A few days ago I read a pamphlet entitled "Why the Traditional Latin Mass?" subtitled "Why NOT the New?" It offers to explain why the Traditional Latin Mass (now commonly known as the Extraordinary Form [EF]) must in all ways be preferred to what is referred as the New Mass (the Ordinary Form [OF]).
Having read this objections, I wish to give answer to them. They can be said to be in four categories: valid objections; valid objections to invalid liturgy (that is, an opposition to something the OF is in itself opposed to); invalid objections; and finally logical fallacies. I will address each issue in a single post with no fixed schedule.
I will attempt in all things to provide sources for my position. If I cannot find the source but remember encountering it before, I will say so, with the caveat that one may trust that information insofar as they feel able to trust me.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Monday, October 26, 2009
Reason 40
40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priest’s fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest’s fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which “only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.”* (Same citation as #3).
First, a lesson in definition: to eliminate means to remove entirely. Thus when “only three” or “one” remain then it is not eliminated. But eliminate is a much more potent word than “reduction.”
Further, the altar stone and relic are still required. They have simply been ignored by many who construct new churches. Thus this list can be shortened to purification and preservation of the priest’s fingers. However I have seen many priests purify their fingers in the New Mass exactly as I have seen others do it in the traditional Mass, so it seems perhaps only the preservation from profane contact remains (and I do not doubt there are priests who refrain from profane contact).
Secondly, it is a stretch to suggest the ‘elimination’ of the altar stone, relics, and altar cloths is a repudiation of the Real Presence. The first two seem most perfectly revealing not of the Real Presence but of the Heavenly Liturgy. The third, as far as I am aware, has no relation whatsoever to the Real Presence. There may be a good liturgical connection, but since it is completely lost on me (a pretty serious amateur liturgist) the reduction of altar cloths would in no way harm the laity’s belief in the Real Presence.
It is true that belief in the Real Presence has decreased, but this is clearly the result (or mostly the result) of poor catechesis. Many teachers of the faith either refused to teach this belief, explicitly taught it wrong, or touched on it only briefly. The New Mass itself is not at fault. Further, many (if not all) of these things do not exist at all in the Eastern Liturgies, liturgies which are as ancient as the traditional Mass and just as venerable. Belief in the Real Presence is not locked into a small subset of actions and items, to be implicitly repudiated by the alteration of four things.
First, a lesson in definition: to eliminate means to remove entirely. Thus when “only three” or “one” remain then it is not eliminated. But eliminate is a much more potent word than “reduction.”
Further, the altar stone and relic are still required. They have simply been ignored by many who construct new churches. Thus this list can be shortened to purification and preservation of the priest’s fingers. However I have seen many priests purify their fingers in the New Mass exactly as I have seen others do it in the traditional Mass, so it seems perhaps only the preservation from profane contact remains (and I do not doubt there are priests who refrain from profane contact).
Secondly, it is a stretch to suggest the ‘elimination’ of the altar stone, relics, and altar cloths is a repudiation of the Real Presence. The first two seem most perfectly revealing not of the Real Presence but of the Heavenly Liturgy. The third, as far as I am aware, has no relation whatsoever to the Real Presence. There may be a good liturgical connection, but since it is completely lost on me (a pretty serious amateur liturgist) the reduction of altar cloths would in no way harm the laity’s belief in the Real Presence.
It is true that belief in the Real Presence has decreased, but this is clearly the result (or mostly the result) of poor catechesis. Many teachers of the faith either refused to teach this belief, explicitly taught it wrong, or touched on it only briefly. The New Mass itself is not at fault. Further, many (if not all) of these things do not exist at all in the Eastern Liturgies, liturgies which are as ancient as the traditional Mass and just as venerable. Belief in the Real Presence is not locked into a small subset of actions and items, to be implicitly repudiated by the alteration of four things.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Reason 39
39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priest do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
This reason can be simplified: “we don’t accept the New Mass because we don’t accept it.”
The fact that people do not accept something is in no way a valid argument for not accepting it. Just because there are ‘good’ (who’s definition are we using) people who oppose Pro-Life activities does not mean that is a valid reason to oppose them.
Furthermore, who are these theologians, canonist, and priests? All we are told about them is that they are ‘good,’ the definition of which might be “opposes the New Mass.” In the end, very, very few theologians, priests, canonists, etc. refused to accept the New Mass and many who did were clearly not good, pursuing many incredibly heretical activities (some sedevacantist groups which formed following the Second Vatican Council have already ‘ordained’ women and accepted homosexual ‘marriage’). Clearly then, there are both good and bad Catholics who both accept and reject the New Mass.
This entire objection has several logical fallacies, from begging the question to fallacy by example. It has nothing good or useful to offer the discussion.
