Reason 40

40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priest’s fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest’s fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which “only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.”* (Same citation as #3).


First, a lesson in definition: to eliminate means to remove entirely. Thus when “only three” or “one” remain then it is not eliminated. But eliminate is a much more potent word than “reduction.”

Further, the altar stone and relic are still required. They have simply been ignored by many who construct new churches. Thus this list can be shortened to purification and preservation of the priest’s fingers. However I have seen many priests purify their fingers in the New Mass exactly as I have seen others do it in the traditional Mass, so it seems perhaps only the preservation from profane contact remains (and I do not doubt there are priests who refrain from profane contact).

Secondly, it is a stretch to suggest the ‘elimination’ of the altar stone, relics, and altar cloths is a repudiation of the Real Presence. The first two seem most perfectly revealing not of the Real Presence but of the Heavenly Liturgy. The third, as far as I am aware, has no relation whatsoever to the Real Presence. There may be a good liturgical connection, but since it is completely lost on me (a pretty serious amateur liturgist) the reduction of altar cloths would in no way harm the laity’s belief in the Real Presence.

It is true that belief in the Real Presence has decreased, but this is clearly the result (or mostly the result) of poor catechesis. Many teachers of the faith either refused to teach this belief, explicitly taught it wrong, or touched on it only briefly. The New Mass itself is not at fault. Further, many (if not all) of these things do not exist at all in the Eastern Liturgies, liturgies which are as ancient as the traditional Mass and just as venerable. Belief in the Real Presence is not locked into a small subset of actions and items, to be implicitly repudiated by the alteration of four things.

Reason 39

39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priest do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.


This reason can be simplified: “we don’t accept the New Mass because we don’t accept it.”

The fact that people do not accept something is in no way a valid argument for not accepting it. Just because there are ‘good’ (who’s definition are we using) people who oppose Pro-Life activities does not mean that is a valid reason to oppose them.

Furthermore, who are these theologians, canonist, and priests? All we are told about them is that they are ‘good,’ the definition of which might be “opposes the New Mass.” In the end, very, very few theologians, priests, canonists, etc. refused to accept the New Mass and many who did were clearly not good, pursuing many incredibly heretical activities (some sedevacantist groups which formed following the Second Vatican Council have already ‘ordained’ women and accepted homosexual ‘marriage’). Clearly then, there are both good and bad Catholics who both accept and reject the New Mass.

This entire objection has several logical fallacies, from begging the question to fallacy by example. It has nothing good or useful to offer the discussion.

Reason 38

38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and by irreverence.


This objection has a lot of little problems with its reasoning. Firstly, the priest is not allowed to “deviate as he fancies.” There are set variations that are allowed, no more. Many priest do deviate beyond what is allowed, but that is not the fault of the liturgy.

No where is it suggested that ‘creativity’ is the driving force behind these variations. Rather, they were included for a couple of reasons: first, to allow the Mass to be tailored to specific occasions (for example, a Mass for justice offered on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade); second, to keep the laity from sliding into a stupor of sorts (all too easy when you here the same words over and over again in the vernacular); third, to attempt to access the treasure of liturgical tradition. Personally I only find the first reason particularly compelling; the variations there are mostly of the preface and the other changeable prayers.

Secondly, as mentioned above, there already are changeable parts of the Mass which vary daily. While these alterations are not the choice of the presider, it does mean that the Mass is not identical from day to day, though it is from place to place. The thing is, one cannot attend Mass in two places at once (unless one has the charism of bilocation) and so one only sees the weekly change to the liturgy.

Further, how must disorder result? In the broadest sense one can say that things are not absolutely ordered as everything is not identical. However it seems odd to go so far as to call it disorder. Disorder generally results when there is a lack of authority over an activity, where all the members within it do as they wish. If the ministers of a Mass (be it priests, deacons, servers, lectors, etc.) all do their own thing then yes, disorder would result.

