Rome
25 September 1969
Most Holy Father:
Having carefully examined and
presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass (Novus
Ordo Missae) prepared by the experts of the Committee
for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel
obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the
following considerations:
1. The accompanying Critical
Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians,
liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the
study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering
the new elements widely susceptible to widely different
interpretations which are implied or taken for
granted--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 22 of the Council of Trent. The
"canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that
time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy
which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put
forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons
could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
considerations, do not seem 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 suspicion, 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 forever. The recent reforms
have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could
not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the
part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness
and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best
of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of
conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
3. We are certain that these
considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living
voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in
the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous
for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The
subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the
right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the
law, should it prove to be harmful.
At a time, therefore, when the
purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel
lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully
echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most
earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the
possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral
and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your
Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic
world.
A. Card. Ottaviani A.
Card. Bacci
The Critical Study of the
New Order of Mass:
5 June 1969
A Group of Roman Theologians
Chapter 1:
In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which
met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental
celebration of what was then called a "standard" or
"normative" Mass. This Mass, composed by the
Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred
Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among
the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results
revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many
substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations)
and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the
Synod's "rejection" of the proposed Mass, while the
progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event
in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and
expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these
terms:
"They wanted to make a clean slate of
the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance
quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the
sacrifice of the Mass."
Unfortunately, we now find that the same
"standard Mass, "identical in substance, has
reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae)
recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale
Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed
since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national
bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been
consulted on the matter. The Apostolic Constitution states
that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated on 19 July 1570--its greater part, in fact, goes
back to St. Gregory the Great and even remoter antiquity [1] --was the standard for four
centuries whenever priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the
Holy Sacrifice. The Constitution adds that this Missal, taken
to every corner of the earth, "has been an abundant
source of spiritual nourishment to so many people in their
devotion to God." Yet this same Constitution, which
would definitively end the use of the old Missal, claims that
the present reform is necessary because "a deep interest
in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong
among the Christian people." It seems that the last
claim contains a serious equivocation. If the Christian
people expressed anything at all, it was the desire (thanks
to the great St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal
treasures of the liturgy. They never, absolutely never, asked
that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to
understand. What the faithful did want was a better
understanding of a unique and unchangeable liturgy--a liturgy
they had no desire to see changed. Catholics everywhere,
priests and laymen alike, loved and venerated the Roman
Missal of St. Pius V. It is impossible to understand how
using this Missal, along with proper religious instruction,
could prevent the faithful from participating in the liturgy
more fully or understanding it more profoundly. It is
likewise impossible to understand why the old Missal, when
its many outstanding merits are recognized, should now be
deemed unworthy to continue to nourish the liturgical piety
of the faithful. Since the "standard Mass" now
reintroduced and reimposed as the New Order of Mass was
already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was
never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national
bishop's conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in
mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass
whatsoever, it is impossible to understand the reasons for
the new legislation-- legislation which overthrows a
tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th
centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore, for
undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational
grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic
people. The Second Vatican Council did indeed ask that the
Order of Mass "be revised in a way that will bring out
more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several
parts, as also the connection between them." [2] We shall now see to what extent
the recently promulgated Ordo responds to the Council's
wishes--wishes now no more than a faint memory. A
point-by-point examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes
so great that they confirm the judgment already made on the
"standard Mass"--for on many points it has much to
gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.
Chapter 2:
Let us begin with the definition of the
Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes
the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:
The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred
assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering
together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial
of the Lord. [3]
For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local
gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three
come together in my name, there am I in their midst."
(Mt. 18:20) [4]
The definition of the Mass is thus reduced
to a "supper," a term which the General Instruction
constantly repeats. [5]
The Instruction further characterizes this "supper"
as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a
memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday.
None of this in the very least implies:
- The Real Presence - The reality of the
Sacrifice - The sacramental function of the priest who
consecrates - The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice independent of - the presence of the
"assembly." [6]
In a word, the Instruction's definition
implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to
the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true
definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values
by "going beyond them" amounts, at least in
practice, to denying them. [7] The second part of Article 7
makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states
that Christ's promise, ( "Where two or three come
together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies
to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts
Christ's promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence
through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for
greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of
the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of
the Instruction divides the Mass into a "Liturgy of the
Word" and a "Liturgy of the Eucharist," and
adds that the "table of God's Word" and the
"table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass so
that the faithful may receive "instruction and
food." As we will see later, this statement improperly
joins the two parts of the Mass, as though they possessed
equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different
names for the Mass, such as:
- Action of Christ and the People of God. -
Lord's Supper or Mass - Paschal Banquet - Common
participation in the Table of the Lord - Eucharistic Prayer -
Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic
All these expressions are acceptable when
used relatively--but when used separately and absolutely, as
they are here, they must be completely rejected. It is
obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes
"supper" and "memorial," instead of the
unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even the
phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a
"memorial of the Passion and Resurrection" is
inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice,
redemptive in itself; whereas the Resurrection is the fruit
which follows from that sacrifice. [8] We shall see later how such
equivocations are repeated and reiterated both in the formula
for the Consecration and throughout the Novus Ordo as a
whole.
