ßBack

IS THE NOVUS ORDO A CATHOLIC MASS?

A COMPARISON OF THE OLD TRIDENTINE MASS WITH THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.

“Tolle hoc sacramentum de ecclesia,” said St. Bonbaventura, “et quid erit in mundo, nisi error et infidelitas? Et populus Christianus erit quasi grex procorum dispersus et idolatriae deditus, sicut expresse pated in caeteris infedelibus.” De Praepar ad Missam, c, 2. (If this sacred mystery is removed from the Church, what will result in the world apart from error and infidelity. And the Christian people will be like lost sheep, dispersed and given over to idolatry.)

There have been many arguments about whether the Novus Ordo Missae is a Catholic rite. Of course those that defend it are duty bound to claim it is. However in view of the constant criticism, it seems well worth while to compare it to the Tradentine Rite in detail. No one can argue that the Tridentine Rite is not Catholic, so it is legitimate for us to use it as a sort of criteria or “gold standard.”

Despite the arguments of some conservative Catholics, it should be clear that the Tridentine Mass is now forbidden. The following statement by Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State under Paul VI, and made at Paul VI’s specific request, makes this clear:

“Through the Constitution Missale Romanum Pope Paul, as you know, orders that the new Missal is to replace the former one, notwithstanding any constitutions or apostolic ordinances of his predecessors - including, therefore, all the determinations of the Constitution Quo Primum. No one, in France or anywhere else, can therefore claim an indult granted by Quo Primum and allowing use of the former Missal. This can be used exclusively in the case envisioned by the notification of the Congress for Divine Worship, 14 June 1971 approved by Pope Paul. The notification of 28 October 1974 made it explicit once again that Ordinaries do not have the power to grant this permission (to use the former Order of Mass) for celebration with a congregation... notwithstanding any custom, even one from time immemorial”(DOL1786).[1]

In comparing the traditional or Tridentine Mass with the new, one must be careful not to confuse the issue with the phrase “Latin Mass,” because any of the various rituals can be so designated as such, including the novus ordo missae[2] An unfortunate aspect of the present situation is that many of the faithful who wish to adhere to the traditional forms of worship confuse this with the use of Latin without any consideration of the theological principles involved. The traditional Mass - the Mass of All Times as it has well been called, is not to be confused with the Indult Mass which was authorized in 1962 as a transitional rite and was in force for two years. It was brought out again later as a supposed act of charity towards the older Catholics who found the novus ordo distasteful, and allowed on condition that those attending accept the novus ordo missae as valid and also accept all the teachings of Vatican II. When first allowed, such individuals had to go the chancery office and sign a document attesting to this, but as this became impractical it is no longer insisted upon. The Indult Mass is almost certainly still a valid Mass providing the priest saying it is properly ordained.[3] The times allotted for it being said are usually Sunday afternoon at Churches difficult to get to, so there seems to be some limit on the charity extended. However, it should be noted that such decisions are within the province of each bishop. The Indult is moreover considered to be a temporary measure admittedly aimed at keeping the disaffected within the post-Conciliar establishment. Some bishops have objected strongly to young people attending it.[4]

The issues are further confused by a certain looseness in terminology. Thus any Latin language rite is described by some as “Tridentine,” and many see no difference between one or other rite as long as it is in Latin. Knowing this, various groups are glad to put a little Latin into whatever rite they are advocating to satisfy this seeming need.

.

Returning to the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM), and there is considerable cross-contamination between the Novus Ordo Missae and the Indult Mass - for the majority of priests saying the latter do so interchangeably with the Novus Ordo. Moreover, these priests almost always are using the new breviaries which do not give them the fruit for meditation that is to be derived from the readings in the traditional pre Vatican II breviaries, fruit that would more readily spread the odor of sanctity in their homilies. With the introduction of the changes in 1962, those in the Mass were relatively minor compared to those in the breviary - the latter being the food on which the priest nourished his soul. The feast days were changed along with the readings and prayers, all with the view of simplifying the task of the priest-president. The priest was obliged to pray both Matins and Lauds before saying Mass (unless charity which precedes an act of faith made this excessively difficult) which office contained readings pertinent to the feast of the day.

In the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (the Novus Ordo Missae) which provides the theology behind the new mass, the rite is defined in paragraph 7 and 8 in such a manner as to virtually preclude any sacrifice other than that of “praise and thanksgiving.” So clear is this that most modern defenders of the new mass disclaim any connection between this General Instruction and the rite itself. They however should “in obedience” recognize that Cardinal Villot, again at the request of Paul VI, stated the following:

The preliminary and introduction to the new Missal is the Institutio Generalis. This General Introduction is not a mere collection of rubrics, but rather a synthesis of theological, ascetical, pastoral principles that are indispensable to a doctrinal knowledge of the Mass, to its celebration, its catechesis, and its pastoral dimensions.” ( DOL 1780).

In essence this definition states that Christ is no more present on the table in the NOM than he is when two or three are gathered together in His Name, as for example, when one says prayers with one’s children at bed time. This points to the essential nature of “community” in the rite itself.

