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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reason 34

34. Because show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! (Bolding in the original).


This reason is very difficult to deal with simply because I cannot find these statics. At all. The data on the rate of Catholic conversions seems to be either unavailable or well hidden. Thus I cannot comment on the veracity of this claim.

However, because of the statistics offered in Reason 9 (which in fact cited a source) were incorrect, I am inclined to doubt these numbers. Recently a non-scientific study found around 100,000 coverts to the Catholic Church. The numbers may have been as low as 10,000 in the past, I don’t know, but I find the 100,000 number fifty years ago doubtful, primarily because of population. In 1965 (arguably the tail end of the grand conversion, if it existed) the Catholic population sat at 45.6 million, out of about 194 million people. With these conversion numbers, every ten years ought to have 1 million conversions, or, 2 percent of the total Catholic population in 1965. And those would only be conversions in the past ten years, not counting the years before that.

I think it likely that the numbers given in the pamphlet reflect, at best, the absolute highest conversion rate any year had prior to the revision of the liturgy and then the absolute lowest in the years following.

Again, however, I simple cannot look at the actual numbers and do not trust this statistic. If I can find viable evidence, I shall deal with it then.

Reason 33

33. Because Protestans who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks “Why did we convert?”


First, a personal testimonial: no, it’s not. Every Catholic convert from Protestantism I know finds the New Mass (pretty much the only one most of us have ever attended) to be an experience unlike anything we grew up with. There is not a Protestant assembly (beyond High Church Anglican) that has a Eucharistic tradition anything like any Mass (even the most horrible, horribly abused Masses) I have ever seen.

The Julian Green comment is very interesting. I assume, as no further detail is given, Julian Green (a.k.a. Julien Green) is the American Novelist who converted to Catholicism in 1916, when he himself was only 16 (he lived predominately in Paris, but never was a French citizen). At this point his conversion was very much into the traditional Mass, and this question “Why did we convert?” would not have been raised for liturgical reasons. It is possible he raised the question 60 years later, but he had lived outside the Protestant circle for so long (and had spent very few years there to begin with) his opinion is certainly not all that forceful.

Further, there is strong evidence that Green spent much of his life struggling deeply with mortal sin, and certainly surrendered to it on several occasions (even to the point of leaving the Church for a decade). This does not, of course, automatically disqualify him from being correct, but it does inherently taint anything he has to say on the Church. A man refusing to follow the Church’s teaching in one thing cannot be trusted to be a good voice for the good of the Church in another.

All in all, this reason does not offer a lot in the way of saying anything.

Reason 32

32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!


Bull.

Yes, there are many English martyrs following Henry VIII’s break with Rome (perhaps the most famous being St. Edmund Campion). But they were killed for refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the King in all things religious or simple because they declared themselves to be Catholic (which is kind of the norm for a Jesuit priest). None of them were even given the opportunity to participate in the Anglican liturgy, much less killed because of their refusal.

The opposition to the English church was not one of liturgy, but one of authority. They refused to throw away the Holy Father so cavalierly. Many of these martyrs lived and died before the Council of Trent codified the Mass as we know it, and changes in the liturgy were in fact not uncommon (within reason). These Holy Martyrs underwent death almost exclusively because they refused to renounce the Pope (St. Campion was offered riches should he just reject the Catholic faith).

Finally, this reason assumes that the New Mass is similar to the Anglican Mass which I find simply to be a tenuous position, as noted above.

Let us not take the Holy Memory and Blessed Lives of these great martyrs for our own gain, nor twist them to preserve our ends. They died in a defiance to any who would dare separate themselves from Holy Peter and the One Church founded upon him, coming down to us from the Apostles and through the Heirs of the Apostles.

Reason 31

31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer’s heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.


Several issues arise with this objection. Firstly, the exact nature of the heresy of the Anglican Mass is left untouched. In modern times it is certainly clear that most Anglican liturgies are heretical in many wide and varied ways, but at the point of Cranmer’s writing the Anglican Church largely held to the ancient Catholic Beliefs with the main exception of the Papal Primacy. This of course made it’s presence known in the liturgy, but it was only a minor part of it. Thus it is quite conceivable that any similarity between the New Mass and the Anglican Mass is of things which are not heretical.

In addition, if the New Mass resembles the Anglican Mass, that is no indication that one was drawn from the other. Both of them have their roots in the Latin liturgy and both have access to the same historical documents. Because two cars both have four wheels and four doors does not mean on of the manufacturers copied the other, they both worked from the same source.

Further, the second half of this reason is almost nonsensical. I think the implication is that the revised liturgy is promoted in the same way as the Anglican liturgy was at the time of Cranmer, but I do not understand what is meant by ‘promoted.’ They may mean the way in which the change of liturgy was brought to people, but I am not sure there is another way other than to release a revised Missal. It happened following Trent as well. I cannot provide much more response to this as I do not understand it.

The truly absurd part of this objection is, to me, the idea that the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer’s Mass. Having perused the text of Cranmer’s revision, I feel it more closely resembles a vernacular version of the traditional Mass than it does the New Mass. There are quite a few major elements found in Cranmer’s liturgy that are in no way present in the revised Catholic Liturgy. Further, the Anglican Mass does away with many elements still found completely in the New Mass, such as the Confiteor and the intercessions to the saints.

I can find no good evidence to suggest that Cranmer’s liturgy found its way into the New Mass. The loosest bit of correlation therein proves to causation.

Reason 30

30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship services cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.


There are a few major flaws with this argument. First, the singular nature of the Spouse of Christ has no effect on the remainder of the argument. No religion, properly speaking, can have worships serves which serve religions at enmity with it. Multiple religions can be served by one service when all the religions are so meaningless as to find no objection in the worship of another religion (why bother with separate religions, if that is the case?). This clause just is here to give the appearance of more weight to the argument.

Secondly and more importantly, this reason does the same thing Reason 25, that is, it assumes the New Mass serves religions that are at enmity with the Catholic Church. A properly celebrated Mass, whether the traditional or revised liturgy, is not accepted by Protestants as something good and akin to their religion. They found, almost universally, that the Catholic Mass is at enmity with their religion (unless they choose not to pay attention to what is actually happening and being said, then they might as well attend a Hindu service). There is simply no reason to assume the New Mass serves Protestants or anyone at enmity with the Catholic Church.

Reason 29

29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the truth! (Bolding in the original).


What is a half-heresy? I was under the impression that something is either heretical or it is not. Heresy means simply wrong teaching, a teaching cannot be both wrong and not-wrong at the same time.