Finally yes, if disorder did reign a certain lack of respect would be inherent. On perhaps a nit-picky level, a lack of respect is inherently irreverent; the last word is generally defined as a lock of respect. Including both words just makes the issue sound more serious than it is.

In the end, it is true that poorly performed liturgies often end up irreverent, but this is not the fault of the liturgy, but of the ministers. The fact that priests choose to randomly interrupt the liturgy, use water guns to spray holy water, dress up as clowns, or that choirs sing the most insipid songs man has put to paper is not the fault of the liturgy. It is a fault of poor catechesis and acts of rebellion by those who should no better.

Irreverence stems first and foremost from a lack of obedience, choosing one’s own actions above the lawful authority, in this case, the liturgy. An obedient priest, no matter the choices in the liturgy, will celebrate a reverent Mass; it is the disobedient priests who have brought about such problems as this reason presents.

Reason 37

37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance Error.


I admit, I’m curious, how does something convey a concept without conveying the appearance? The phrase ‘despite appearances’ suggest that there what is presented is not what is actually there but the way liturgy works is that what is presented is all that is there (that is, when the liturgy says “Glory to God” that is what it is conveying, the idea and act of giving glory to God. Liturgy simply cannot deal in innuendos, sarcasm, or other forms of double meaning). Thus either both the appearances and conveyance of the New Mass is Catholic, or they both are not. It cannot go two ways.

Because of this firstly, I am inclined to doubt that the New Mass conveys Modernism. Furthermore, the idea that there are “tactics of Modernism” is, in my opinion, almost laughable. At best Modernism is an amorphous grouping of ideas and individuals who have widely divergent ideas and intents. The label itself is primarily one referring to a wide variety of Heresies which, to one degree or another, reject the supernatural influence of God in the world (that is, they essentially say the Christian history is no less likely than the Hindu history).

As has been a constant refrain in these writings, this reason does not offer sufficient explanation of what “vague terminology” is being used to insinuate error. How vague is vague? The traditional Mass does not include the entire Summa so obviously it is more vague than that work. I personally do not find much vague in the phrasing of the New Mass, nor do I feel error is being presented therein. This reason itself could be accused of using “vague terminology” to “insinuate Error,” perhaps even to further Modernism. I would not know, the tactics of Modernism being so broad and secretive.

Simply put, this objection says nothing and tries to say it very loudly. It ends up being simply vague and uncertain, proclaiming a shadowy enemy one cannot pin down. Modernism is wrong, but certainly has no grand organization and therefore must be fought on the level of concept, not tactics.

Reason 36

36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the traditional Mass. (Bolding in the original).

Two issues come immediately to mind. First, how exactly do we know profanations of Holy Eucharist occur more frequently. Has there been a study done? I doubt it. This point then becomes highly difficult to prove (or disprove, but the burden of proof is on proving it).

Secondly, in what way is the nature of the New Mass such as to promote profanations? I find this dubious first in the use of the word ‘nature,’ for the nature (being the essential characteristics) of the New Mass is not profanations. If it was, it would be impossible to celebrate the New Mass without it being, inherently (by nature) a massive profanation and it is very clearly not.

Furthermore, we again do not have any information as to what part of the New Mass leads it promote profanations. Two things come immediately to my mind as making profanations easier: Communion under both Species and reception in the hand. The latter is a tolerated abuse, which, in the opinion of the author, can simply be done away with. The former is, again in my opinion, vastly overused. When the concept was first promoted it was done so under the idea that Communion in both kinds would be limited to special occasions, such as First Communions, Weddings, or perhaps the Feast of Corpus Christi. Thus in an ideal liturgical situation ninety-five percent of all situations in the New Mass would be reception of the Sacred Species under the form of bread on the tongue. There is no more chance for profanation there than in the traditional Mass.

Abuses, tolerated or not, contribute to almost all instances which allow for profanation. If one was to be particularly uptight in this regard (which has happened in Church history) it would be best to refuse communion to the laity as often as possible, allowing reception under only the most controlled circumstances. Thus because the laity are allowed access to the Holy Species profanations will occur, but the New Mass, when celebrated correctly, certainly does not encourage them.

