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.