In the Novus Ordo Missae you will note the absence of any reference to the altar, to the “host” which implies an immolative sacrifice, and to the priest - above all to the actions of the priest as priest. He is after all, the “president of the assembly,” and the emphasis is on community. Sacrifice is still mentioned, but always in the context of the “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” which of course is totally acceptable to the Protestants. In point of fact, each and everyone of us can make a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and indeed we should. But only the priest - or rather Christ acting through the priest - can offer a sacrifice of immolation and impetration. Only he can bring down on the altar the “unbloody sacrifice of Calvary.” Only Christ’s sacrifice can be effective “for the living and the dead” and offer “satisfaction” to God the Father for the innumerable offences of both the priest (as man) and those who it is his function to intercede for.

It is an awesome privilege to approach the altar of God. In the Old Covenant the High Priest did this but once a year. After great efforts to purify himself both physically and spiritually, he slew a lamb, dipped his hands in the blood, and taking hyssop sprinkled the faithful with the blood of the lamb. Then a rope was tied to his foot lest he be so unworthy that on entering the Holy of Holies he be struck dead - the rope to pull him out for no one else could go in. And so it was with great trepidation that he approached the Arc of the Covenant and Shekina, where the presence of God resided. Now the Catholic priest (and the Orthodox also) approaches the tabernacle in the same manner, for in the new dispensation, instead of Jerusalem being the center of the world, each and every altar with its tabernacle has become the “center.” It is referred to by the Fathers as the Holy of Holies, and just as the Jewish tabernacle was surrounded by various courts in which not everyone was allowed to enter, so also our altars were once surrounded with either altar rails or iconostasis which were meant to exclude those not in holy orders or otherwise permitted. In the Novus Ordo of course, all these distinctions have been removed. The altar is now a table brought down into the nave which has been joined to the sacred space that once surrounded the altar. Altar stones have been obsessively removed and tabernacles moved to the side if not set up in totally separate chapels. Parishioners are invited to come round the table to participate in the “supper,” to eat the “bread” and drink the “cup,” terms associated with profane usage which are also obsessively used. All this is proudly proclaimed as “demystification” of the mass.

And what of the traditional priest? He saw himself as an intercessor between man and God. As such he not only lived apart (as do the priest-presidents of the NOM), but in the traditional Mass he frequently prepared himself for Mass be praying a series of appropriate psalms aimed at providing a means of recollection. In a fasting state (unless health or other reasons provided him with an indulgence) he would then put on his vestments. This in itself was a minor ritual of great significance for it made him once again aware of the awesome nature of the act he was about to participate in. I list below these prayers which have all been deleted in the NOM.

If the priest is not wearing a cassock (or, if appropriate, his religious habit which replaces it) he now puts it on, saying a brief prayer God is the portion of my inheritance and my chalice. It is you O God who restores to me my inheritance. (In many countries priests are not allowed to wear their cassock in public. At the Council of Baltimore the American hierarchy voluntarily decided that priests should not wear it in public in the United States in order to avoid giving offence to Protestants.)

Next the priest washes his hands and prays to God that He would give his hands the strength (virtue) to wipe out and totally remove every stain so that he would worthily serve Him without any mental or bodily pollution. From this point forth the priest does not engage in any talk, for he is about God’s business.

Next the priest places on his head the amice. which is reminiscent of the cloth with which the soldiers covered Christ’s head and eyes when they struck Him and asked Him to say who it was that struck him. As the priest places this over his head he prays “Place O Lord, on my head the helmet of salvation,[Cf. Ephes vi.17]. that so I may resist the assaults of the devil.”Once again the priest is reminded of his function as an alter Christus (another Christ). In the NOM the amice is no longer used.

Next the priest vests in the alb, (from the Latin alba for white) which stretches from the neck to the floor. The alb or tunic was a sign of dignity from ancient times and when Christ was brought to Herod, Herod dressed him in an alb by way of derision. It symbolizes the purity of conscience demanded by Christ of His priests. When donning this he says the following prayer: “Make me white, O Lord, and cleanse my heart; that being made white in the Blood of the Lamb I may deserve an eternal reward.”

Then the priest encircles himself with the cincture or cord of linen. Again, this is an ancient part of vesture, required to gather the loose ends of the alb so as to make walking possible. In the present context it reminds the priest of the cord which bound Our Lord to the pillar when he was being scourged. When tying this the priest prays: “Gird me, O Lord, with the cinture of purity and quench in my heart the fire of concupiscence, that the virtue of continence and chastity may abide in me.”

Next the priest kisses and places a strip of cloth on his left arm called the maniple. This was originally a sort of handkerchief which the priest could use to wipe his face during long services. During the course of time it has taken on a different meaning and reminds the priest of the rope whereby Our Lord was led, and the chains which bound His sacred hands. The priest will take it off and place it on the missal when he gives his homely indicating that the homily is his and not taken from the Scriptures or the Word of God. When placing this on his arm he prays: “May I deserve, O Lord, to bear the maniple of weeping and sorrow in order that I may joyfully reap the reward of my labors.”