Reason 35

35. Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. “Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it . . .” (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum).


It is interesting to note that this quote from Paul VI is from his Apostolic Constitution promoting the new Roman Missal. It is speaking about the traditional Mass while promoting the revised liturgy.

I would agree wholeheartedly that the traditional Mass is an excellent source of saints, but this in no way invalidates the revised liturgy. In the first place, the traditional Mass has been around, in its present form, for 400 years, with something rather close for at least a 1,000 years before that. The revised Mass has been around for 40 which is, generally speaking, no where near enough time to get canonization (it usually takes a hundred years at minimum, witness St. Damien of Molokai).

Furthermore, the eastern Liturgies of the Church have also forged innumerable saints, such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius, St. John Chrystostom, and St. Anthony the Great. This fact then does not mean we should only celebrate the eastern Liturgies, but that they are good and worthy of reverence.

In the end, this reason is a very strong argument for the perpetuation of the traditional Mass. As such a grand source of spiritual nourishment the traditional Mass should be reverenced and embraced. It is not inherently better (though it may be) but it is inherently good and worthy of our attention. Most Catholics would do good to notice that and keep in mind what food it was that sustained St. Damien, St. Pio, and St. Faustina.

Reason 34

34. Because show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! (Bolding in the original).


This reason is very difficult to deal with simply because I cannot find these statics. At all. The data on the rate of Catholic conversions seems to be either unavailable or well hidden. Thus I cannot comment on the veracity of this claim.

However, because of the statistics offered in Reason 9 (which in fact cited a source) were incorrect, I am inclined to doubt these numbers. Recently a non-scientific study found around 100,000 coverts to the Catholic Church. The numbers may have been as low as 10,000 in the past, I don’t know, but I find the 100,000 number fifty years ago doubtful, primarily because of population. In 1965 (arguably the tail end of the grand conversion, if it existed) the Catholic population sat at 45.6 million, out of about 194 million people. With these conversion numbers, every ten years ought to have 1 million conversions, or, 2 percent of the total Catholic population in 1965. And those would only be conversions in the past ten years, not counting the years before that.

I think it likely that the numbers given in the pamphlet reflect, at best, the absolute highest conversion rate any year had prior to the revision of the liturgy and then the absolute lowest in the years following.

Again, however, I simple cannot look at the actual numbers and do not trust this statistic. If I can find viable evidence, I shall deal with it then.

Reason 33

33. Because Protestans who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks “Why did we convert?”


First, a personal testimonial: no, it’s not. Every Catholic convert from Protestantism I know finds the New Mass (pretty much the only one most of us have ever attended) to be an experience unlike anything we grew up with. There is not a Protestant assembly (beyond High Church Anglican) that has a Eucharistic tradition anything like any Mass (even the most horrible, horribly abused Masses) I have ever seen.

The Julian Green comment is very interesting. I assume, as no further detail is given, Julian Green (a.k.a. Julien Green) is the American Novelist who converted to Catholicism in 1916, when he himself was only 16 (he lived predominately in Paris, but never was a French citizen). At this point his conversion was very much into the traditional Mass, and this question “Why did we convert?” would not have been raised for liturgical reasons. It is possible he raised the question 60 years later, but he had lived outside the Protestant circle for so long (and had spent very few years there to begin with) his opinion is certainly not all that forceful.

Further, there is strong evidence that Green spent much of his life struggling deeply with mortal sin, and certainly surrendered to it on several occasions (even to the point of leaving the Church for a decade). This does not, of course, automatically disqualify him from being correct, but it does inherently taint anything he has to say on the Church. A man refusing to follow the Church’s teaching in one thing cannot be trusted to be a good voice for the good of the Church in another.

All in all, this reason does not offer a lot in the way of saying anything.

Reason 32

32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!


Bull.