Chapter 3:
We now turn to the ends or purposes of the
Mass--what it accomplishes in the supernatural order.
1. ULTIMATE PURPOSE. The ultimate purpose
of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most
Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the
Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself:
"Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation
thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." [9] In the Novus Ordo, this purpose
has disappeared:
- From the Offertory, where the prayer
"Receive, Holy Trinity, this oblation" has been
removed. - From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer
honoring the Trinity, "May the Tribute of my Homage,
Most Holy Trinity" has been eliminated. - From the
Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity, formerly
used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on
the Feast of the most Holy Trinity.
2. ORDINARY PURPOSE. The ordinary purpose
of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice--making satisfaction to
God for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of
emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead,
the new rite stresses the nourishment and sanctification of
those present. [10]
At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament
and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite
Himself to us as Victim. But this act of sacrificial
immolation occurs before the Blessed Sacrament is consumed
and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in relation to
the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that
people who assist are not bound to receive Communion
sacramentally. [11]
3. IMMANENT PURPOSE. The immanent purpose
of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is
essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be
pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin,
however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can
claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right.
The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering
by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God
and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into
"the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God
turns it into "spiritual drink":
Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to
offer, fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands, It
will become for us the bread of life (spiritual drink). [12]
The expressions "bread of life"
and "spiritual drink," of course, are utterly vague
and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the
same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of
the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own;
here, bread and wine are only spiritually---and not
substantially---changed. [13] In the Preparation of the Gifts,
a similar equivocal game was played. The old Offertory
contained two magnificent prayers, the "Deus qui
humanae" and the "Offerimus tibi":
- The first prayer, recited at the
preparation of the chalice, begins: "O God, by whom the
dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet
more wondrously restored." It recalled man's innocence
before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of
Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice
from Adam to the present day. - The second prayer, which
accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of
propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it
asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in
the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it
admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice.
In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have
been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the
repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have
also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear
distinction between divine and human sacrifice. Having
removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up
scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass,
they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This
forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between
priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves--and
led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for
the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be
immolated. The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be
sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation
in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a
philanthropists' meeting or a charity banquet.
Chapter 4:
We now consider the essence of the
Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly
expresses the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled,
imperceptible to the faithful. [14] Here are some of the main
reasons:
1. THE MEANING OF THE TERM
"EUCHARISTIC PRAYER." The meaning the Novus Ordo
assigns to the so-called "Eucharistic Prayer" is as
follows:
"The entire congregation joins itself
to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and
in offering the sacrifice." [15]
Which sacrifice does this refer to? Who
offers the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions.
The definition the Instruction provides for the
"Eucharistic Prayer" reduces it to the following:
"The center and summit of the entire
celebration begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of
thanksgiving and sanctification." [16]
The effects of the prayer thus replace the
causes. And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is
said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial
offering, made in the old rite with the prayer "Receive,
Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation," has been
suppressed--and replaced with *nothing.* The change in the
formula reveals the change in doctrine.
2. OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL
PRESENCE. The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer
explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real
Presence has been suppressed. It has been removed from the
place it so resplendently occupied in the old liturgy. In the
General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just
once--and that in a footnote which is the only reference to
the Council of Trent. Here again, the context is that of
nourishment. [17]
The real and permanent presence of Christ in the
transubstantiated Species--Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity--is never alluded to. The very word
transubstantiation is completely ignored. The invocation of
the Holy Ghost in the Offertory--the prayer "Come, Thou
Sanctifier"--has likewise been suppressed, with its
petition that He descend upon the offering to accomplish the
miracle of the Divine Presence again, just as he once
descended into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is one
more in a series of denials and degradations of the Real
Presence, both tacit and systematic. Finally, it is
impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages
expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or
changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:
- Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one of the faithful at the moment of the Consecration
- Purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice
- Preserving the priest's fingers from all profane contact after the Consecration
- Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal
- Protecting the contents of the chalice with the pall
- Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels
- Solemn consecration for movable altars
- Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic dinners" in private houses.)
- Three cloths on the altar--reduced to one
- Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving--a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.
- All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently." [18]
All these suppressions only emphasize how
outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is
implicitly repudiated.
3. THE ROLE OF THE MAIN ALTAR. The altar is
nearly always called the table: [19] "...the altar or the Lord's
table, which is the center of the whole eucharistic
liturgy..." [20]
The altar must now be detached from the back wall so that the
priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the
people. [21] The Instruction states that the
altar should be at the center of the assembled faithful, so
that their attention is spontaneously drawn to it. Comparing
this Article with another, however, seems to exclude outright
the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on the altar where
Mass is celebrated. [22]
This will signal an irreparable dichotomy between the
presence of Christ the High Priest in the priest celebrating
the Mass and Christ's sacramental Presence. Before, they were
one and the same Presence. Before, they were one and the same
Presence. [23]
The Instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be
kept in a place apart for private devotion--as though It were
some sort of relic. Thus, on entering a church, one's
attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but to a table
stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up against
liturgical piety, and altar is set up against altar. The
Instruction urges that hosts distributed for Communion be
ones consecrated at the same Mass. It also recommends
consecrating a large wafer, [24] so that the priest can share a
part of it with the faithful. It is always the same
disparaging attitude towards both the tabernacle and every
form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This constitutes a
new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence
continues as long as the consecrated Species remain. [25]
4. THE FORMULAS FOR THE CONSECRATION. The
old formula for the Consecration was a *sacramental* formula,
properly speaking, and not merely a *narrative*. This was
shown above by three things:
A. The Text Employed. The Scripture text
was not used word-for-word as the formula for the
Consecration in the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the
"Mystery of Faith," was inserted into the text as
an immediate expression of the priest's faith in the mystery
which the Church makes real through the hierarchical
priesthood.