Next the priest kisses and places over his shoulder the stole. This is the badge of his function. (For those with democratic prejudices about the distinction between priest and laity, the use of a badge of function is universally required by police, military and practically everybody else.)[5] Thus when the priest gives extreme unction (no longer given[6]) or hears confession, he wears a purple stole around his neck - the color of penance and sorrow. Only a ordained priest can wear this over his shoulders and hanging down in front where it is crossed and held in place by the cincture. A Bishop lets his hang straight as crossing it would obscure his pectoral cross. When he places this on he prays: “Restore to me, O Lord, the state of immortality which I lost through the sin of my first parents and, although unworthy to approach Thy Sacred Mysteries, may I deserve nevertheless eternal joy.”

Finally the priest places on the outer garment called a chasuble. Only a priest may wear this. This reminds the priest of the purple cloak which Christ wore when facing Pilate. It is also created to resemble a seamless robe such as the soldiers gambled for at the foot of the Cross. The priest is given this when he is ordained with the following prayer: “Receive the priestly garment, for the Lord is powerful to increase in you charity and perfection.” The garment then symbolizes charity or Christ’s love which must cover all the priest’s actions, especially during Mass. On the back it should have embroidered a cross, though other designs appropriate to the occasion may be incorporated within the cross’ outline for the priest must carry Christ and his Cross to the altar. As he puts it on he prays: “O Lord, who hast said, ‘My yoke is sweet and My burden light,’ grant that I may so carry it as to merit Thy grace.”

Finally the priest is ready - unworthy though he be - to fulfill his role as an alter Christus. Leaving the Sacristy, he bows to the Crucifix and blesses himself with holy water and then approaches the altar. He removes his biretta (or hood if in habit), genuflects, and then opens the burse. The burse contains the corporal which represents the shroud in which Our Lord’s body was wrapped before being placed in the tomb, and on which Our Lord’s Body and Blood will once again be placed.. It is put on top of the three altar cloths already present and located so as to be over the altar stone which contains the relics and which is of obligatory use in the Tridentine Mass. It is on this site - reminding us that Christ’s Crucifixion occurred over the location where Saint Adam (Feast is Dec. 24) was buried, and linking us with the practice of the Church from the time of the catachombs where the practice of saying Mass over the tombs of the Martyrs was everywhere accepted. The altar can also be understood as Christ Himself, which is why the priest so frequently kisses it before blessing the congregation. The corporal is no longer used in the NOM, the instruction being: “at least one cloth should be placed... out of reverence for the celebration of the memorial of the Lord...” No Body, no Shroud?

The priest then goes to the Missal to be sure it is open to the correct page. Following this he again goes to the foot of the altar and genuflects. Then he starts the prayers before Mass.

Now all this has been dropped from the NOM. It is in the practical order now optional with the Indult Mass, but one wonders just how often a priest-president who has been saying the NOM will revert to these practices when he says the Indult, especially when he has to say the Indult late in the day after saying the NOM one or more times earlier. When I say, all this has been changed, I mean that the priest-president no longer says any of these prayers. He is not obliged to wear a cassock, amice or maniple. He does wear an alb and cincture (necessary to gather the alb around him.) He then puts on the chasuble and over it the stole. For convenience the stole is not infrequently sewn directly to the chasuble so that he puts both on at the same time. As for the designs on the chasuble, the less said the better. Most of the liturgical colors have been retained, but black is a thing of the past and funeral masses are said in white - using the “mass of the angels.” This rite was formerly reserved for baptized infants who died before the age of reason, and who were presumed to go straight to heaven.[7]

When I say all this has been changed, it includes the altar turned into a table. The altar stones have been removed. Unlike the English Reformation where these altar stones were cemented into the steps of the church so that parishioners would have to step on them, they have been removed and usually smashed (to prevent traditional Catholics from saving them or for some other esoteric reason). Again, only one altar cloth is required - not three. Three, apart from symbolic reasons, also protected against the Sacred Blood, if spilled, penetrating through to the altar.

The priest-president goes to the table without any other obligatory preparation. Of course, much of this preparation is unseen by the laity so it is hardly missed. But it is obvious that going through all this in a very special way prepares the priest for his function and reminds him who and what he is. But let us go on.

I have not spoken of the Asperges, that wonderful prayer that reminds us not only of the purification of our Baptism, but also of the hyssop used to sprinkle blood on the doors of the Jews in Egypt, thus preserving them from destruction, of the hyssop that the High Priest sprinkled the Jewish faithful with before going into the Holy of Holies, but also of our own need for purification if we are to get the maximum benefit from Mass.[8] Though rarely if ever said before low Mass, it was there in principle and to some degree replaced by blessing oneself with Holy Water which practice is of course retained in the NOM.

Consider for a moment a part of the prayer of yore:

Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed: Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy. Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.