Yes, there are many English martyrs following Henry VIII’s break with Rome (perhaps the most famous being St. Edmund Campion). But they were killed for refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the King in all things religious or simple because they declared themselves to be Catholic (which is kind of the norm for a Jesuit priest). None of them were even given the opportunity to participate in the Anglican liturgy, much less killed because of their refusal.

The opposition to the English church was not one of liturgy, but one of authority. They refused to throw away the Holy Father so cavalierly. Many of these martyrs lived and died before the Council of Trent codified the Mass as we know it, and changes in the liturgy were in fact not uncommon (within reason). These Holy Martyrs underwent death almost exclusively because they refused to renounce the Pope (St. Campion was offered riches should he just reject the Catholic faith).

Finally, this reason assumes that the New Mass is similar to the Anglican Mass which I find simply to be a tenuous position, as noted above.

Let us not take the Holy Memory and Blessed Lives of these great martyrs for our own gain, nor twist them to preserve our ends. They died in a defiance to any who would dare separate themselves from Holy Peter and the One Church founded upon him, coming down to us from the Apostles and through the Heirs of the Apostles.

Reason 31

31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer’s heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.


Several issues arise with this objection. Firstly, the exact nature of the heresy of the Anglican Mass is left untouched. In modern times it is certainly clear that most Anglican liturgies are heretical in many wide and varied ways, but at the point of Cranmer’s writing the Anglican Church largely held to the ancient Catholic Beliefs with the main exception of the Papal Primacy. This of course made it’s presence known in the liturgy, but it was only a minor part of it. Thus it is quite conceivable that any similarity between the New Mass and the Anglican Mass is of things which are not heretical.

In addition, if the New Mass resembles the Anglican Mass, that is no indication that one was drawn from the other. Both of them have their roots in the Latin liturgy and both have access to the same historical documents. Because two cars both have four wheels and four doors does not mean on of the manufacturers copied the other, they both worked from the same source.

Further, the second half of this reason is almost nonsensical. I think the implication is that the revised liturgy is promoted in the same way as the Anglican liturgy was at the time of Cranmer, but I do not understand what is meant by ‘promoted.’ They may mean the way in which the change of liturgy was brought to people, but I am not sure there is another way other than to release a revised Missal. It happened following Trent as well. I cannot provide much more response to this as I do not understand it.

The truly absurd part of this objection is, to me, the idea that the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer’s Mass. Having perused the text of Cranmer’s revision, I feel it more closely resembles a vernacular version of the traditional Mass than it does the New Mass. There are quite a few major elements found in Cranmer’s liturgy that are in no way present in the revised Catholic Liturgy. Further, the Anglican Mass does away with many elements still found completely in the New Mass, such as the Confiteor and the intercessions to the saints.

I can find no good evidence to suggest that Cranmer’s liturgy found its way into the New Mass. The loosest bit of correlation therein proves to causation.

Reason 30

30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship services cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.


There are a few major flaws with this argument. First, the singular nature of the Spouse of Christ has no effect on the remainder of the argument. No religion, properly speaking, can have worships serves which serve religions at enmity with it. Multiple religions can be served by one service when all the religions are so meaningless as to find no objection in the worship of another religion (why bother with separate religions, if that is the case?). This clause just is here to give the appearance of more weight to the argument.

Secondly and more importantly, this reason does the same thing Reason 25, that is, it assumes the New Mass serves religions that are at enmity with the Catholic Church. A properly celebrated Mass, whether the traditional or revised liturgy, is not accepted by Protestants as something good and akin to their religion. They found, almost universally, that the Catholic Mass is at enmity with their religion (unless they choose not to pay attention to what is actually happening and being said, then they might as well attend a Hindu service). There is simply no reason to assume the New Mass serves Protestants or anyone at enmity with the Catholic Church.

Reason 29

29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the truth! (Bolding in the original).


What is a half-heresy? I was under the impression that something is either heretical or it is not. Heresy means simply wrong teaching, a teaching cannot be both wrong and not-wrong at the same time.

Furthermore, an ambiguity has difficulty favoring anything, as it is ambiguous. It could not favor heresy, but it equally could not favor orthodoxy. At best an ambiguity is unclear and could go either way, being neither really positive or negative.

