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.