This has been replaced with the “Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling Holy Water” which as the Misselette explains, can also replace the Penitential Rite. In point of fact it is almost never used.. As the priest-president enters he says “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.” The People answer “and also with you.” This is of course an incorrect translation, for the proper response would be “And with your spirit.” The priest-president has three options and can replace this with a simple ‘The Lord be with you,” though not infrequently he simply says “good morning.” The priest then sprinkles himself and others with holy water while the cantor sings a series of antiphons (phrases) to which the people answer Amen. That’s it.

Next in the Tridentine Mass come the prayers before the altar. Wonderful prayers that once again make it clear to both priest and congregation what is happening. He starts with

In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost (+)[9]

Priest: I shall go unto the altar of God

Server: To God who giveth joy to my youth.

Note two things here. This is a prayer involving the server who speaks on behalf of the congregation. This is a prayer in which all are or can be involved. Note also that the priest speaks of the “altar of God.” As we shall see, all reference to altars is unacceptable in the new mass.

Priest: Judge me O Lord and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man

Server: For Thou art , God, my strength: why hast Thou cast me off? And why do I go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?

Priest: Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and unto Thy tabernacle.

Server: And I will go unto the altar of God: to God who giveth joy to my youth

Priest: To Thee O God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?

Server: Hope in God, for I will still give praise to Him, the salvation of my countenance and my God.

Priest (bowing): Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Server: As it was in the beginning, is now and every shall be, world without end. Amen.

All these prayers as it were set the stage, making clear to all, including the priest that it is the power (strength) of Christ which Consecrates; that it is Christ that leads us by His Light to the Holy Hill and to the Tabernacle; the need to leave our worries and cares behind - even those about the state of the Church we love; and of course the repeated reference to the altar which is approached. And again the priest repeats the psalm:

I will go unto the altar of God

Server: The God Who giveth joy to my youth.

Priest: Our help (+) is in the Name of the Lord

Server: Who made heaven and earth.

All this has been deleted. It had to be if there was no altar and no tabernacle, and above all if Christ is Himself doing nothing. Having made his entrance (choosing A, B or C), the priest-president directly proceeds with the Penitential Rite.

THE PENITENTIAL RITE

First of all the reader should be aware that in current catechesis the distinction between Mortal and Venial sin has been completely obscured by the introduction of the term “grave” sin. And needless to say the gravest sin would appear to be that which is committed against one’s fellow man. It is forgotten that every sin, even those against one’s fellow man, is a sin against God. Again, the traditional Act of Contrition - be it imperfect or perfect - has been altered so that the formula is no longer familiar to the penitent. Thus the attitude of the younger generation of Catholics towards sin is somewhat altered and distorted. Older Catholics are often unaware of this. It however does somewhat explain why confessions are down while communions are seemingly up. (It is hard to trust such figures when the mass attendance has dropped some 80%)

The traditional Confession reads as follows:

I Confess to Almighty God, to the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints and to you, brethren that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed. (The priest strikes his breast each time as he says) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brethren to pray to the Lord our God for me.

To this the server answers: “May almighty God have mercy on thee and, having forgiven thy sins, bring thee to live ever lasting.”

The new penitential prayer reads as following:

I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault (he strikes the breast) in my thoughts and in my words and in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, and I ask the blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to Lord our God

Of course the priest-president has options A, B and C. He can for instance simply say: “Lord, we have sinned against you” to which the people respond “Lord have mercy.” The priest-president continues, “Lord show us your mercy and love.” and the people respond “Grant us your salvation.” At first sight option A doesn’t look so bad. It is true that we no longer confess to Our Lady who is the essence of purity, to St. Michael who is the most powerful defender against evil, and to the saints. However there are other significant changes. The people and the priest are meant to say this confession together. There is no separation of the laity from the priest.[10] And at the end the priest says “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” Again we have a prayer that we are familiar with. However it is a prayer that can be said by anyone, and used to be said by the server.[11] It is not a prayer which only an ordained priest may effectively say. It is not a prayer of power to forgive us our venial sins. It is not the Indulgentiam: “May the almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon (+) absolution and remission of our sins,” which is of course the prayer which the priest uses in Confession. In discussing this the Roman theologians responsible for the so-called Ottaviani Intervention had the following to say:

“In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he [the priest] is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server addresses him as such in the Confiteor of the “Missa sine populo.”

It will be remembered, that as said in the introductory paragraphs, clearly sacerdotal functions have been either diluted or eliminated.

In the traditional Mass there are still further prayers. After the Confession and Absolution, the priest says: “Thou wilt turn again O God and quicken us.”

Server: “And Thy people will rejoice in The.”

Priest: “Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy.”

Server: “And grant us Thy salvation.”

Priest: “O Lord, hear my prayer.”

Server: “And let my cry come unto Thee.

Priest: “The Lord be with you”

Server: “And with thy spirit.”

Priest: “Let us pray.”

The Priest then prays: “Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that , being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord. Amen” At this point the priest goes to the altar and kisses it. Then he says a second prayer: “We beseech Thee O Lord, by the merits of those of thy saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to pardon me all my sins. Amen.”