Furthermore, an ambiguity has difficulty favoring anything, as it is ambiguous. It could not favor heresy, but it equally could not favor orthodoxy. At best an ambiguity is unclear and could go either way, being neither really positive or negative.

This reason fails to offer any hint as to what ambiguities are favoring heresy. To proclaim hidden heresies necessitates a clear presentation of what they are, as their very nature makes them difficult to find. I can make no progress with this reason, either refuting it or accepting it as rational without more evidence. It sits now simply as a proclamation of uncertainty.

Reason 28

28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending Catholic function.


For the first time I want to say that this objection, to one degree, does not go far enough. For not only are there hymns Protestant in sentiment, there are hymns Protestant in creation. It is not uncommon for truly Protestant music to be sung at the Catholic Mass.

But does this reflect on the quality of the New Mass? Not at all. The change in music is a liturgical abuse, pure and simple. The Second Vatican Council called for Gregorian Chant to retain the pride of place in the liturgy, along with Latin and the organ. All three seemed to have vanished. The New Mass is not supposed to be celebrated with poor music with insipid lyrics; it should have the same quality music as has been formally used.

Furthermore, it would be good to note that not all Catholic hymns of old have been thrown out. They are simply less common because of the ramped idea that the Mass should be perpetually modern, that the music must reflect the feel-good ideas of the day. Music directors have been calling for new music not because the old is bad, but because they want the freedom to do whatever they want within the liturgy.

The failure of beauty is not something intrinsic to the revision of the liturgy, but is part of the grand error enshrined under the title “Spirit of Vatican II.” The Council never intended for the Church to fade into the rest of the world, they wanted the world to be drawn into the Church.

Reason 27

27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is “double-tongued” and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: “Cursed be . . . the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many” (Sirach 28:13).


This reason has two parts, the latter dependent on the former. I have no problem with the idea that something double-tongued is offensive to God. The question here is whether the New Mass is “double-tongued.”

Yet again this objection does not offer anything specific as to what kind of ambiguity the New Mass pleases Protestants with. As I have mentioned before, I have not met or heard of a Protestant who finds the New Mass particularly Protestant. In fact, the only comments I have heard in favor of it over the traditional Mass is that it is offered in the vernacular. Every other Protestant objection to the Mass is found both in the traditional and revised liturgy.

Further, it might be good to note that perhaps this ambiguity pleases Catholics while pretending to please Protestants, we just can’t know. That’s the problem with ambiguity, it is just so ambiguous. A claim of ambiguity is simple not convincing of anything. The New Mass is still abhorred by many Protestants for being so opposed to their tradition, they simply are not pleased by it.

Reason 26

26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord” (Par. 7 Introd. To the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69). (Bolding in the original).


I have trouble responding to this objection simply because I cannot find a copy of the Introduction to the New Missal and thus cannot verify this quote nor find its context. As such I shall assume it is an accurate quotation and that is not altered significantly by the surrounding paragraphs.

The first thing I must then raise is that Protestants have no definition of the Mass as it is a Catholic act, just as Catholics have no definition of Muslim Friday prayer. Further, if we choose to substitute the phrase “Lord’s Supper” for Mass there would still remain no Protestant definition, as Protestantism is at best a nebulas group which can find no agreement on anything, much less what actually matters.

Let us address now the actual paragraph. The word ‘synaxis’ is the most problematic, but it is simply an eastern word for an assembly for liturgical purposes, which the Mass is. Further, every statement in that quotation is accurate and correct. The only problem with it is that it is incomplete; that is, if one takes it to be the full definition of the Mass (the clear implication of the preceding sentence) one is grandly mistaken. But it seems clear to me that the passage itself does not suggest that this is the only, or even the most important, of the aspects of the Mass.

Thus Paragraph 7 simply proclaims that the Mass is an assembly of the faithful, which has always been true. While it is legitimate for a priest to celebrate the Mass without a congregation, it has never been the desire of the Church for this to be the norm, or even preferred. The people have always been called for worship, to come together, to be a sacred synaxis; that is the whole aim of Sunday, to come together to the Sacrifice of the Lord.

Reason 25

25. Because we are faced with a dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshiping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass of All Time.


Several major problems: first, where is the dilemma? A dilemma only exists where both propositions are essentially equal in their desirability. There is no suggestion of anything negative in the second proposition offered here, there fore, no dilemma. Given this choice, who would pick the first?

Secondly, and less importantly, the traditional Mass cannot be the Mass of All Time literally, as it is certainly not the way the Mass was celebrated in the year AD 200. Further, there are other legitimate liturgies within the Church, from the Ambrosian rite to the Dominican rite still celebrated today. Perhaps what is meant is that the Mass is for all future time, and as long as it is celebrated somewhere, this is true.

The third issue here is the most important I have to raise: this reason is in no way valid. It assumes the very thing it is arguing against, that is, it begs the question. Imagine I say I cannot vote for a certain politician because he is a communist, and someone asks my for my reasons. If I answer “because I either must vote for a communist or vote for the politician who supports my beliefs” I have given to answer. All this reason says is that they oppose the New Mass as Protestant because it is Protestant, something which most be proved independently.

In the end one must ask “why are we becoming Protestantized?” And this objection does not offer an answer.

Reason 24

24. Because Protestants themselves have said “the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have abandoned the false perspective of sacrifice to God.” (La Croix 12/10/69).


Maybe some Protestants, back in the late 1960s, who had very little actual encounter with the text of the revised liturgy would have said this. I have never heard it from a Protestant my entire life; in fact, I have heard the opposite, that the Catholic Church refuses to surrender the concept of a sacrifice. Third person hearsay (a quote from some Protestant in a Catholic daily newspaper repeated in a pamphlet) does not carry a lot of weight. For all we know, the first part of this quote was “We hope that . . .” and it ended with “ . . . but it does not seem likely.”

Furthermore, as shown in previous posts, the Eucharistic Prayers clearly have not abandoned the idea of sacrifice. The terms sacrifice, offer, and oblation still make a regular appearance in the text. The concept is there and, when properly celebrated, the New Mass makes as clear a pronouncement in this area as does the traditional Mass. This is in the end an argument hardly worth noticing.

Reason 23

23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar, facing people instead of tabernacle, Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g. Mass is only a meal, priest only a president of the assembly, etc.).


