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.