B. Typography and Punctuation. In the old
Missal, a period and a new paragraph separated the words
"Take ye all of this and eat" from the words of the
sacramental form, "This is My Body." The period and
the new paragraph marked the passage from a merely
*narrative* mode to a *sacramental* and *affirmative* mode
which is proper to a true sacramental action. The words of
Consecration in the Roman Missal, moreover, were printed in
larger type in the center of the page. Often a different
color ink was used. All these things clearly detached the
words from a merely historical context, and combined to give
the formula of Consecration a proper and autonomous value.
C. The Anamnesis. The Roman Missal added
the words "As often as ye shall do these things, ye
shall do them in memory of Me" after the formula of
Consecration. This formula referred not merely to remembering
Christ or a past event, but to Christ acting in the here and
now. It was an invitation to recall not merely His Person or
the Last Supper, but *to do* what He did *in the way* that He
did it. In the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, "Do
this in memory of Me," will now replace the old formula
and be daily proclaimed in the vernacular everywhere. This
will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the
remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action,
rather than as its beginning. The idea of commemoration will
thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a sacramental
action. [26] The General Instruction
emphasizes the narrative mode further when it describes the
Consecration as the "Institution Narrative" [27] and when it adds that, "in
fulfillment of the command received from Christ...the Church
keeps his memorial." [28] All this, in short, changes the
modus significandi of the words of Consecration--how they
show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest
now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an
historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative
issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body."
[29] Furthermore, the people's
Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the
Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O
Lord...until you come"--introduces the same ambiguity
about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the
Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people
proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just
at the moment when He is *substantially present* on the
altar--as if Christ's real coming will occur only at the end
of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The second
optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more
strongly:
"When we eat this bread and drink this
cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in
glory."
The juxtaposition of entirely different
realities--immolation and eating, the Real Presence and
Christ's Second Coming--brings ambiguity to a new height. [30]
Chapter 5:
We now consider the question of who
performs the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in
order: Christ, the priest, the Church and the faithful.
1. The Role of the Faithful in the New
Rite. In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful is
autonomous, absolute--and hence completely false. This is
obvious not only from the new definition of the Mass
("...the sacred assembly or congregation of the people
gathering together..."), but also from the General
Instruction's observation that the priest's opening Greeting
is meant to convey to the assembled community the presence of
the Lord:
Then through his greeting the priest
declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present.
This greeting and response express the mystery of the
gathered Church. [31]
Is this the true presence of Christ? Yes,
but only a spiritual presence. A mystery of the Church?
Certainly--but only insofar as the assembly manifests and
asks for Christ's presence. This new notion is stressed over
and over again by:
- Obsessive references to the communal
character of the Mass. [32]
- The unheard of distinction between "Mass with a
Congregation" and "Mass without a
Congregation." [33]
- The description of the Prayer of the Faithful as a part of
the Mass where "the people exercising their priestly
office, intercede for all humanity." [34]
The faithful's "priestly office is
presented equivocally, as if it were autonomous, by omitting
to mention that it is subordinated to the priest, who, as
consecrated mediator, presents the people's petitions to God
during the Canon of the Mass.
The Novus Ordo's Eucharistic Prayer III
addresses the following prayers to the Lord:
From age to age you gather a people to
yourself, *so that* from east to west a perfect offering may
be made to the glory of your name.
The "so that" in the passage
makes it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are
the indispensable element in the celebration. Since it is
never made clear, even here, who offers the sacrifice, the
people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly
powers. [35] From this step, it would not be
surprising if, before long, the people were permitted to join
with the priest if pronouncing the words of Consecration.
Indeed, in some places this has already happened.
2. The Role of the Priest in the New Rite.
The role of the priest is minimized, changed, and falsified:
- In relation to the people, he is now a
mere president or brother, rather than the consecrated
minister who celebrates Mass "in the person of
Christ." - In relation to the Church, the priest is now
merely one member among others, someone taken from the
people. In its treatment of the invocation to the Holy Ghost
in the Eucharistic Prayer (the epiclesis), the General
Instruction attributes the petitions anonymously to the
Church. [36] The priest's part has vanished. -
In the new Penitential Rite which begins the mass, the
Confiteor has now become collective; hence the priest is no
longer judge, witness and intercessor before God. It is
logical therefore that he no longer recites the prayer of
absolution which followed it and has now been suppressed. The
priest is now "integrated" with his brothers; even
the altar boy who serves at a "Mass without a
Congregation" calls the priest "brother." -
Formerly, the priest's Communion was ritually distinct from
the people's Communion. The Novus Ordo suppresses this
important distinction. This was the moment when Christ the
Eternal High Priest and the priest who acts in the person of
Christ came together in closest union and completed the
Sacrifice. - Not a word is said, moreover, about the priest's
power as "sacrificer," his consecratory action or
how as intermediary he brings about the Eucharistic presence.
he now appears to be nothing more than a Protestant minister.