This reason thankfully gives examples of the problems it is addressing. But the examples are things which are not called for in the revised Liturgy and were introduced independent of the New Mass itself (in fact, many of these ideas appeared first prior to the Second Vatican Council, back when the traditional Mass was the norm and law). It would only be fair, however, to address each one.

I am not sure if the first issue raised has to do with calling the altar a ‘table,’ table-looking altars, some third thing, or a combination of the above. The Church does not consider the altar a table nor ever calls it such. As for the people, that is an abuse that must be addressed by catechesis, not by running scared. Poorly designed altars started appearing with wreck-ovations in the 1950s when so-called ‘liturgical reform’ eliminated the beauty from sacred spaces. They have no place in the Latin Rite, whether traditional Mass or new.

The second example is in itself fallacious because the Church never called on the priest to face the tabernacle. Rather, he and all the people faced east, toward a crucifix. Sometimes a church was constructed facing west, in which case the priest would turn toward the people but they, in turn, would also face west, putting their backs to the priest so that all were turned toward Christ together (it is very clear that everyone facing the altar is a better system today). But again, no where in Church documents is it commanded or even suggested that the priest face toward the people in the Liturgy. It is the accepted norm now and must be addressed with pastoral charity, but it was certainly not the intent of the Council.

Communion in the hand was an idea never even remotely supported by the post-conciliar Church until it became a major abuse in several countries (the United States was not even on this list). As this was a common practice in the early Church it is not heresy, and the Holy See decided, for whatever reason, that a country could petition to legally allow Communion in the hand where it was already an abuse (it seems to be this was an experiment to find if a proper way to deal with certain more minor abuses was by allowing them rather than suppressing them. As such it has not been repeated). For some reason the United States petitioned to receive this indult and, even stranger, it was granted. Thus Communion in the hand is essentially a tolerated abuse in certain countries and is not connected to the New Mass itself. Further, there is evidence to suggest that Rome is looking to suppressing the indult or at least strongly encouraging all the faithful to receive on the tongue.

This reason in the end address what are essentially abuses of the revised Liturgy which should not be considered part of the New Mass, properly celebrated. Hopefully in the near future they will vanish entirely, and with them any confusion on the meaning of the Mass.

Reason 22

22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic doctrine).


I am hard pressed to understand how via omissions one could present this opinion. To present an understanding one must insert things, not remove them.

Further, there is no clarification as to what kind of omissions these are. What exactly is lacking? It would seem that to anyone attending a Mass the revised liturgy would offer a clearer picture of the sacrificial nature of the Mass because the words offer, sacrifice, oblation, etc. are spoken in the vernacular and audibly such that those present would be exposed to the concept.

This is not to say that the traditional Mass does not strongly present the sacrificial character to anyone who either knows Latin or has access to a translation of the texts. It is also true that the New Mass makes less regular reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, just as it makes less reference to every aspect of the Mass, being a more limited text.

Many liturgical abuses, however, encourage the idea of the Mass as a meal over and against the Mass as a sacrifice, chief among these being poor music (I do not simply mean base melodies, which are bad enough, but more problematic are the heretical or questionable lyrics. St. Francis de Sales said “It would be much better to keep to the Latin than to blaspheme in French”). Also among these problems are more table-like altars, the gathering of extraordinary-ministers of Holy Communion about the altar, and the overuse of both Sacred Species. These problems are not, however, endemic to the revised liturgy.

Many people do now believe in the Mass as a meal over and against it being a sacrifice (despite it having, to some degree, characteristics of both) but this is no fault of the liturgy. I have never held such a position despite having had more formation with the New Mass. The key here is that I have had a proper formation and have been, from the very beginning, taught the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It comes down to, essentially, catechesis. The people have clamored for change in the liturgy to match there misshapen instructions and poorly instructed priests have complied.

This then, is the greatest failure of the years surrounding Vatican II, both before and after. A vast system of catechesis was put into place which, in the end, failed to instruct many and gave out falsehoods to many more. To defeat heresies being inserted in the Mass we must re-instruct the Catholic population, that they may know Truth and that it may set them free.

Reason 21

21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis). (Bolding in the original).


I think it would be good to point out here that the idea that any given idea is a ‘Protestant’ one generally does not hold true. Almost any belief can be found somewhere in the Protestant system. This fact has no bearing on the validity of the argument, but is rather a worthwhile thing to remember.

This question seems to read into the words of the Liturgy more than is there. It is true that in each Eucharistic prayer there is a phrase, after the Consecration, calling the Mass a memorial, which, strictly speaking, it is (but not only). Christ commands us to “do them in remembrance of me,” making the action inherently a memorial.

The follow up idea that the New Mass infers no sacrifice is absurd, as in the selfsame sentence which mentions the memorial there is reference to offering or sacrifice. No Protestant performing a memorialist Eucharist would dare suggest they are offering the bread and wine in any way, shape or form.

It must be noted that the aspect of the sacrifice is slightly muted in the current English translation, but that is being rectified with the revised translation due out shortly (liturgically speaking). In the end, the New Mass still strongly carries the idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass and in no way endorses a Memorial Only or Memorial Primarily interpretation without doing serious dishonor to the text.

Reason 20

20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the true Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian said that a fruit of the New Mass “will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church” (La Croix 4/30/69).


This is true insofar as the prayers referred to here are the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and the Pater Noster (which have been, generally speaking, in Protestant services as long as there have been Protestant services).

The first grand flaw of this objection comes from the second word of the quotation. “Perhaps.” Mr. Thurian was not certain at that point what effect the revision of the Mass would have on Catholic-Protestant relations. No, forty years later, it is clear that no aspect of the revised liturgy (beyond the revised lectionary) has been incorporated into Protestant worship services. Nor does it seem that many Protestants share the view of Mr. Thurian, as there is still an almost universal objection to the Mass as a form of worship.

This reason suffers the grand flaw of using a single quote as the entire support for its position. It is all the more problematic when one discovers that Max Thurian later became Fr. Max Thurian, leaving the Protestant churches which perhaps did not use the Catholic Liturgy to become a Catholic himself (and for the faith, not for the liturgy, which he considers to have suffered greatly under the revisions not advocated by the council). There is essentially no validity to this argument.

Reason 19

19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory—since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass—so also the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple preparation of the gifts.


The first thing that should be made clear here is that the terms Offertory and Presentation of the Gifts contain in themselves no real meaning of what happens. Many Protestants use the term Offertory to refer to the collection of the monetary offering which has, essentially, no sacrificial or propitiatory character despite the term.

