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.