- By abolishing or rendering optional many of the priestly
vestments--in some cases only an alb and stole are now
required [37]
--the new rite obliterates the priest's conformity to Christ
even more. The priest is no longer clothed with Christ's
virtues. He is now a mere "graduate" with one or
two tokens that barely separate him from the crowd [38] --"a little more a man than
the rest," to quote from a modern Dominican's
unintentionally humorous definition. [39] Here, as when they set up altar
against altar, the reformers separated that which was united:
the one Priesthood of Christ from the Word of God.
3. The Role of the Church in the New Rite.
Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to
Christ. In only one instance--in its treatment of the form of
the Mass without a Congregation--does the General Instruction
admit that the Mass is "the action of Christ and the
Church." [40]
In the case of Mass with a Congregation, however, the only
object the Instruction hints as it "remembering
Christ" and sanctifying those present. "The priest
celebrant," it says, "...joins the people to
himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ in the
Spirit to the Father" [41] --instead of saying that the
people join themselves to Christ who offers Himself through
the Holy Ghost to the Father. In this context, the following
points should likewise be noted:
- The many grave omissions of the phrase
"through Christ Our Lord," a formula which
guarantees that God will hear the Church's prayers in every
age. [42] - An all-pervading
"paschalism" --an obsessive emphasis on Easter and
the Resurrection--almost as if there were no other aspects of
the communication of grace, which, while quite different, are
nevertheless equally important. - The strange and dubious
"eschatologism" --a stress upon Christ's Second
Coming and the end of time--whereby the permanent and eternal
reality of the communication of grace is reduced to something
within the bonds of time. We hear of a people of God on the
march, a pilgrim Church--a Church no longer *Militant*
against the powers of darkness, but one which, having lost
its link with eternity, marches to a future envisioned in
purely temporal terms.
In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church--as
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating
the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who
keep the Catholic and Apostolic faith. These are now merely
all who seek you with a sincere heart. The Memento of the
Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for
those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but
merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ. To
this group--with further detriment to the notion of the
Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the
great crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to You
alone." None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers,
moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have
died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the
dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the
propitiatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice. [43] Everywhere desacralizing
omissions debase the mystery of the Church. Above all, the
Church's nature as a sacred hierarchy is disregarded. The
second part of the new collective Confiteor reduces the
Angels and the Saints to anonymity in the first part, in the
person of St. Michael the Archangel, they have disappeared as
witnesses and judges. [44]
In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II--and this is
unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies have
disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old
Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom
the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were
the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally
completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The
prayer after the Our Father, the "Libera Nos," now
suppresses the mention of the Blessed Virgin, the holy
apostles and all the Saints; their intercession is thus no
longer sought, even it times of danger. Everywhere except in
the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo eliminates not only the names
of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the Church in
Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles, the
foundation and mark of the one and universal Church. This
intolerable omission, extending even to the three new
Eucharistic Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church. The
New Order of Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion
of Saints by suppressing the blessing and the salutation
"The Lord Be with You" when the priest says Mass
without a server. It also eliminates the "Ite Missa
Est," even in Masses celebrated with a server. [45] The double Confiteor at the
beginning of the Mass showed how the priest, vested as
Christ's minister and bowing profoundly, acknowledged himself
unworthy of both is sublime mission and the "tremendous
mystery" he was to enact. Then, in the prayer "Take
Away Our Sins," he acknowledged his unworthiness to
enter the Holy of Holies, recommending himself with the
prayer "We Beseech Thee, O Lord" to the merits and
intercession of the martyrs whose relics were enclosed in the
altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said
previously about elimination of the two-fold Confiteor and
Communion rite is equally relevant here. The outward setting
of the Sacrifice, a sign of its sacred character, has been
profaned. See, for example, the new provisions for
celebrating Mass outside a church: a simple table, containing
neither a consecrated altar-stone nor relics and covered with
a single cloth, is allowed to suffice for an altar. [46] Here too, all we have said
previously in regard to the Real Presence
applies--disassociation of the "banquet" and the
Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself.
The process of desacralization is made
complete, thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for the
Offertory Procession, the reference to ordinary (rather than
unleavened) bread, and allowing servers (and even lay people,
when receiving Communion under both Species) to handle sacred
vessels. [47]
then there is the distracting atmosphere created in the
church: the ceaseless comings and goings of priest, deacon,
subdeacon, cantor, commentator--the priest himself becomes a
commentator, constantly encouraged to "explain"
what he is about to do-- of lectors (men and women), of
servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting
them to their places, while others carry and sort offerings.