That being said, it is not particularly clear to me how the alteration to the Offertory reduced it from being an expression of a sacrifice. In his prayers over the bread and the wind the priest says “tibi offèrimus,” that is, “we offer to you.” This is, to me, a very clear indicator of an offertory nature.

The priest then proceeds to request prayer that “meum ac vestrum sacrificium” be acceptable to God. The direct translation would be “my and also your sacrifice” (the current English translation uses the phrase “our sacrifice”). The sacrificial character of the Mass is, therefore, quite clear.

What is true is that this portion of the Mass, like most of the revised liturgy, is shorter in total text. This is primarily a result of the decision to have most of the Mass spoken aloud. Because of the difficulties attached to speaking aloud long phrases and prayers, those who worked on the liturgy chose to shorten the spoken prayers (this I think was a good idea insofar as they were spoken, but would personally like an increase in the quiet prayers of the priest).

It should also be noted that the a reference to any specific character of the Mass is not necessary at every moment in the Mass. Therefore it is legitimate that the penitential right does not make explicit reference to the sacrifice which occupies the high point of the Mass. Likewise, the incensing of the altar does not make reference to penitential acts. It is then not inherently problematic if the offertory does not make explicit reference to certain characters of the Mass, as long as those characters are not lost in the Mass entirely.

Reason 18

18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass (pictured below, left to right: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith, and Thurian). (Bold in the original, picture not included).


Now is the time for fact checking by our friends the pamphlet writers. The picture they offer is generally claimed to be from the Second Vatican Council which it is. The Six men were in fact Protestant ministers (though one later converted to Catholicism) and were invited to the Council as observers and thus did not speak. The same cannot be said for Council of Trent. Protestants were invited there not only as observers but as participants with an active part in the Council. The only evidence I have ever encountered as to the idea that these men collaborated on the New Mass is that very photograph taken years before the revision of the Liturgy was done (it was initiated at the Council but was not actually undertaken until sometime after its conclusion).

Further, even if these six men were involved in the revision of the Liturgy, that does not in and of itself mean anything. For example, suppose they were the six least important collaborators out of a hundred. What real influence could they have? Or perhaps every suggestion they offered was rejected.

Let us now postulate that they did in fact have a powerful influence on the revision of the liturgy. Again, what of it? There are areas (numerous, in fact) where Protestants and Catholics agree. It would be fully feasible that these ministers only contributed in areas were there was understood to be agreement (such as the value of Scripture, or the Divinity of Christ). The fact that a non-mathematician contributed to a math book in no way diminishes the capacity of the book the properly and adequately present math. Arian bishops attended the Council of Nicea as valid members and were in no way able to corrupt the truth therein.

Essentially this is, in the end, both a factually incorrect argument and a meaningless one. There is simply nothing here truly upsetting, just shadows and fear mongering, trying to transform a simply image into a charge of grave heresy, hiding the truth behind a veil of panic.

Reason 17

17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest—which is against Catholic theology!


Readers at this point might have come across a pattern: I simply do not have enough information to properly respond to these arguments. In this instance (which is the same for most of these reasons) the burden of proof lies not on me, but on the writers of the pamphlet. That is, they offer a statement and must therefore offer the evidence for it. It would be an absurd waste of my time to search through all the documents pertaining to the revised liturgy to try and find where it “gives us to understand” this mistaken idea about concelebration.

That being said, the pamphlet does not offer us any evidence to support there position and personally I cannot find any such evidence in the Mass. I heard of individual priests who allowed and encouraged the members of their congregations to extend their hands during the consecration or even to recite along with them the words of institution. These acts clearly violate not only Catholic theology but the intent of the New Mass.

The only structure of worship in the New Mass which could support the idea of universal concelebration is the ad populum orientation of the priest. This creates the impression that everyone is focused equally or in the same way on the altar and one could misinterpret that the priest and the people are therefore equally involved in the acts of consecration. That position is not, however, implicit, and further the priest facing the people is no were suggested or encouraged in the official documentation of the Mass. It is an alteration which, I think, can just as well be done away with.

I have never encountered anyone who perceives the Mass as teaching the idea of concelebration of the people unless they have been taught such by a priest or other trusted teacher. The idea simply is not intrinsic in the New Mass.

Reason 16

16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther’s refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.


The first question that must be addressed here is exactly how non-communal the Confiteor is in the traditional Mass. While it is true the priest himself alone recites it, the people would generally pray along side using their missals, as they did for most of the prayers. Further, the New Mass does not quiet do “away with” the Confiteor of the priest, rather it combines the two Confiteors together, though what the people recite more closely resembles the Confiteor of the priest.

The primary difference between the two Confiteors (besides their location within the Liturgy) is that the priest’s Confiteor includes the phrase “et vobis/vos, fratres” (“and you [pl] brethren”) where the other has “et tibi/te, pater” (“and you [sing] father”) when confessing and asking for prayer. Thus the priest ask for the prayers of the people, while the people (in the voice of the server) asks for the prayers of the priest.

At its core there is no theological problem with the people praying what was originally the priest’s Confiteor. They are within their theological right to ask each other for prayer. What is not communicated by this is any unique position of the priest as intercessor for the people. That is, this prayer structure does not make clear that the priest has, particularly in the Mass, a unique position in the economy of salvation.

I find it particularly unlikely that this change was made in attempt to pursue a Lutheran theology. More likely, it was oriented around the idea of ‘simplifying’ the Mass. If something is said twice, why not say it once instead? In addition, the Confiteor is no longer required as such, though a penitential rite still is. This broader penitential rite is the primary reason behind this change, not any attempt to supplant Catholic theology with Lutheran.

Reason 15

15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran “Prayer of the Faithful” in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant Error that all the people are priests.


This objections is problematic in several ways. The first and greatest is the declaration that it is a “Protestant Error” that all people are priest when, just two reasons earlier, this same pamphlet mentioned the “priesthood of the people.” Either there is a common priesthood of the people, or there is not, but it cannot be approved and denied as is supportive to the arguments here.

In the Book of First Peter the Apostle twice mentions the “royal priesthood,” that is, the common priesthood of all believers. By virtue of our baptism all Christians partake in Christ’s priesthood to varying degrees. Those who are confirmed share more fully in this priesthood, with Priests and then Bishops partaking most fully. Thus all people are, to some degree, priests.