This reason fails to offer any hint as to what ambiguities are favoring heresy. To proclaim hidden heresies necessitates a clear presentation of what they are, as their very nature makes them difficult to find. I can make no progress with this reason, either refuting it or accepting it as rational without more evidence. It sits now simply as a proclamation of uncertainty.

Reason 28

28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending Catholic function.


For the first time I want to say that this objection, to one degree, does not go far enough. For not only are there hymns Protestant in sentiment, there are hymns Protestant in creation. It is not uncommon for truly Protestant music to be sung at the Catholic Mass.

But does this reflect on the quality of the New Mass? Not at all. The change in music is a liturgical abuse, pure and simple. The Second Vatican Council called for Gregorian Chant to retain the pride of place in the liturgy, along with Latin and the organ. All three seemed to have vanished. The New Mass is not supposed to be celebrated with poor music with insipid lyrics; it should have the same quality music as has been formally used.

Furthermore, it would be good to note that not all Catholic hymns of old have been thrown out. They are simply less common because of the ramped idea that the Mass should be perpetually modern, that the music must reflect the feel-good ideas of the day. Music directors have been calling for new music not because the old is bad, but because they want the freedom to do whatever they want within the liturgy.

The failure of beauty is not something intrinsic to the revision of the liturgy, but is part of the grand error enshrined under the title “Spirit of Vatican II.” The Council never intended for the Church to fade into the rest of the world, they wanted the world to be drawn into the Church.

Reason 27

27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is “double-tongued” and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: “Cursed be . . . the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many” (Sirach 28:13).


This reason has two parts, the latter dependent on the former. I have no problem with the idea that something double-tongued is offensive to God. The question here is whether the New Mass is “double-tongued.”

Yet again this objection does not offer anything specific as to what kind of ambiguity the New Mass pleases Protestants with. As I have mentioned before, I have not met or heard of a Protestant who finds the New Mass particularly Protestant. In fact, the only comments I have heard in favor of it over the traditional Mass is that it is offered in the vernacular. Every other Protestant objection to the Mass is found both in the traditional and revised liturgy.

Further, it might be good to note that perhaps this ambiguity pleases Catholics while pretending to please Protestants, we just can’t know. That’s the problem with ambiguity, it is just so ambiguous. A claim of ambiguity is simple not convincing of anything. The New Mass is still abhorred by many Protestants for being so opposed to their tradition, they simply are not pleased by it.

Reason 26

26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord” (Par. 7 Introd. To the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69). (Bolding in the original).


I have trouble responding to this objection simply because I cannot find a copy of the Introduction to the New Missal and thus cannot verify this quote nor find its context. As such I shall assume it is an accurate quotation and that is not altered significantly by the surrounding paragraphs.

The first thing I must then raise is that Protestants have no definition of the Mass as it is a Catholic act, just as Catholics have no definition of Muslim Friday prayer. Further, if we choose to substitute the phrase “Lord’s Supper” for Mass there would still remain no Protestant definition, as Protestantism is at best a nebulas group which can find no agreement on anything, much less what actually matters.

Let us address now the actual paragraph. The word ‘synaxis’ is the most problematic, but it is simply an eastern word for an assembly for liturgical purposes, which the Mass is. Further, every statement in that quotation is accurate and correct. The only problem with it is that it is incomplete; that is, if one takes it to be the full definition of the Mass (the clear implication of the preceding sentence) one is grandly mistaken. But it seems clear to me that the passage itself does not suggest that this is the only, or even the most important, of the aspects of the Mass.

Thus Paragraph 7 simply proclaims that the Mass is an assembly of the faithful, which has always been true. While it is legitimate for a priest to celebrate the Mass without a congregation, it has never been the desire of the Church for this to be the norm, or even preferred. The people have always been called for worship, to come together, to be a sacred synaxis; that is the whole aim of Sunday, to come together to the Sacrifice of the Lord.