After this the priest goes to the Missal and signing himself (unless it is a requiem Mass where he signs to the Missal in place of the body) and says the Introit. The Introit is a short prayer, generally taken from the psalms and having some connection with the season of the ecclesiastical year or the festival of the day and closes with the Gloria.

Now all these additional prayers as well as the Introit has been deleted. (One could argue that the “Entrance Song” which is sung by the choir functions in this capacity.) Be that as it may, we next proceed to the Kryie with which we have some familiarity, and which follows next. The Kyrie - Lord have Mercy, Christ have Mercy, Lord have Mercy. Reduced from the original nine but still retained in principle. This prayer is understood to be addressed to the three Persons of the Trinity, though others teach that it is addressed to the nine choirs of Angels. This, is followed by the Gloria in Excellsis Deo as it was in the traditional Mass. While the Latin is unchanged, the English translation is false and teaches a false doctrine. In stead of saying, as the Latin does, that Peace on earth to men of good will - for if we do not have a good will, we can never have peace, it now tells us that peace on earth is to all men which is unfortunately theologically impossible. There is an important doctrinal principle involved here. Grace is indeed offered to all men, but men have free will and can refuse grace. Without grace there can be no peace. Those who doubt this have but to walk down any city street with open eyes.

THE READINGS

The traditional Mass was divided into two parts, the Mass of the Catechumens and that of the Faithful. The Catechumens were those preparing for Baptism and as such were admitted to the instructions or readings. Only the Baptized were admitted to the mysteries. However in the course of time the dismissal of the catechumens was no longer required. The NOM is also divided into two parts, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist which word has the advantage of also meaning “thanksgiving.”

The labeling of the first part of the NOM as the “Liturgy of the Word” has a certain amount of legitimacy to it, for the Word of God is spoken to us through Scripture. However, the “Word” in the context of the Mass has always been used specifically with reference to the Sacred Species, which is to say, the (Consecrated) Body and Blood of Christ. This is that same Word that St. John speaks of when he said, “In the beginning was the Word,” and as St. Ambrose says, “through the reception of that Word by which we are nourished unto life everlasting. And so we eat the body of Christ that we may be partakers of eternal life”[12] The changing of name usage in this manner, while not overtly heretical, clearly functions to take our attention away from the reality of what occurs at a true Mass.

In the early Church a variety of readings, mostly Scriptural, were read during the first part of the Mass. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles refer frequently to this practice. Initially readings from the Old Testament were combined with the Epistles of the New to show their connection, but with the course of time it became the practice most of the time to use only those of the New. Still however, at certain seasons of the year, such as “quarter time” the old practice is reverted to.[13] This was also a practice among the Jews who would read the Pentateuch during their services.

It is universally admitted that the Epistles read today in the traditional Mass were drawn up by St. Jerome at the request of the Sovereign Pontiff Pope Damasus. The readings selected were those considered most important, and repeated on a yearly cycle; they became familiar to all who heard them throughout their lives. They were always read in Latin first (which was a protection against corruption) and then an English or native language translation given.[14] With the NOM however four things happened. 1) They are no longer read in Latin before being read in English so that there is no fixation of meaning. 2) Following the pattern of the Lutherans, the number of readings has been increased and placed in a three year cycle which means of course that the familiarity and recall of the most significant passages is destroyed; and 3) in the traditional Mass, the readings were related to the feast of the day. With the three year cycle this relationship is completely lost. 4) most of new translations of the Scriptures has been introduced with an ecumenical intent. Thus the New American Bible has been the official source of readings, and this translation is full of errors (to either satisfy Protestants, or to bow to political correctness of the modern day). There are still further changes in the offing and I have not as yet obtained the new Lectionary from which the next readings will be given. For one example, in the Douay Version (the traditional Catholic translation) Hell is mentioned some 350 times. In the King James Version (the Anglican and Episcopalian Version) it is mentioned 150 times. In the New American Bible, it is mentioned once, and that in a section which is never read!

One last point. When the priest faces the altar, the Epistle is read on the right, while the Gospel is read on the left. Since the altar faces the East, this has considerable symbolic significance.[15]

After the Gospel, in the NOM the Graduale and Tract have been replaced with the Responsorial Psalms which are perhaps some of the most painfully sung verses - verses no one is familiar with - that are imposed on us. The content of these tends towards the inane and certainly when compared to what they have replaced almost always reflect a great loss. This is followed by the Homily which in many ways becomes a central part of the NOM service.

THE CREED

The Creed starts out with an immediate mistranslation - We believe instead of I believe - reflecting a communitarian approach. The fact remains that every oath (such as the Oath of Allegiance) is in the first person and not in the plural precisely because it reflects a commitment on the part of the individual. I am not responsible for what my neighbor believes.