And in an era of frenzy for a "return to
Scripture," we now find, in contradiction of both the
Old Testament and St. Paul, the presence of a "suitable
woman" who for the first time in the Church's history is
authorized to proclaim the Scripture readings and
"perform other ministries outside the sanctuary." [48] Finally, there is the mania for
concelebration, which will ultimately destroy the priest's
Eucharistic piety by overshadowing the central figure of
Christ, sole priest and Victim, and by dissolving Him into
the collective presence presence of concelebrants. [49]
Chapter 6:
We have limited ourselves above to a short
study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from
the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch
upon deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete
study of all the pitfalls, dangers, and psychologically and
spiritually destructive elements the new rite contains,
whether in texts, rubrics, or instructions, would be a vast
undertaking. We have taken no more than a passing glance at
the three new Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already
come in for repeated and authoritative criticism. The second
gave immediate scandal to the faithful due to its brevity. [50] Of Eucharistic Prayer II it has
well been said that a priest who no longer believed in either
Transubstantiation or the sacrificial character of the Mass
could recite it with perfect tranquillity of conscience, and
that a Protestant minister, moreover, could use it in his own
celebrations just as well. The new Missal was introduced in
Rome as an "abundant resource for pastoral work,"
as "a text more pastoral than juridical," which
national bishops' conferences could adapt, according to
circumstances, to the "spirit" of different
peoples. Section One of the new Congregation for Divine
Worship, moreover, will now be responsible "for the
publication and *constant revision* of liturgical
books." This idea was echoed recently in the official
newsletter of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany,
Switzerland and Austria:
- The Latin texts must now be translated
into the languages of different nations. - The "Roman
style" must be adapted to the individuality of each
local Church. - That which was conceived in a timeless state
must now be transposed into the changing context of concrete
situations, and into the constant flux of the universal
Church and its myriad congregations. [51]
The Apostolic Constitution itself, in
promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae, deals a deathblow to the
Church's universal language when--contrary to the express
wish of the Second Vatican Council--it unequivocally states
that "in great diversity of languages, one [?] and the
same prayer will ascend, more fragrant than incense."
The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted,
Gregorian chant--which Vatican II recognized as a distinctive
characteristic of the Roman liturgy, decreeing that it
"be given pride of place in liturgical services" [52] --will logically follow, given,
among other things, the freedom of choice permitted in
choosing texts for the Introit and the Gradual. From the
outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and
experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship
has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist
for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we
were told, was always to be defended without compromise? It
is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of
presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it
is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound
forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of
Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to
choose.
Chapter 7:
The Apostolic Constitution explicitly
mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo
supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result
is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the
Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in
those rites revolted and horrified. What do these ecumenical
borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple
texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none of
which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or
beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and
the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass
appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element
where the Roman liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites. [53] At the same time, by abandoning
its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus
Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In
place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to
certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to
Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the
Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did
the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation,
the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the
verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without
precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her
organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship,
morals and discipline.
Chapter 8:
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up
(as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an
instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the
injunctions of the Council of Trent, the Missal was to
exclude all dangers, either to liturgical worship or to the
faith itself, then threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The
grave situation fully justified--and even rendered
prophetic--the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570
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 holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
[54]
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the
Vatican Press Office, it was impudently asserted that
conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent
no longer exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today,
but conditions now are infinitely worse. It was precisely to
repel those snares which in every age threaten the pure
Deposit of Faith, [55]
that the Church, under divine inspiration, set up dogmatic
definitions and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses.
These in turn immediately influenced her worship, which
became the most complete monument to her faith. Trying to
return this worship to the practices of Christian antiquity
and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of
ancient times is to engage in that "unhealthy
archaeologism" Pius XII so roundly condemned. [56] It is, moreover, to dismantle all
the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the
rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for
centuries. [57]
And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not the
most critical moment--in the Church's history! Today,
division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not
only outside the Church, but within her as well. [58] The Church's unity is not only
threatened, but has already been tragically compromised. [59] Errors against the Faith are not
merely insinuated, but are--as has been likewise
acknowledged--now forcibly imposed through liturgical abuses
and aberrations. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for
four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in
worship, [60]
and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the
countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a
sign of division--a liturgy which teems with insinuations or
manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic
Faith--is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an
incalculable error.
Corpus Domini 5 June 1969
ABBREVIATIONS
DB: Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchrindion
Symbolorum." 32nd edition. Barcelona, Frieburg and Rome:
Herder, 1957.
DOL: "Documents on the Liturgy,
1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts."
Translated, compiled, and arranged by the International
Committee on English in the Liturgy. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1982
GI: General Instruction on the Roman
Missal. "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani." 1st
edition, 6 April 1969. In Paul VI, "Missale
Romanum...Pauli VI Promulgatum: Ordo Missae," 12-76. 2nd
edition. March 1970. Translated in DOL 1391-1731, with
variants between 1975 "editio typica altera" and
1st edition provided in footnotes.
PTL: "Papal Teachings: The
Liturgy," selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks
of Solesmes, translated by the Daughters of St. Paul. Boston:
St. Paul Editions, 1962.
