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.