The idea that the Prayer of the Faithful is entirely Lutheran is also incorrect. St. Justin Martyr discusses in his First Apology that the entire assembly would “stand up together and pray.” This is the intended origin of the Prayers of the Faithful, prayers which have no relation to the Eucharistic Sacrifice itself other than being part of the Mass. They can be omitted without causing any deficit in the Eucharist and those play no role in the priestly elements of the liturgy. This objection is, in the end, both misguided and illogical.

Reason 14

14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORD OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.


To make it clear, this is a heretical concept. Neither the faith of the people nor even their presence influences the success or failure of the institution of the Eucharist. Likewise, a lack of a Priest speaking the words of institution would mean that the Eucharistic transformation would not take place.

We must now ask if the New Mass actually implies this position, much less favors it. As again the pamphlet offers no specific examples, I must rely on my own experiences and a review of the relevant texts. Thus I may miss something of import, but I trust that any omission shall be made known to me.

Having considered this position and examined the four Eucharistic prayers (the prayers explicitly associated with the institution of the Eucharist) I found no implication such as suggested by this objection. The closest thing to an issue is the use of the sacrifice being offered by the people which is correct insofar as all the faithful take part in the sacrifice by virtue of their baptism.

Again this objection seems to stem more from deficient theology proclaimed in the “spirit of Vatican II,” a nebulous term often used to force false doctrines and inane liturgical ideas into use in many parishes. It is not uncommon to hear someone declare that the faith of the communicant is necessary or in someway related to the institution of the Eucharist, up to suggesting that proper faith is necessary in receiving the Eucharist for it to in fact be the Body of Christ. This position is clearly against the Church’s teaching.

Thus it is highly likely that many Masses have included this heretical teaching either in a homily or an alteration to the words of the Mass, but it is not supported by the texts themselves and thus is not flaw with the New Mass.

Reason 13

13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism). (Bolding in the original).


To start off with, Protestantism does not blur the difference between the two, it eliminates it entirely. Such a distinction does not even make itself present in Protestant thought outside of a consideration of the Old Testament.

The heart of this objection is an issue primarily of liturgical abuses and not of flaws in the liturgy itself. Within the New Mass there are elements that are absolutely and irrevocably reserved for the Priest, from the blessings to the Consecration to the Per Ipsum. In practice, however, people often assume certain parts of the Priests prayer, most often something such as the Per Ipsum. Further, many liturgical gestures are, again, reserved to the priest but have been subsumed by the people (such as standing during the consecration).

It is true that many of these abuses are more accessible because of the liturgical reform. The Priest’s prayers, having been in Latin and often silent, would be mostly inaccessible to the layman who desired to pray them. The strong desire in the modern presbyterate to make the mass entirely comprehendible has made it easier for these errors to creep in.

However, the New Mass does make a point of emphasizing that the people are also offering something in the Mass. It is perhaps then true that it does not do a particularly stellar job of differentiating between how the Priest offers (that is, the Body and Blood of Christ) and how the people offer. It is not again a fault inherent in the Liturgy, but one aspect given too great a position in misguided Liturgical interpretations. It would be patently obvious to anyone observing a properly celebrated New Mass that the Priest does something there entirely and absolutely different than what the people do.

Reason 12

12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).


Despite having grown up Protestant, I have no idea what doctrine is referred to here. The Mystical Presence of Christ is both a Protestant and Catholic doctrine. It is based off Sacred Scripture wherein Christ says “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

I cannot see how the Real Presence of Christ can possibly be confused with His Mystical Presence. The Priest does not attempt to consecrate the congregation, nor does he genuflect to them. These are two almost radically distinct concepts.

At best this objection could be considered to be referring to the rather real problem of emphasis. Many Masses today emphasize the Mystical Presence of Christ over and above the Real Presence, with priests telling people not to bow to Christ or instead to bow to each other. This is a valid concern, as the popular theology of the last fifty years (not the theology of the Second Vatican Council) makes the congregation out to be more important then the Eucharist. This can clearly be seen in the preference for church buildings with centered altars. This is not in itself a wrong design (St. Peters in Rome follows it) but the theology behind the decision is to emphasize the Mystical Presence of Christ.

This mistaken emphasis is again a result of the so-called spirit of Vatican II rather than by any intent by the council or revision of the Liturgy. The Council sought to remind us of the Mystical Presence (fearing it may be forgotten) but did not (in my eyes) intend to make it such a central issue and certainly did not intend for it to take preference over the Eucharist.

If there is one flaw with the traditional Mass, or more specifically with the way it is commonly approached, is that it does not offer a strong emphasis on the Mystical Presence of Christ. His Presence in the Eucharist, the Gospel, the person of the Priest, the Altar, and even Sacred Images is strong, but people tended to overlook His Mystical Presence. Today, sadly, we are suffering the opposite deficit, such that people would be unlikely to know where His Presence resides beyond among the members there present. And this is most lamentable.

In the end all these Presences of Christ must be remembered, but it also must be remembered that He is most fully, most completely Present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Most Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of our Faith.

Reason 11

11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord—the traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably. (Bolding in the original)


I have no idea how to answer this beyond suggesting attending a properly celebrated OF Liturgy. “Behold the Lamb of God,” “The Body of Christ,” “Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” not to mention bells, genuflecting and kneeling (again, when celebrated properly). The New Mass is rife with the symbols and references to the Real Presence of Christ.

It should be noted that not all Masses are celebrated in such a way that the Real Presence is clearly delineated, but that bears no effect on the liturgy’s capacity to manifest such Faith.

I cannot off the top of my head think of any major indicator of the Real Presence found in the traditional Mass which is not carried over into the New. Furthermore, these indicators are, in fact, more unmistakable because they are presented regularly (for better or worse) in the common language. Thus an uneducated man would not necessarily understand “Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum” but they will grasp “Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof” (as the revised translation states).

Again I will reiterate that there is found in the traditional Mass no great indication of the Real Presence that is not also found in the New Mass. They are, in this regard, essentially equal

Reason 10

10. Because “The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition . . . do not seem to us sufficient.”* (Same citation as #3).


This objection also suffers what is perhaps the greatest flaw in this pamphlet: a lack of information. Not only are we not offered what the ‘pastoral reasons’ are, we are given no understanding why they are not sufficient.

It is worth nothing at this point that the letter cited in most of these objections was written by two Cardinals to Pope Paul VI in 1969. The important thing here is the number: two. The remainder of the Cardinals, not to mention other archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and religious were not involved with this letter. I cannot say they did not support the letter, I do not know. But one must likewise acknowledge that at the very least, they did not actively and clearly support that sentiment. Thus were it says “seems to us” the speakers are only two (albeit high ranking) churchmen.