SC: Vatican Council II. Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy "Sacrosanctum Consilium," 4 December
1963. Translated in DOL 1-131.
FOOTNOTES
1.
"The prayers of Our Canon are found in the treatise
"De Sacramentis" (4th, 5th centuries)...Our Mass
goes back without essential changes to the epoch in which it
developed for the first time from the most ancient common
liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance of that primitive
liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world and hoped to
extinguish the Christian faith' times when our forefathers
would gather together before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ as
their God...There is not in all Christendom a rite so
venerable as that of the Roman Missal." (Rev. Adrian
Fortescue). "The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes
back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in East nor West is
there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can
boast such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it
overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the
Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans and even Protestants
having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial
of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church."
(Rev. Louis Bouyer)
2. SC
50, DOL 50.
3. A
footnote in the Instruction refers us to two texts of Vatican
II. But nothing in the texts justifies the new definition, as
it is evident from the following: "Through the ministry
of the bishop, God consecrates priests...In exercising sacred
functions they therefore act as the ministers of him who in
the liturgy continually fulfill his priestly office on our
behalf....By the celebration of Mass people sacramentally
offer the sacrifice of Christ." Decree on the Ministry
and Life of Priests "Presbyterum Ordinis," 7
December 1965, Section 5, DOL 260. "For in the liturgy
God is speaking to his people and Christ is still proclaiming
his Gospel. And the people are responding to God both by song
and prayer. Moreover, the prayers addressed to God *by the
priest,* who presides over the assembly *in the person of
Christ,* are said in the name of the entire holy people and
of all present." SC 33, DOL 33. One is at a loss to
explain how the Instruction's definition could have been
drawn from these texts. We note too how the new definition of
the Mass alters what Vatican II laid down in Presbyterum
Ordinis Section 5: "The Eucharistic assembly is the
center of the congregation of the faithful." Since the
center in the New Order of the Mass has been fraudulently
spirited away, the congregation has now usurped its place.
4. GI
7, DOL 1937 fn.
5. GI
8, DOL 1398; GI 48, DOL 1438 fn. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fin; GI
56, DOL 1446.
6.
The Council of Trent reaffirms the Real Presence in the
following words: "To begin with, the holy council
teaches and openly and straightforwardly professes that in
the blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the
consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ,
true God and man, is truly, really and substantially
contained under the perceptible species of bread and
wine." DB 874. Session 22 which interests us directly in
nine canons (DB 937a-956): 1) The Mass is not a mere symbolic
representation, but rather a true, visible sacrifice,
instituted "to re-present the bloody sacrifice which
[Christ] accomplished on the cross once and for all. It was
to perpetuate his memory until the end of the world. Its
salutary strength was to be applied for the remission of the
sins that we daily commit." DB 938. 2) "Declaring
himself constituted a priest forever according to the order
of Melchisedech, [Our Lord] offered his body and blood under
the species of bread and wine to God the Father and he gave
his body and blood under the same species to the apostles to
receive, making them priests of the New Testament at that
time...He ordered the apostles and their successors in the
priesthood to offer this sacrifice when he said, 'Do this in
remembrance of me,' as the Catholic Church has always
understood and taught." DB 938. The celebrant, offerer
and sacrificer is the ordained priest, and not the people of
God or the assembly: "If anyone says that by the words,
'Do this in remembrance of me,' Christ did not make the
apostles priests, or that he did not decree that they and
other priests should offer his body and blood: let him be
anathema." Canon 2, DB 949. The Sacrifice of the Mass is
a true propitiatory sacrifice, and not a simple memorial of
the sacrifice offered on the cross: "If anyone says that
the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and
of thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the
sacrifice offered on the cross, and not propitiatory, or that
it benefits only those who communicate; and that it should
not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins,
punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be
anathema." Canon 3, DB 950. Canon 6 should likewise be
kept in mind: "If anyone says that there are errors in
the Canon of the Mass and that it should therefore be done
away with: let him be anathema." DB 953. Likewise Canon
8: "If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone
communicates sacramentally are illicit and should be done
away with: let him be anathema." DB 955.
7. It
is perhaps superfluous to recall that, if a single defined
dogma were denied, all dogma would fall ipso facto, insofar
as the principle of the infallibility of the supreme
hierarchical magisterium, whether conciliar or papal, would
thereby be destroyed.
8. In
light of the first prayer after the Consecration in the Roman
Canon (Unde et memores), the Ascension could also be added.
The Unde et memores, however, does not lump different
realities together. It makes a clear and fine distinction:
"calling to mind...the blessed passion, and also His
rising from the dead and His glorious Ascension into
Heaven."
9.
Ps. 50:7-9, in Heb. 10:5.
10.
GI 54, DOL 1444.
11.
This shift of emphasis occurs in the three new Eucharistic
Prayers, which eliminate the Memento of the Dead and any
mention of souls suffering in Purgatory, to whom the
propitiatory Sacrifice is applied.
12.
