NO!

I was amazed at the beauty and richness of the prayers in the TLM and still to this day can't figure out why the Church abandoned it.

Unfortunately, my husband (raised Catholic) will not go to the TLM with me. I guess I should be grateful he still goes to Mass, or so I get told by many people.

The children are allowed to choose. I pray that someday we will all go together again.

I learn so much here. It will take much time, study and prayer to undo all the brain washing.

Many here are right - more Catholics are upset with the TLM than non-Catholics.

But Summorum Pontificum let the tiger out of the cage so to speak, so the results will come. They just can't happen fast enough for me!