There were many and numerous reasons offered for the break with the traditional form of the Mass and it is far beyond the scope of this project to go into them. I would wager that many of them are, in my opinion, insufficient for certain changes, but I also think many of them would be legitimate reasons to seek a revision of the Liturgy.

In the end, I simply find it almost impossible to answer this with the amount of information given.

Reason 9

9. Because in less than seven years after [the] introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 — almost 50% (Holy See Statistics).


I’d like to see these statistics. The numbers I’ve found suggest the drop in priests moved from just under 420,000 to about 410,000 in the seven years after the revision of the liturgy, than continued to drop until it reached it’s all time low of just over 400,000 in 1990. That’s a whopping 5%. In order to get the statistics they use, one would further need to use the total number of diocesan and religious priests for the first number, they only use the diocesan priests for the second. Even then there low is only 253,000 or so, a full 10,000 more than the number given here.

Simple put, this reason is not in the least valid as it is presenting absolutely and completely false statistics.

However, it is true that priest numbers dropped about 5%. Why? It probably has less to do with the revision of the liturgy and more to do with the way the most learned Catholics presented the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Many seminaries taught that the Western Church would allow married priests soon and did not bother to instruct their seminaries on how to live a celibate life. And these men preceded to leave the priesthood when they found themselves incapable of leading the life no one prepared them for.

It is also interesting to note that at the present, diocesan numbers are up by 2,000 while religious priest numbers are down by over 10,000 (religious brothers are down by almost 25,000, sisters by a quarter million). The issue is not the Mass, but rather the entire way of living the Catholic life which was almost wholesale tossed out by people who pretended to understand the meaning of the Second Vatican Council.

Reason 8

8. Because “amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience . . .”* (Same citation as #3).


This objection comes with a serious lack of information. Who are the “best of the clergy,” what kind of “crisis of conscience” are they having, and why are they having it? It could just as easily say that “amongst the brightest of scientists the practical result is an agonizing uncertainty” and carry essentially the same amount of real meaning.

First and foremost, I have heard very little direct evidence from clergy that there was a “crisis of conscience” following the revision of the Liturgy. I have not seen a single other statement suggesting such a crisis occurred among all the “best of the clergy” (as the phrasing here suggests) though I have no doubt that there were priests whom this could be said about.

“Crisis of conscience” proves to be an equally problematic concept. It may simply mean that these aforementioned clergy could not celebrate the New Mass in clear conscience, but if that is the case, the question quickly is why? Do they believe it invalid, or that it is simply a less reverent form of the Mass? Or do they think it will lead the laity astray or wound their faith?

This reason offers, in the end, almost no real statement of value. It suggest many things but refuses to expand on them, leaving us completely at a loss to what is being said. One may do well to note that there is almost no record of priests surrendering their ministry as a result of this change and yet nearly all choose to follow the revision of the liturgy.

There may be some validity here but the phrasing and shortness of this reason obscures it completely, leaving only an all but meaningless sentence.

Reason 7

7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of our Lord: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).


I would like to first point out that the opening sentence seems largely unnecessary. We are always guided by the words of our Lord and there is no reason to think “By their fruits you shall know them” is any more related to a time of confusion than normal times. The phrasing attempts to create a sense of urgency that is not necessarily accurate.

It is true that the fruits of an activity are very important and I do not doubt these numbers (though I have not looked them up). That being said, there is no reason to believe Mass attendance is in fact the primary or even a good marker of positive fruits. There are several reasons for this: first, we know nothing about those people who have stopped attending. It is possible (though, I concede, not absolutely likely) that every single person of these 30% who stopped attending Mass were the people who never attended confession and received the Body and Blood of our Lord in an unworthy manner. By ceasing to attend Mass (where in they received Communion) they would cease to blaspheme the Lord (this is, it should be noted, not the best solution to the problem but it is a solution nonetheless).

Secondly, we do not know the true devotion of those who continued to attend Mass. It may be possible that they worshiped the Lord with greater reverence and received His Body and Blood in a more worthy manner.

Furthermore, we cannot rightly say Mass attendance dropped because of the reformation of the Liturgy. Again, I do not know the source of these numbers, but are they comparing numbers from the years after the Second Vatican Council to the numbers in 1975, or numbers before. I suspect the numbers started to fall after the Council and prior to the reform of the Liturgy as misguided priests and theologians began the proclaim certain things the Council never intended, such as the idea that missing Mass was not, in fact sinful, much less a mortal sin. Or it may be that the increase in dual income homes caused Sunday to become one of the few family days and more laissez-faire Catholics stopped attending regularly. There simply is not enough information to be had.

This objection also ties into the previous one in that I suspect if the entire New Mass was abrogated in favor of the traditional Mass, attendance would yet again drop. A transition is naturally going to scare people away who are not particularly strong in their faith.

Finally, this reason does not show a problem which is necessarily inherent in the New Mass, but may only reflect the manner in which it is celebrated. Thus liturgical abuses, rather than liturgical reforms, could be responsible for this change of attendance if it is in fact caused by the liturgy itself. Again, we simply do not, and probably never will, have enough information to make an accurate and useful judgement.

Reason 6

6. Because “Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of faith.”* (Same citation as #3).


There are two issues to address with this objection. The first is whether or not it is true. I think, the a certain degree, it is, but, more specifically, liturgical changes reveal any lack of catechesis that is already present.

By this I mean that, following the reform of the liturgy, as many wild and even dangerous liturgical experimentations were being carried out, the laity hardly batted an eye. If someone suggested it is better to receive Communion in the hand, sing poor songs out of key, repeat the words reserved to the priest, or cease attending to the Sacrament of Confession entirely, they followed along blindly. While the reforms might have exasperated the situation, things were clearly pretty bad to begin with. If nothing else, these liturgical changes have revealed to us just how much we are in need of catechetical reform in the Church.

The second issue, I believe, is a bit bigger in relation to the validity of this argument. And it is simply this: at this point, the traditional Mass is a fresh change in the liturgy, while the New Mass is the norm. A majority of Catholics have spent a majority of their lives attending Mass under the reformed liturgy. Sadly, a majority of Catholics still show “signs of uneasiness and lessening of faith” and who would be, I believe, seriously hampered by major new alterations to the liturgy.