The time honored phrase “consubstantial” has been changed to “one in being” This tends to confuse the nature of the Blessed Trinity, for if they are one in being, they are not separate persons. It will be argued that one in being means the same thing - but this is precisely what the Council Fathers at Nicea refused to accept. The word “consubstantial” is of hallowed usage since the Council of Nicea (325. A.D.), where it was used to distinguish Catholic doctrine from the Arian heresy. The heresiarch Arius, like many liberal Protestants, denied the divinity of Christ, and hence the term “consubstantial” has anti-ecumenical connotations. Pope St. Damasus (366-384) anathematized all who refused to use the term “consubstantial.”

As the new translation proceeds, we find the usual translation: “was incarnate by the Holy Ghost by the Virgin Mary AND WAS MADE MAN changed to “by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” This change may not seem significant, but in point of fact we are all born by the power of the Holy Spirit, and any Unitarian could say this phrase with sincerity. Moreover, we are instructed to bow our heads at this point, where before we were required to kneel (genuflect) because of the great significance of this Incarnation.

THE BIDDING PRAYERS

Starting out with the phrase “as a priestly people, we unite with one another to pray for the Church and the needs of the world.” Bidding prayers were part of legitimate Catholic practice in the middle ages, and indeed the term comes from the Saram Rite (Pre-Reformation English Rite). However what one can hear during these prayers can be somewhat surprising to say the least.

THE OFFERTORY

The Mass of the Faithful starts with the Offertory and indeed, they must be present from its start if - charity aside - they are to fulfill their Sunday obligation. There is considerable confusion about the nature of the Offertory because it is at this time that the faithful also offer their gifts for the maintenance of the priest. However, the real offering is that of Christ Himself. The Mass as it were, recapitulates the entire life of Christ from His birth to and through His death and Resurrection, and our participation in the Mass is potentially to be baptized with Him, to be crucified with Him and to be Resurrected with Him. The Mass is not just the unbloody Sacrifice which took place at the Last Supper - for it was at the Last Supper that the Mass was established; but rather the Mass is the recapitulation of the entire life of Christ from His birth to His Resurrection and Ascension. As Father Cochem says: "If our eyes were enlightened by faith, this sacred spectacle of the Mass would fill us with intense joy. For holy Mass is a brief compendium of the whole life of Christ, and a renewal of all the mysteries comprised in it; not, indeed, a fictitious portrayal of past events, but a real and actual repetition of all that Christ did and suffered on earth."[16] Just as Christ is continually sacrificing Himself in heaven for us - perpetually offering to the Father a "clean oblation" of Himself; so also is He continually being born on earth and in us. As one sainted Dominican put it, "it is no use Christ being born on earth, if He is not born in me." If there is no Offertory, then the Living Christ is not being Offered up.[17]

It is with this in view that the priest unveils the chalice (not a “cup”) and takes the gold-plated paten with a host upon it, holds it at the level of his heart and says the following prayer:

“Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and everlasting God, this spotless host which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses and negligence, and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and their salvation unto life everlasting.”

What a marvel of doctrinal exactitude! Along with the actions of the priest, this prayer makes it clear that what is offered at the Mass is the “spotless host” or victim. Second, the propitiatory (atoning) nature of the Mass is explicit - it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered “for the living and the dead”; and fourth, that it is the priest who offers the Sacrifice as a mediator between man and God. Doctrinal exactitude of course is incompatible with ecumenical intent. Those Protestants who reject the idea of purgatory would hardly be happy with such a prayer.

In the NOM, this prayer has been entirely deleted. And one of the reasons Paul VI offers for doing so is to make “the doctrinal content of the Mass more clear!” In fact, of the twelve Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the new mass. And why were they eliminated? Because, as Luther said, they “smacked of Sacrifice... the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation.” The General Instruction for the new mass provides us with an understanding of just what occurs in the Offertory of this dubious rite. In a section entitled “the preparation of the gifts,” it makes it clear that the purpose of these two retained prayers is to allow for the “faithful” to bring the bread, wine and collection to the table.[18] Within the new rite, there is not so much as a hint that it is the Divine Victim which is offered. Rather, it is “the bread and wine,” the “work of human hands.” To speak of this bread becoming the “staff of life” or the wine becoming our “spiritual drink” implies absolutely no transformation, much less transubstantiation.

Let us consider the two prayers that have been retained. The first one is In Spiritu Humiliatis (“In the Spirit of Humility”). Now this prayer is taken from Daniel (III:39-40) and refers to the personal sacrifice - at most, “a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” - made by Azarias and his companions in the fiery furnace. As such, this prayer is totally acceptable to Protestants and was retained by them in the “reformed” Lutheran and Anglican (Episcopalian) services. Should anyone doubt its acceptability to the Modernist mind, he has but to consider the interpretation placed on this prayer by Father Joseph Jungmann, S.J. - a liberal and one of the most scholarly members of the Concilium responsible for the new rite:

“The prayer “In a spirit of humility” which had always served as an emphatic summary of the process of offering, and as such was recited with a deep inclination , has been retained unchanged for the very reason that it gives apt expression to the “invisible sacrifice” of the heart as the interior meaning of all exterior offering.”

