Rome, September 25th, 1969
Most Holy Father,
Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others,
the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium
ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy
prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the
sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the
following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the
work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls,
shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider
the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course
be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both
as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the
Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed
at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy
directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break
with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding
good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us
sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that
all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it
subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions
already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have
always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or
ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine
to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms
have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could
lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful
who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable
lessening of faith.
Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising
crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour
notice daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach
Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock,
cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly
solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church.
It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good
of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects
have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the
abrogation of that law.
Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of
such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity
of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our
common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing
to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum
of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply
loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.
_________________________
- THE ACCOMPANYING STUDY -
BRIEF SUMMARY
I: History of the Change.
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal
Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal
Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every
possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II: Definition of the Mass.
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed
upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody
renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III: Presentation of the Ends.
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed
to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are
only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV:- and of the essence.
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in
it is implicitly repudiated.
V:- and of the four elements of the sacrifice.
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant
appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the
true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI: The destruction of unity.
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of
worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New
Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by
the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.
VII: The alienation of the Orthodox.
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate
the East.
VIII: The abandonment of defences.
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against
the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences
of the deposit of Faith.
__________
I
HISTORY OF THE CHANGE
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required
to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called
"normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious
misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non
placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum),
and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke
of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on
the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention
of it.
In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution
Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New
Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the
intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such,
were ever asked to give their views about it.
In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal
promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great
part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was
for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice
for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of
the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual
nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet,
the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed
to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred
Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".
This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For
the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks
to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures
of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the
liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better.
They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy,
and one which they would never have wanted changed.
The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most
dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how
its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered
a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy,
nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this
should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the
liturgical piety of Christians.
REJECTED BY SYNOD
Sine the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed
as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance
rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial
judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people -
least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy
Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the
new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the
Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution
itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this
reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it
and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution
Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be
reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio
clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated
corresponds with this original intention.
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of
such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already
made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points
every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.
__________
II
DEFINITION OF THE MASS
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of
the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter
on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":
"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of
the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest,
to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ,
"where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community
in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper",
and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56).
This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over
by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what
He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very
least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice,
or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the
intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of
the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the
essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its
true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic
values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore,
at least in practice, to their denial.
In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating
the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently",
for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"
(Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual
presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative
plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and
physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.
In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word"
and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation
that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as
of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up
and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two
parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbol
value. More will be said about this point later.
This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all
acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are,
separately in an absolute sense.
We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper
or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's
Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the
Eucharistic Liturgy.
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon
the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal
of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the
Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the
Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive,
while the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.
We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and
throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and
reiterated.
__________
III
PRESENTATION OF THE ENDS
We now come to the ends of the Mass.
1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the
Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ
in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the
world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a
body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).
This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance
of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the
Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and
from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the
Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the
Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once
a year.
2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has
been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission
of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment
and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly
instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in
the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in
this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the
Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application
of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that
the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.
3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely
necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the
Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right
other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the
nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts
between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into
the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into
a "spiritual drink".
"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity
we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the
fruit of the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become
for us the bread of life (or spiritual drink)".
There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of
the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might
mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here,
as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only
spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually"
(not substantially) changed.
SUPPRESSION OF GREAT PRAYERS
In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results
from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae
substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti"
was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to
his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation
of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present
moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it
might ascend "cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the
divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed
this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic
prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between
divine and human sacrifice.
Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up
scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious
ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union
of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves;
offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the
Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the
uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation
in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical
meeting, or a charity banquet.
__________
IV
THE ESSENCE
We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.
The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It
is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people.
And for these reasons:
1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica"
is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united
to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering
sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)
Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer
is given to either of these questions. The initial definition
of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating
point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the
Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification"
(No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not
one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of
the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced
by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.
2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice
is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the
central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former
Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real
Presence, (a quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent)
and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note
63)
The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to.
The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.
The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most
Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the
oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin
to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more
instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.
Note, too, the suppressions:
of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest,
and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers
after the Consecration;
of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate,
nor made on the corporal;
of the pall protecting the chalice;
of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
of the consecration of movable altars;
of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the
"table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts"
(this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private
houses); of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated,
on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement
to Communion standing);
of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated
Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction:
"reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)
All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith
in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.
3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is
almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord,
which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49,
cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from
the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration
may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be
the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention
is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of
no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of
the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark
an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant,
of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about
sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.
SEPARATION OF ALTAR & TABERNACLE
Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a
place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as
though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind)
so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused
upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table. Once again
the contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical'
piety: altar is set up against altar.
In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the
Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate
a loaf for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful,
we find reasserted disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle,
as towards every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass.
This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real
Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain.
The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration
was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown
above all by three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline
insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the
priest's faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the
hierarchical priesthood.
b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and
new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the
sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger
characters at the centre of the page and often in a different
colour, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined
to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.
__________ "To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount
to separating two things which, of their very nature, must remain
together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy
Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). cf. also Mediator Dei,
1.5, note 28.
c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam
facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to
my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere
memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He
did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did
it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc
facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place
of the old - proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages
will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory
of Christ as the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is
really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration'
will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental
action.