This reason can be simplified: “we don’t accept the New Mass because we don’t accept it.”
The fact that people do not accept something is in no way a valid argument for not accepting it. Just because there are ‘good’ (who’s definition are we using) people who oppose Pro-Life activities does not mean that is a valid reason to oppose them.
Furthermore, who are these theologians, canonist, and priests? All we are told about them is that they are ‘good,’ the definition of which might be “opposes the New Mass.” In the end, very, very few theologians, priests, canonists, etc. refused to accept the New Mass and many who did were clearly not good, pursuing many incredibly heretical activities (some sedevacantist groups which formed following the Second Vatican Council have already ‘ordained’ women and accepted homosexual ‘marriage’). Clearly then, there are both good and bad Catholics who both accept and reject the New Mass.
This entire objection has several logical fallacies, from begging the question to fallacy by example. It has nothing good or useful to offer the discussion.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Reason 38
38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and by irreverence.
This objection has a lot of little problems with its reasoning. Firstly, the priest is not allowed to “deviate as he fancies.” There are set variations that are allowed, no more. Many priest do deviate beyond what is allowed, but that is not the fault of the liturgy.
No where is it suggested that ‘creativity’ is the driving force behind these variations. Rather, they were included for a couple of reasons: first, to allow the Mass to be tailored to specific occasions (for example, a Mass for justice offered on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade); second, to keep the laity from sliding into a stupor of sorts (all too easy when you here the same words over and over again in the vernacular); third, to attempt to access the treasure of liturgical tradition. Personally I only find the first reason particularly compelling; the variations there are mostly of the preface and the other changeable prayers.
Secondly, as mentioned above, there already are changeable parts of the Mass which vary daily. While these alterations are not the choice of the presider, it does mean that the Mass is not identical from day to day, though it is from place to place. The thing is, one cannot attend Mass in two places at once (unless one has the charism of bilocation) and so one only sees the weekly change to the liturgy.
Further, how must disorder result? In the broadest sense one can say that things are not absolutely ordered as everything is not identical. However it seems odd to go so far as to call it disorder. Disorder generally results when there is a lack of authority over an activity, where all the members within it do as they wish. If the ministers of a Mass (be it priests, deacons, servers, lectors, etc.) all do their own thing then yes, disorder would result.
Finally yes, if disorder did reign a certain lack of respect would be inherent. On perhaps a nit-picky level, a lack of respect is inherently irreverent; the last word is generally defined as a lock of respect. Including both words just makes the issue sound more serious than it is.
In the end, it is true that poorly performed liturgies often end up irreverent, but this is not the fault of the liturgy, but of the ministers. The fact that priests choose to randomly interrupt the liturgy, use water guns to spray holy water, dress up as clowns, or that choirs sing the most insipid songs man has put to paper is not the fault of the liturgy. It is a fault of poor catechesis and acts of rebellion by those who should no better.
Irreverence stems first and foremost from a lack of obedience, choosing one’s own actions above the lawful authority, in this case, the liturgy. An obedient priest, no matter the choices in the liturgy, will celebrate a reverent Mass; it is the disobedient priests who have brought about such problems as this reason presents.
This objection has a lot of little problems with its reasoning. Firstly, the priest is not allowed to “deviate as he fancies.” There are set variations that are allowed, no more. Many priest do deviate beyond what is allowed, but that is not the fault of the liturgy.
No where is it suggested that ‘creativity’ is the driving force behind these variations. Rather, they were included for a couple of reasons: first, to allow the Mass to be tailored to specific occasions (for example, a Mass for justice offered on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade); second, to keep the laity from sliding into a stupor of sorts (all too easy when you here the same words over and over again in the vernacular); third, to attempt to access the treasure of liturgical tradition. Personally I only find the first reason particularly compelling; the variations there are mostly of the preface and the other changeable prayers.
Secondly, as mentioned above, there already are changeable parts of the Mass which vary daily. While these alterations are not the choice of the presider, it does mean that the Mass is not identical from day to day, though it is from place to place. The thing is, one cannot attend Mass in two places at once (unless one has the charism of bilocation) and so one only sees the weekly change to the liturgy.
Further, how must disorder result? In the broadest sense one can say that things are not absolutely ordered as everything is not identical. However it seems odd to go so far as to call it disorder. Disorder generally results when there is a lack of authority over an activity, where all the members within it do as they wish. If the ministers of a Mass (be it priests, deacons, servers, lectors, etc.) all do their own thing then yes, disorder would result.
Finally yes, if disorder did reign a certain lack of respect would be inherent. On perhaps a nit-picky level, a lack of respect is inherently irreverent; the last word is generally defined as a lock of respect. Including both words just makes the issue sound more serious than it is.