In the end, this reason does not argue for the EF over the OF at all. Rather it argues for whatever the status quo is and thus can be used now, thirty years after it was first suggested, to the exact opposite effect its authors intended. It is essentially a bad argument through and through.

Reason 5

5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but “all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all.”*(Bolding in the original, same citation as #3).


This objection is, overall, very straightforward, but yet again I find myself up against a lack of information. The writer claims that the New Mass leaves very little of perennial value but leaves us in a complete lurch as to what elements of the traditional Mass are of perennial value, because clearly the whole Mass cannot be (at least in this definition), as certain elements of it are lifted wholesale into the New Mass.

If this reason means to suggest that almost nothing of unending value was maintained in the New Mass, then many things long considered valuable in the Mass were not so. The Kyrie, the Our Father, the Sacred Scriptures, and the Consecration itself all are found in the New Mass and, of themselves, maintain their internal grace and efficaciousness. The graces of the Our Father are still present and it has, if not a greater presence, than at least an equal one in the reformed liturgy.

As mentioned before (#4) some things find less of a presence than perhaps they should in the celebration of the New Mass, but are afforded pride of place in the intent of the Second Vatican Council. But it is absurd to suggest that “all” of lasting value is given at best a minor place in the New Mass if for no other reason than the greatest value of the traditional Mass (the consecration) is still found wholly sustained in the New Mass.

However, without specific examples of what is lacking in the New Mass it is difficult to discuss this issue. The prayers I consider to be among the most important (listed in the second paragraph) are found in the New Mass, as are the prayers for the Pope and the Bishop, the living and the dead, the preface, the per Ipsum, and numerous others. Properly celebrated, the New Mass bears a striking resemblance to the traditional Mass , with a few major exceptions (and these being, generally, additions rather than subtractions). It seems to me that the elements of greatest value are maintained, while other parts, still valuable but perhaps less so, have been changed or removed. Whether this change is an improvement is not the issue here, but rather that the changes are, in the whole, of lesser importance than the things which were maintained.

Reason 4

4. Because the New Mass represents “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” which, in fixing the “canons,” provided an “insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery.”* (Bolding in the original, same citation as #3).


I am firstly curious as to the use of quotations around “canons,” as it is neither a direct quote nor a reference to a disputed term. The canons really are canons. Further, I wonder if the fixing of the canons did, in fact, prove an “insurmountable barrier”to a corruption of the Mass. The Old Catholics (among others) certainly began to hold incompatible Eucharistic beliefs.

Session XXII of the Council of Trent was held on the Sacrifice of the Mass and covered a variety of things, from its sacrificial nature to the water mixed with the wine prior to the consecration. The part that concerns us most, however, is Chapter IV, On The Canon of the Mass. I will quote it in full.

And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

The main point of this chapter is that the sacred Canon contains nothing of error and is pure of holiness. I do not dispute this at all. It is therefore good to not that what is now referred to as the First Eucharistic Prayer is the Roman Canon as laid down by the Council of Trent (albeit, at least currently, poorly translated). Thus we must accept Eucharistic Prayer I as not drifting from Session XXII. But what of the other three main Eucharistic prayers (and numerous additions)?

These further Eucharistic Prayers were added as options in the Mass for a variety of reasons. One of them is an ancient Greek Anaphora, one was selected for it’s brevity, but all were added as an attempt to restrain rampant liturgical abuses. Many priests were experimenting with the words of the liturgy because, for one reason or another, they decided the Roman Canon simply was not sufficient.

It is obvious today that despite the addition of the other Eucharistic Prayers, experimentation is still rampant. It would seem fairly legitimate to suggest that these additional prayers do not curb liturgical abuse, and, in some ways, encourage it. When the four main Eucharistic prayers were set out, it was intended that Prayer I (the Roman Canon) and Prayer III be used for Sundays or Holy Days. What in fact happened was that Eucharistic Prayer II (the brief one) got used almost exclusively, the point of the almost complete disappearance of the Roman Canon (I have heard it only on certain Feast Days, the rare Sunday, and often when a certain priest I knew celebrated daily Mass at the seminary).

To return to the objection, is the New Mass a departure from the theology surrounding the fixed Canon? No, as it was firmly intended that priests would only celebrate the OF using one of the Eucharistic Prayers set out by Rome. Has this in fact happened? Sadly, no.

Personally, I strongly prefer the Roman Canon over the other Eucharistic Prayers because of its rich language and symbolism (there are very few actions belonging to the priest in the other prayers). I believe that, while the New Mass does not actual differ from the Tridentine theology, the decision to include so many Eucharistic Prayers does not edify the Mass and is probably more problematic than it is worth. That being said, it does not in any way decrease the intrinsic value of those Masses. It is rather like an open safe. On its own it is not a crime, but it encourages crime. As such the additional Eucharistic Prayers are not wrong but, in the current climate, they encourage liturgical abuse.

Reason 3

3. Because the New Mass leads us to think “that truths . . . can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever.”*
*Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969 enclosing A Critical Study of The Novus Ordo Missae.


The third reason again raises the dilemma of understanding brought about by unclear writing, primarily due to length. Its central tenet is that unchangeable truths are being changed, but it does not say which “truths” are those being changed by the New Mass. I have a feeling there in someway contained under the ellipses.

Perhaps, however, the reason is only suggesting that since what had not changed in many years (the Liturgy) is being changed, one would believe other things (dogma, Truth) could also be changed. As it says “leads us to think” does not straight out say the New Mass does proclaim that truths can be changed.

This objection is absolutely correct in its declaration that it is wrong to accept that truths can be changed without violating the deposit of faith. One simply cannot decide one day that lay people can consecrate the Eucharist or that abortion is okay. These are truths embedded in the Faith of the Church and they are eternal.

The relation of these truths to the New Mass is very tenuous, however. As far as I am aware, there is no part of the revised liturgy that suggests any truths are flexible or ignorable. Again I must assume the issue is with the change in Liturgy itself.

This, does not, however, bear any real relation to the possibility that the deposit of faith can be changed. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Church understands the differences between Traditions handed down from the Apostles which make up the aforementioned deposit, and those traditions which, while often holy and good in themselves, are outside of that deposit.

Thus, to a certain degree, the liturgy is a changeable tradition and was finally codified at the council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Thus an alteration to it is not infidelity to the sacred deposit of faith, though it should be understood that simply because it is not heresy does not make it inherently legitimate.

Reason 2

2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually “deal with a fundamental renovation . . . a total change . . . a new creation.” (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass.)