See "Mysterium Fidei," in which Paul VI condemns
the errors of symbolism together with the new theories of
"transignification: and "transfinalization":
"...it is not allowable...to stress the sign value of
the sacrament as if the symbolism, which to be sure all
acknowledge in the Eucharist, expresses fully and
exhaustively the meaning of Christ's presence; or to discuss
the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning the
marvelous changing of the whole substance of the bread into
the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the
blood of Christ, as stated by the Council of Trent, so that
only what is called 'transignification' or
'transfinalization' is involved." Encyclical
"Mysterium Fidei" on the doctrine and worship of
the Eucharist, 3 September 1965, Section 11, DOL 1155.
13.
"Mysterium Fidei" amply denounces and condemns
introducing new formulas or expressions which, though
occurring in texts of the Fathers, the Councils, and the
Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense that is
not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they
form an inseparable whole (e.g., "spiritual
nourishment," "spiritual food,"
"spiritual drink," etc.): "Not only the
integrity of the faith, but also its proper mode of
expression must be safeguarded, lest, God forbid, by the
careless use of words we introduce false notions about the
most sublime realities." He quotes St. Augustine: "
'We, however, have the obligation to speak according to a
definite norm, lest the carelessness of our words give rise
to impious ideas about the very realities signified by these
words.' " He continues: "We must religiously
respect the rule of terminology; after centuries of effort
and under the protection of the Holy Spirit the Church has
established it and confirmed it by the authority of councils;
that norm often became the watchword and the banner of
orthodox belief. Let no one arbitrarily or under the pretext
of new science presume to change it...In like manner we must
not put up with anyone's personal wish to modify the formulas
in which the Council of Trent set forth the mystery of the
Eucharist for belief." Sections 23, 24; DOL 1167-8.
14.
Contradicting what Vatican II prescribed. (Cf. SC 48, DOL
48).
15.
GI 54, DOL 1444.
16.
GI 54, DOL 1444.
17.
GI 241 fn. 69, DOL 1630.
18.
GI 129, DOL 1629.
19.
The Instruction recognizes the altar's primary function only
once: "At the altar, the sacrifice of the cross is made
present under sacramental signs." GI 259, DOL 1649. This
single reference seems insufficient to remove the
equivocation resulting from the other, more frequently used
term.
20.
GI 49, DOL 1489. Cf. GI 262, DOL 1652.
21.
GI 262, DOL 1652.
22.
GI 262, DOL 1652, and GI 276, DOL 1666. 23.
23.
"To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two
things which by their origin and nature should remain
united." Pius XII, "Allocution to the International
Congress on Pastoral Liturgy." 22 September 1956, PTL
817. See also Pius XII, Encyclical "Mediator Dei,"
20 November 1947, PTL 550, quoted below.
24.
Rarely does the Novus Ordo use the word hostia. In liturgical
books this traditional term has a precise meaning:
"victim." Again we encounter a systematic attempt
to emphasize only "supper" and "food."
25.
Following their customary practice of substituting one thing
for another, the reformers made Christ's presence in the
proclaimed word equal to the Real Presence. (See GI 7, 54;
DOL 1397, 1444). But Christ's presence when Scripture is
proclaimed is of a different nature and has no reality except
when it is taking place (in usu). Christ's Real Presence in
the consecrated Host, on the other hand, is objective,
permanent and independent of the reception of the Sacrament.
The formulae "God is speaking to his people," and
"Christ is present to the faithful through his own
word" (GI 33, DOL 1423) are typically Protestant.
Strictly speaking, they have no meaning, since God's presence
in the word is mediated, bound to an individual's spiritual
act or condition, and only temporary. This formula leads to a
tragic error: the conclusion, expressed or implied, that the
Real Presence continues only as long as the Sacrament is in
the process of being used--received at Communion time, for
instance--and that the Real Presence ends when the use ends.
26.
As the General Instruction describes it, the sacramental
action originated at the moment Our Lord gave the Apostles
His Body and Blood "to eat" under the appearances
of bread and wine. The sacramental action thus no longer
consists in the consecratory action and the mystical
separation of the Body from the Blood--the very essence of
Eucharistic Sacrifice. See "Mediator Dei," esp.
Part II, Chapter I, PTL 551, ff.
27.
GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fn..
28.
GI 55.d, DOL 1445.
29.
As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of
Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's
intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the
force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi
verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus
significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the
formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass
could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who
receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus
Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church
does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to
doubt it.
30.
Let it not be said, following the methods of Protestant
biblical scholarship, that these phrases being in the same
Scriptural context. The Church always avoided superimposing
and juxtaposing the texts, precisely in order to avoid
confusing the different realities they express.
31.
GI 28, DOL 1418
32.
GI 74-152, DOL 1464-1542.
33.
GI 209-231, DOL 1599-1621.
34.
GI 45, DOL 1435.
35.
Against the Lutherans and Calvinists who teach that all
Christians are priests and offerers of the Lord's Supper, see
A. Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae,"
(Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1930), v. III: "Each and
every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary minister of
the Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal
minister. The faithful offer *through the intermediary of the
priest, but not in a strict sense*." Cf. Council of
Trent, Session 22, Canon 2, DB 949.
36.
GI 55, DOL 1445.
37.
GI 298, DOL 1688 fn..
38.
