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.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 21, 2009
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.
*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.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)