It seems to me this is a very straight forward objection, that the New Mass is not an organic development out of the older rite, that it consists of an abrupt departure from the past. This is, I think, a largely accurate statement.

The question now is whether this is a bad thing and, if so, whether it is sufficiently problematic to suggest a rejection of the New Mass.

As to the first: the phrasing used by Msgr. Bugnini (who was, more precisely, the secretary of the commission in charge of the reform of the liturgy) is not in and of itself negative. In fact, it is meant in a positive way, as the “new creation” line is a quote from Sacred Scripture (2 Cor. 5:17). Furthermore, the liturgical reforms were an attempt to capture some of the earliest practices of the Church in worship.

An understanding of the Church’s traditional relation to the Liturgy is no in order. Generally, liturgy was allowed to undergo what was termed ‘organic development,’ something which was in fact mandated by the Second Vatican Council in any liturgical reforms. It is clear that, for the most part, the liturgical changes preceding the Second Vatican Council (as well as those immediately after) where generally more toward the ‘organic’ line, being slight changes (such as the introduction of the vernacular into an otherwise-unchanged Mass) and generally limited in character.

Following the Council, however, people began to interpret the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II and to perform wholesale alterations on the liturgy. Many modern celebrations of the OF of the Mass bear little resemblance to the EF and can little be considered organic developments.

But was the Mass as envisioned by the reformers undergoing only a slight change? I would certainly say it is slighter than the change that has been enforced. Traditional chant, Latin, ad orientem worship, reverent silence, and many other things now considered hallmarks of the Traditional Mass were supposed to be a natural and integral part of the New Mass, but for whatever reason they were dropped. However, the choice to have a commission reform the liturgy does, I think, for any change farther away from organic development, though the end result should have had much more in common with the Traditional Mass.

I believe I have largely answered the second question in answering the first: as the Mass is commonly celebrated, it differs greatly from the Traditional Mass in ways that cannot be considered good. As to how the Mass is presented in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the reformed liturgy, it is far more reverent and not particularly far removed from the Traditional Mass.

I do not, however, believe the change is sufficient to declare the New Mass to be intrinsically unusable or otherwise dangerous, but I do accept that one can rightly prefer the Traditional Mass as an organic development of the early Church. All and all I think this objection raises a valid concern about the common celebration of the OF, but one which ought to be addressed more to those in charge of the liturgy, rather than as an act of opposition to that liturgy.

It is not, then, a legitimate reason to wholly appose the OF, but it is a legitimate reason to have a preference for the EF of the Mass.

Reason 1

1: Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics! (Bolding in the original)

This first objection starts us off in a difficult place because it is not particularly clear in its meaning. This may be because the pamphlet format does not allow for a lot of space to present a position, the author thinks it is clear, or the author is intentionally obfuscating his meaning to try and improve his position. For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the first reason is the accurate one.

Therefore we now need to attempt to discern the exact meaning of this objection. The primary difficulty is in the first clause, that the “New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Faith” (and likewise that the traditional Mass is).

It is possible this is intended to mean that the traditional Mass offers an absolute and unambiguous display of the entire Catholic Faith. However, it is quite clear that any given Mass does not proclaim the inerrancy of the Bible, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, or true sexual morality, all of which are part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Thus it is safe to assume this is not the intended meaning.

A more likely meaning is that there is nothing within the traditional Mass which can be misconstrued, that the presentation of the Faith is clear and absolute, where as the New Mass can {easily) be misunderstood. To at least some degree, this is not true. The Old Catholics (who deny the validity of the First Vatican Council) celebrated for many years this same Mass without understanding it to unequivocally proclaim the infallibility of the Holy Father. In fact, following their split with the Holy See, the Old Catholic churches began to admit female priests, accept homosexual activities, and perform so-called open communion. The unequivocal Profession of Faith in the traditional Mass is simply not seen so far as the Old Catholic Church is concerned.

And now to the second half of that clause, that the lack of an unequivocal Profession leads the New Mass to being ambiguous and Protestant. Because of the pamphlet format, the authors are unable to offer to us what exactly is ambiguous about the New Mass and I am therefore unable to respond precisely.

I will, however, say that ‘ambiguous’ cannot be considered synonymous with ‘Protestant.’ The latter is itself a very vague term, encompassing a wide array of church-communities linked only by their common separation from the greater Christian body. Many Protestant churches have a less ambiguous world view than the Catholic Church has long held, refusing to accept that there could, for example, be both a literal and metaphorical interpretation of Sacred Scripture, much less the four types listed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I believe, however, that the intent of the authors (in which I may be wrong) is to suggest that the New Mass may be interpreted in a Protestant light. Elsewhere on the pamphlet is the quote “. . . Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant” (quoted from M.G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, of whom I can find no more information than this quote). Coming from a Protestant, Evangelical background myself, I find it highly unlikely Siegvalt ever actually attended any of the liturgies I have attended, as all of them offer numerous reasons for a Evangelical Protestant to be upset, from Mary to the True Presence (which shall, in context of the New Mass, be addressed more thoroughly later).

If it is somehow true that there is nothing to upset a Protestant in the New Mass, than I would except the supposition that it is ambiguous and problematic. The second half of this reason is highly valid in the Tradition of the Church, that the law of prayer is the law of belief (lex orandi, lex credendi). If we proclaimed in the New Mass an unequivocal Protestant Profession of Faith, those who partook could, in many ways, be considered Protestant (assuming, of course, that their private devotions likewise followed a Protestant fashion).

However, I cannot see this as the case for two reasons: the first that, as mentioned above, the New Mass does not seem to be extremely Protestant (insofar as this former-Protestant confesses); secondly, an ambiguous prayer does not proclaim a belief system at all. If we accept that the New Mass is completely ambiguous, than at best we can claim that those who partake in that liturgy are not being formed in any faith, Catholic or Protestant. If only partly ambiguous, than they are being weakly formed in the Catholic Faith.

It is clear, in the end, that this objection is not entirely without merit. If it is true that Protestant theologians find less objection with the New Mass because it obfuscates the Catholic truth, this must be seriously considered. Perhaps (and I find this likely) most such obfuscation is the result of a poor translation of the Latin, which, insofar as English is concerned, is being worked on. It is also possible that in someway the New Mass lacks a certain unequivocal character. This does not, however, mean the New Mass is in someway Protestant or worthy only of being scraped, as the traditional Mass is not in every way unequivocal. It does not, therefore, follow that the New Mass is here in any particularly grand way all that different from the traditional Mass.