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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 25, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 18, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 4, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
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.
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
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
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)