In the end, it is true that poorly performed liturgies often end up irreverent, but this is not the fault of the liturgy, but of the ministers. The fact that priests choose to randomly interrupt the liturgy, use water guns to spray holy water, dress up as clowns, or that choirs sing the most insipid songs man has put to paper is not the fault of the liturgy. It is a fault of poor catechesis and acts of rebellion by those who should no better.
Irreverence stems first and foremost from a lack of obedience, choosing one’s own actions above the lawful authority, in this case, the liturgy. An obedient priest, no matter the choices in the liturgy, will celebrate a reverent Mass; it is the disobedient priests who have brought about such problems as this reason presents.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Reason 37
37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance Error.
I admit, I’m curious, how does something convey a concept without conveying the appearance? The phrase ‘despite appearances’ suggest that there what is presented is not what is actually there but the way liturgy works is that what is presented is all that is there (that is, when the liturgy says “Glory to God” that is what it is conveying, the idea and act of giving glory to God. Liturgy simply cannot deal in innuendos, sarcasm, or other forms of double meaning). Thus either both the appearances and conveyance of the New Mass is Catholic, or they both are not. It cannot go two ways.
Because of this firstly, I am inclined to doubt that the New Mass conveys Modernism. Furthermore, the idea that there are “tactics of Modernism” is, in my opinion, almost laughable. At best Modernism is an amorphous grouping of ideas and individuals who have widely divergent ideas and intents. The label itself is primarily one referring to a wide variety of Heresies which, to one degree or another, reject the supernatural influence of God in the world (that is, they essentially say the Christian history is no less likely than the Hindu history).
As has been a constant refrain in these writings, this reason does not offer sufficient explanation of what “vague terminology” is being used to insinuate error. How vague is vague? The traditional Mass does not include the entire Summa so obviously it is more vague than that work. I personally do not find much vague in the phrasing of the New Mass, nor do I feel error is being presented therein. This reason itself could be accused of using “vague terminology” to “insinuate Error,” perhaps even to further Modernism. I would not know, the tactics of Modernism being so broad and secretive.
Simply put, this objection says nothing and tries to say it very loudly. It ends up being simply vague and uncertain, proclaiming a shadowy enemy one cannot pin down. Modernism is wrong, but certainly has no grand organization and therefore must be fought on the level of concept, not tactics.
I admit, I’m curious, how does something convey a concept without conveying the appearance? The phrase ‘despite appearances’ suggest that there what is presented is not what is actually there but the way liturgy works is that what is presented is all that is there (that is, when the liturgy says “Glory to God” that is what it is conveying, the idea and act of giving glory to God. Liturgy simply cannot deal in innuendos, sarcasm, or other forms of double meaning). Thus either both the appearances and conveyance of the New Mass is Catholic, or they both are not. It cannot go two ways.
Because of this firstly, I am inclined to doubt that the New Mass conveys Modernism. Furthermore, the idea that there are “tactics of Modernism” is, in my opinion, almost laughable. At best Modernism is an amorphous grouping of ideas and individuals who have widely divergent ideas and intents. The label itself is primarily one referring to a wide variety of Heresies which, to one degree or another, reject the supernatural influence of God in the world (that is, they essentially say the Christian history is no less likely than the Hindu history).
As has been a constant refrain in these writings, this reason does not offer sufficient explanation of what “vague terminology” is being used to insinuate error. How vague is vague? The traditional Mass does not include the entire Summa so obviously it is more vague than that work. I personally do not find much vague in the phrasing of the New Mass, nor do I feel error is being presented therein. This reason itself could be accused of using “vague terminology” to “insinuate Error,” perhaps even to further Modernism. I would not know, the tactics of Modernism being so broad and secretive.
Simply put, this objection says nothing and tries to say it very loudly. It ends up being simply vague and uncertain, proclaiming a shadowy enemy one cannot pin down. Modernism is wrong, but certainly has no grand organization and therefore must be fought on the level of concept, not tactics.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Reason 36
36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the traditional Mass. (Bolding in the original).
Two issues come immediately to mind. First, how exactly do we know profanations of Holy Eucharist occur more frequently. Has there been a study done? I doubt it. This point then becomes highly difficult to prove (or disprove, but the burden of proof is on proving it).
Secondly, in what way is the nature of the New Mass such as to promote profanations? I find this dubious first in the use of the word ‘nature,’ for the nature (being the essential characteristics) of the New Mass is not profanations. If it was, it would be impossible to celebrate the New Mass without it being, inherently (by nature) a massive profanation and it is very clearly not.