The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula "narratio
institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the
anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory
of Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification
of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect
of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration.
The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as
the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated
as expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whole
Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus
Christi").
Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately
after the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until
Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology,
the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval
or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the
end of time is proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially
present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the
latter, were the true Coming.
This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional
acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread
and drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until
thou comest", where the juxtaposition of the different realities
of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's
Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.
__________
V
THE ELEMENTS OF SACRIFICE
We come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements
of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the
faithful present.
In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is
autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening
definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to
the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey
to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48).
"Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae
congregatae mysterium".
A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one,
and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting
and soliciting such a presence.
This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive
references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152);
by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation"
and "Mass without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition
of the "oratio universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more
we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people (populus
sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal way
because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned,
and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes
himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in
the Te igitur and the two Memento.
In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following
words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a
people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect
offering may be made to the glory of your name", the 'in order
that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest
are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not
even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves
appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this
step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were
authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating
formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already
occurred).
PRIEST A MERE PRESIDENT
2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified.
Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most
part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated
minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation
to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the
epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously
to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.
In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer
judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that
his is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been
suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server
address him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".
Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction
between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the
Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought
together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful
has been suppressed.
Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice,
or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him
of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than
a Protestant minister.
The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in
certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate
even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no
more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned
officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of
the people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quite the
involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again,
as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God
has united: the sole Priesthood and the Word of God.
3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ.
In one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the
Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf.
Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation"
this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering
Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In
offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God
the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" (no.
60), instead one ones which would associate the people with Christ
Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".
In this context the follows are to be noted:
1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our
Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every
age (John, XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);
2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were
no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the
communication of grace;
3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication
of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal,
is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people
on the march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against
the Powers of Darkness - looking towards a future which having
lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.
The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as
such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has
taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of
all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now
we have merely: "all who seek you with a sincere heart".
Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed
on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only
"who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added,
with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity,
the host "of all the dead whose faith is known to you alone".
Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there
any reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering
of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular
Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory
and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.
DESACRALISING THE CHURCH
Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church.
Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and
Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective
Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in
the person of St. Michael, for the first.
The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this
is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In
the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on
whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt,
the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed
in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed.
In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the
Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is
thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.
The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable
omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers,
of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church
of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark
of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being
in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.
A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the
omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of
all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the
'Ite, missa est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a
server.
The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of
Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself
unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium",
about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis)
entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in
the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics
were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed;
what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor
and the double Communion is equally relevant here.
The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character,
has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration
outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by
a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with
a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously
said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation
of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the
Real Presence Itself.
The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new
procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened
bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque
specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the
distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going
of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest
becomes commentator himself from his constantly being required
to 'explain' what he is about to accomplish) - of readings (men
and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door
and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort
offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the
'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the
first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorised to
read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra
presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).
Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by
destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the
central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective
presence of concelebrants.
__________
VI
THE DESTRUCTION OF UNITY
We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo
where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic
Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are
typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers,
and spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained
in the document - whether in text, rubrics or instructions - would
be a vast undertaking.
BY PRIEST OR PARSON
No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new
Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative
criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave
immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of
Cannon II it has been well said, among other thins, that it could
be recited with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest
who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the
sacrificial character of the Mass - hence even by a Protestant
minister.
The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral
matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal
Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying
circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic
Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal
legitimate variations and adaptations".
Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship
will be responsible "for the publication and 'constant revision'
of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical
Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin
texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the
various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to
the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived
beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete
situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of
its myriad congregations."
The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the
Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican
Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety
of tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend
more fragrant than any incense".
COUNCIL OF TRENT REJECTED
The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of
Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognised as "liturgiae
romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that "principem
locum obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom
of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and
Gradual.
From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic
and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus
swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of
faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to
be defended without compromise?
It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting
the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless,
the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation
of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most
tragic alternative.
__________
VII
THE ALIENATION OF THE ORTHODOX
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth
of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern
Churches. The result - utterly remote from and even opposed to
the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies - can only repel the
faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical
options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but
nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence
of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately
shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to
those of the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character,
the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own.
Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only
to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to
Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will
be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding
liturgical reforms.
By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight
of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy,
are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism
and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline
in a spiritual crisis without precedent.
__________
VIII
THE ABANDONMENT OF DEFENCES
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic
Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument
of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of
the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical
worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant
Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and
even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning
given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should anyone
presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur
the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and
Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office,
it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted
the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still
apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm,
very much more serious ones today.
It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every
century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum
custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church
has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defences
of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements.
These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became
the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's
worship back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning,
artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly
condemned by Pius XII, what in earlier times had the grace of
original spontaneity means as we see today only too clearly -
to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection
of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched
over the centuries.
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the
most critical moment - of the Church's history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledges to exist
not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only
threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against
the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable
consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been
given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was
both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it
with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue
of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems
with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of
the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim,
an incalculable error.