We note in passing an unthinkable innovation which will have
disastrous psychological effects; employing *red* vestments
on Good Friday instead of black (GI 308.b, DOL 1698)--as if
Good Friday were the commemoration of just another martyr,
instead of the day on which the whole Church mourns for her
Founder. (Cf. Mediator Dei, PTL 550, quoted below.)
39.
Rev. A. M. Rouget, OP, speaking to the Dominican Sisters of
Bethany at Plessit-Chenet.
40.
GI 4, DOL 1394. Cf. "Presbyterum Ordinis," Section
13, DOL 265.
41.
GI 60, DOL 1450 fn.
42.
See Jn. 14:13-16, 23-24.
43.
In some translations of the Roman Canon, the phrase a place
of refreshment, light and peace was rendered as a simple
state: "blessedness, light, peace." What can be
said then of the disappearance of every explicit reference to
the Church Suffering?
44.
Amidst this flurry of omissions, only one element has been
added: the mention in the Confiteor of "what I have
failed to do."
45.
At the press conference introducing the Novus Ordo, Rev.
Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp, professing a purely rationalist faith,
discussed changing the priest's salutations in Mass without a
Congregation from plural to singular ("Pray,
brother," for example, replaces "Pray,
brethren.") His reason was "so that there would be
nothing [in the Mass] which does not correspond with the
truth."
46.
GI Section 260, 265; DOL 1650, 1655.
47.
GI 244.C, DOL 1634.
48.
GI 70, DOL 1460, fn.
49.
It now seems lawful for priest to receive Communion under
both species at a concelebration, even when they are obliged
to celebrate Mass alone before or after concelebrating.
50.
It has been presented as "The Canon of Hippolytus,"
but only a few traces of that original text remain in the new
rite.
51.
Gottesdienst no. 9 (14 May 1969).
52.
SC 116, DOL 116.
53.
Consider the following elements found in the Byzantine rite:
lengthy and repeated penitential prayers; solemn vesting
rites for the celebrant and deacon; the preparation of the
offerings at the "proscomidia," a complete rite in
itself; repeated invocations, even in the prayers of
offering, to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; invocations
of the choirs of Angels at the Gospel as "invisible
concelebrants," while the choir identifies itself with
the angelic choirs in the "Cherubicon;" the
sanctuary screen (iconostasis) separating the sanctuary from
the rest of the church and the clergy from the people; the
hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which
the entire liturgy alludes; the position of the priest who
celebrates facing God, and never facing the people; Communion
given always and only by the celebrant; the continual marks
of adoration toward the Sacred Species; the essentially
contemplative attitude of the people. The fact that these
liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an
hour and are constantly defined as "awe-inspiring,
unutterable...heavenly, life-giving mysteries" speaks
for itself. Finally, we note how in both the Divine Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil, the
concept of "supper" or "banquet" appears
clearly subordinate to the concept of sacrifice --just as it
was in the Roman Mass.
54.
Bull "Quo
Primum," 13 July
1570. In Session 23 (Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the
Council of Trent announced its intention to "uproot
completely the cockle of the damnable errors and schism which
in these fateful times of ours and enemy has sown (see Matt.
13:25) in the teaching of the faith about the Holy Eucharist
and about the use and worship of the Eucharist. In addition
to his other purpose, our Saviour left the Eucharist in his
Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to
unify and unite all Christians." DB 873.
55.
"Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the
profane novelties of words." (1 Tim. 6:20)
56.
"Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to
return in spirit and affection to the sources of the Sacred
Liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it
back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards
a more thorough and careful investigation of the texts and
sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is
neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity
by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one
would be straying from the right path were he to wish the
altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want
black excluded as a color for liturgical vestments; were he
to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches;
were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine
Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings...This
way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and
senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Synod of
Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series
of errors which were responsible for the calling of that
meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous
harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful
guardian of the "depositum fidei" committed to her
charge by her Divine Founder, had every right and reason to
condemn." "Mediator Dei," I.5, PTL 548, 549.
57.
"Let us not deceive ourselves with the suggestion that
the Church, which has become great and majestic for the glory
of God as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought to its
original and smallest proportions, as though they were the
only true ones, the only good ones." Paul VI, Encyclical
"Ecclesiam Suam," 6 August 1964.
58.
"A practically schismatic ferment divides, subdivides,
splits the Church." Paul VI, Homily "In Coena
Domini," 3 April 1969.
59.
"There are also among us those "schisms" and
"separations" which St. Paul sadly denounces in I
Corinthians." Paul VI, ibid.
60.
It is well-known how Vatican II is now being repudiated by
the very men who once gloried in being its leaders. While the
Pope declared at the Council's end that it had changed
nothing, these men came away determined to
"explode" the Council's teachings in the process of
actually applying it. Unfortunately the Holy See, with
inexplicable haste, approved and even seemingly encouraged
through Consilium an ever-increasing infidelity to the
Council.. This infidelity went from changes in mere form
(Latin, Gregorian Chant, suppression of the ancient rites,
etc.) all the way to changes in substance which the Novus
Ordo sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have
attempted to point out here, we must add those which, with an
even greater effect psychologically, will affect the Church's
discipline and teaching authority by undermining the respect
and docility owed the Holy See.