The other retained prayer is the Orate Fratres - “pray brethern that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable...” The Concilium wished this removed but it was retained to mollify the theologians responsible for the so-called Ottaviani Intervention. In the Latin this is unchanged, but the innovators managed to do their damage in the vernacular translation. It now reads “Pray brothers and sisters that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable...” Once again the distinction between priest and laity is obscured and the communitarian nature of the new rite is stressed. As for the use of “brothers and sisters,” this is but an acceptance of the current nonsense about the Church being a male hierarchical structure. St. Paul’s admonition to “play the man” applies equally to both sexes for in a functional and psychological sense, any given woman may be “manly” (heroic) and any given man “effeminate” (cowardly). As St. Thomas Aquinas said, “The image of God belongs to both sexes, since it is in the mind wherein is no sexual distinction” (Summa 1.46.1 ad 3).

The deleting of prayers of course does not achieve the introduction of heresy per se, though the the deliberate removal of time-honored and meaningful prayers in liturgical practice cannot be without intent or significance.

The Priest then washes his hands while saying the Lavabo or Psalm 21. This psalm, redolent with the purification rites of the High Priest of the Jews, once again makes the priest aware of all that he is about to do as an alter Christus. This has been abolished and indeed it had to be, for it starts out with “Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas; et circumdabo altare tuum Domine. (“I will wash my hands among the innocent and will compass Thine altar, O Lord.”) This had to be eliminated because of the reference to the altar. It has been replaced with a short prayer which in itself is not offensive - namely “Wash away my iniquity, cleanse away my sins.”[19]

After the priest consecrates the sacred Host, he holds his thumb and index fingers of both hands carefully together. These fingers consecrated at his ordination are to hold the precious Body of Christ and must not risk being contaminated. And once he has Consecrated, he holds his hands over the Corporal-shroud with care except when he gives out communion. It is only after the final ablution that he may use these fingers for anything else.

When however we look to the General Instruction on the NOM, we find the following statement.

“The priest then washes his hands as an expression of his desire to be cleansed within.”[20]

There is no instruction whatsoever about the care necessary for these consecrated fingers after the supposed consecration.[21] No effort is made to keep the priests hands over the corporal for there is no corporal. The priest-president has no intrinsic awareness that he is about to, and then that he does in fact, handle the very Body of Our Lord. And so it is that if one observes the priest-president in the NOM, one will see no effort on his part (older priests may do so by habit) to preserve these fingers from any contamination.

And so it is that in the practical order, the Offertory has been abolished. It is no longer Christ who is offered, which defect has inevitable consequences when the Canon itself is approached.

THE PREFACES

The Traditional Mass used a variety of Prefaces. At an earlier time there were many more, but since the time of the Council of Trent they were reduced to 15 - a Common preface for most days and a special Preface for certain high feasts or funerals.

All the Traditional Prefaces say much the same thing:

The Lord be with you

And with thy spirit

Lift up your hearts

We have lifted them up to the Lord

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God

It is meet and just

“It is truly meet and just, right and profitable for us at all times, and in all places to give thanks to Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, eternal God...” They end by calling the angels to witness “so with the angels and archangels, with the dominions and powers, with all the hosts of the heavenly army, we sing of Thy glory without end, saying:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts. The heavens and the earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the Highest.

The NOM has many more Prefaces which are roughly similar. There is Advent 1, Advent 2, Christmas 1, Christmas 2, Christmas 3, Epiphany, Lent 1, 2, 3, 4, Passion of the Lord 1 and 2, Easter 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Ascension 1,2 , Weekdays 1,2,3,4, 5, and 6, Holy Eucharist 1 and 2, Holy Trinity, Sacred Heart, Dedication of a Church 1 and 2, Holy Spirit 1 and 2, Virgin Mary 1,2 and 3.... The list is endless. There is however a significant difference when it comes to the angels. In stead of ending “with the angels and archangels, with the dominions and powers, with all the hosts of the heavenly army,” the NOM mentions the angels collectively along with the saints and then proceeds to Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Power and Might. At first sight this doesn’t seem a problem. However, the correct translation of Sabaoth is “hosts” - that is the hosts of angels who tradition tells us are constantly singing this refrain before the throne of God. Moreover, this is the refrain which the faithful Jews chanted when Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and in a certain sense Christ is again entering the Jerusalem of the Altar and of our hearts at this point in the Mass.[22]

THE CANON OF THE MASS

HISTORICAL ISSUES

In the Traditional Mass, “the Mass of the Faithful” began with the Offertory. In the NOM it is at this point that we are given the “liturgy of the Eucharist.” As mentioned earlier, Eucharist means thanksgiving. In pre Vatican II theology it was used in reference to the Sacred Species, but this double meaning allows for a certain ambiguity.

