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.