Furthermore, we again do not have any information as to what part of the New Mass leads it promote profanations. Two things come immediately to my mind as making profanations easier: Communion under both Species and reception in the hand. The latter is a tolerated abuse, which, in the opinion of the author, can simply be done away with. The former is, again in my opinion, vastly overused. When the concept was first promoted it was done so under the idea that Communion in both kinds would be limited to special occasions, such as First Communions, Weddings, or perhaps the Feast of Corpus Christi. Thus in an ideal liturgical situation ninety-five percent of all situations in the New Mass would be reception of the Sacred Species under the form of bread on the tongue. There is no more chance for profanation there than in the traditional Mass.
Abuses, tolerated or not, contribute to almost all instances which allow for profanation. If one was to be particularly uptight in this regard (which has happened in Church history) it would be best to refuse communion to the laity as often as possible, allowing reception under only the most controlled circumstances. Thus because the laity are allowed access to the Holy Species profanations will occur, but the New Mass, when celebrated correctly, certainly does not encourage them.
Two issues come immediately to mind. First, how exactly do we know profanations of Holy Eucharist occur more frequently. Has there been a study done? I doubt it. This point then becomes highly difficult to prove (or disprove, but the burden of proof is on proving it).
Secondly, in what way is the nature of the New Mass such as to promote profanations? I find this dubious first in the use of the word ‘nature,’ for the nature (being the essential characteristics) of the New Mass is not profanations. If it was, it would be impossible to celebrate the New Mass without it being, inherently (by nature) a massive profanation and it is very clearly not.
Furthermore, we again do not have any information as to what part of the New Mass leads it promote profanations. Two things come immediately to my mind as making profanations easier: Communion under both Species and reception in the hand. The latter is a tolerated abuse, which, in the opinion of the author, can simply be done away with. The former is, again in my opinion, vastly overused. When the concept was first promoted it was done so under the idea that Communion in both kinds would be limited to special occasions, such as First Communions, Weddings, or perhaps the Feast of Corpus Christi. Thus in an ideal liturgical situation ninety-five percent of all situations in the New Mass would be reception of the Sacred Species under the form of bread on the tongue. There is no more chance for profanation there than in the traditional Mass.
Abuses, tolerated or not, contribute to almost all instances which allow for profanation. If one was to be particularly uptight in this regard (which has happened in Church history) it would be best to refuse communion to the laity as often as possible, allowing reception under only the most controlled circumstances. Thus because the laity are allowed access to the Holy Species profanations will occur, but the New Mass, when celebrated correctly, certainly does not encourage them.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Reason 35
35. Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. “Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it . . .” (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum).
It is interesting to note that this quote from Paul VI is from his Apostolic Constitution promoting the new Roman Missal. It is speaking about the traditional Mass while promoting the revised liturgy.
I would agree wholeheartedly that the traditional Mass is an excellent source of saints, but this in no way invalidates the revised liturgy. In the first place, the traditional Mass has been around, in its present form, for 400 years, with something rather close for at least a 1,000 years before that. The revised Mass has been around for 40 which is, generally speaking, no where near enough time to get canonization (it usually takes a hundred years at minimum, witness St. Damien of Molokai).
Furthermore, the eastern Liturgies of the Church have also forged innumerable saints, such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius, St. John Chrystostom, and St. Anthony the Great. This fact then does not mean we should only celebrate the eastern Liturgies, but that they are good and worthy of reverence.
In the end, this reason is a very strong argument for the perpetuation of the traditional Mass. As such a grand source of spiritual nourishment the traditional Mass should be reverenced and embraced. It is not inherently better (though it may be) but it is inherently good and worthy of our attention. Most Catholics would do good to notice that and keep in mind what food it was that sustained St. Damien, St. Pio, and St. Faustina.
It is interesting to note that this quote from Paul VI is from his Apostolic Constitution promoting the new Roman Missal. It is speaking about the traditional Mass while promoting the revised liturgy.
I would agree wholeheartedly that the traditional Mass is an excellent source of saints, but this in no way invalidates the revised liturgy. In the first place, the traditional Mass has been around, in its present form, for 400 years, with something rather close for at least a 1,000 years before that. The revised Mass has been around for 40 which is, generally speaking, no where near enough time to get canonization (it usually takes a hundred years at minimum, witness St. Damien of Molokai).
Furthermore, the eastern Liturgies of the Church have also forged innumerable saints, such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius, St. John Chrystostom, and St. Anthony the Great. This fact then does not mean we should only celebrate the eastern Liturgies, but that they are good and worthy of reverence.
In the end, this reason is a very strong argument for the perpetuation of the traditional Mass. As such a grand source of spiritual nourishment the traditional Mass should be reverenced and embraced. It is not inherently better (though it may be) but it is inherently good and worthy of our attention. Most Catholics would do good to notice that and keep in mind what food it was that sustained St. Damien, St. Pio, and St. Faustina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)