The Canon of the Traditional Mass is the most central and time honored series of prayers that exists. As Father Nicholas Gihr says:

“Christ’s example was the norm for the Apostles at the celebration of the Sacrifice. They did, first, only that which Christ had done before. According to His directions and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they observed other things besides, namely, according to circumstances, they added various prayers and observances, in order to celebrate the Holy Mysteries as worthily and as edifyingly as possible. Those constituent portions of the sacrificial rite which are found in all the ancient liturgies, have incontestably their origin from the Apostolic times and tradition: the essential and fundamental features of the sacrificial rite, introduced and enlarged upon by the Apostles, were preserved with fidelity and reverence in the mystical blessings, the use of lights, incense, vestments and many things of that nature that she [the Church] employs by Apostolic prescription and tradition.”[23]

Whereas certain prayers were at times added to the Traditional Mass, it is well recognized that its central core or “Canon” remained fixed and unchanged from the earliest days. According to Sir William Palmer, a non-Catholic historian:

“There seems nothing unreasonable in thinking that the Roman Liturgy, as used in the time of [Pope Saint Gregory] the Great [590-604], may have existed from a period of the most remote antiquity, and perhaps there are nearly as good reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic Age...”[24]

In point of fact, historical research, both Catholic and Protestant, has shown that the Traditional Mass dates back to at least the fourth century. (Prior to that the time the Church was subject to severe persecution, and therefore historical records are sparse.) It is known that Pope St. Leo the Great added four words ( 440-461) and Gregory the Great (590-604) added diesque nostros in tua pace disponas “order our days in your peace - this at a time when Rome was being besieged by the Lombards and the city was in utmost peril; he also added ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi and et in electorum tuorum jubeas grege numerari. (Command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of thine elect.)[25]

Thus it is that the Council of Trent, (considered by most to be de fide) stated the Traditional Canon:

“Is composed out of the words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs.”

During the late Middle Ages many additional prayers were added to the Traditional Mass, often prolonging it to several hours. Pope Pius V gathered together the best scholars of his day and apart from immemorial custom (practices in vogue for over 200 years such as the Ambrosian or Mosarabic Rites) the Council of Trent instructed them “that all such accretions should be removed, and that the Church should firmly establish the use of the Mass as it was in the time of St. Gregory.” Subsequent to that scholars have made four additional corrections - two of them of typos, and two very minor. And so it is that with regard to the Canon we have the Mass as used in the time of Gregory the Great. Pope Pius V also protected this with his well known Quo Primum which places anyone who prevents a priest from saying it, or the laity from attending it under the severest anathemas or excommunications.

It was then an extraordinary event when John XIII introduced the name of St. Joseph into the Canon. Two previous popes had too much veneration for the Canon to do this. It was a trial balloon to see if there would be any reaction, and unfortunately there was none to speak of. (The other changes such as dropping the second Confiteor and the many commemorative collects were hardly noticed.) At the same time he made drastic changes in the Breviary readings and the Church calendar - the former affecting the spiritual life of the priests and the latter making the old Missals obsolete.

THE CANON ITSELF

The NOM has four, and actually many more, “Eucharistic Prayers” which have replaced the Traditional Canon, and which we are told are the same thing. We will give the Traditional Prayers below along with the First Eucharistic Prayer because this is the one which most resembles the original. It was initially rejected because of this similarity but replaced because of the protests of the Roman theologians involved in the so-called Ottaviani Intervention.

The Traditional Canon:

Wherefore we humbly pray and beseech Thee most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices which we offer up to Thee, in the first place for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N, our Bishop and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith.

This has been roughly replaced with:

We come to you Father with praise and thanksgiving through Jesus Christ your Son. Through Him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.

At first sight it seems quite similar. However in the Traditional prayer the phrase with blessings of “these unspotted sacrifices” relating back to what has been said in the deleted Offertory makes it clear that it is Christ which the priest is offering up. In the NOM version, it is only a sacrifice of “praise and thanksgiving,” which is entirely within our own power, and capitulates to Protestant theology. This persistent reference to a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” is a characteristic of the NOM.

The second prayer in the Traditional Mass is the Commemoration of the Living:

Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, N. and N., and of all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to Thee, for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, their families, and their friends, for the salvation of their souls and the health and welfare they hope for, and who now pay their vows to Thee, God eternal, living and true.

This also has been retained in Eucharistic Prayer No. 1

Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Lord, remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.

Again, the similarity is close, though the absence of the word “soul” here and elsewhere in the NOM is striking.

The next prayer is the “Communicantes” taken from the first word of the prayer its self:

Having communion with and venerating the memory, first, of the glorious Mary, ever a virgin, mother of Jesus Christ, our God and our Lord: likewise of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus: of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints: for the sake of whose merits and prayers do Thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen.

This also is fairly closely followed in Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 of the NOM:

We honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, [James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian - mentioning those within square brackets being optional]. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen] Father, accept this offering from your whole family..

While the list of the saints optionally provided is the same (starting out with the Apostles, going on the early popes and then to the early saints and martyrs) with whom we hope to be in communion, we find the name of Joseph which was of course inserted by John XXIII in his first “trial balloon” - the Mass of 1966. There is no theological objection to this as such, but given the present state of Catholic instruction, to describe him as the husband rather than the “most chaste spouse” is more than likely to given acceptance to the Protestant idea that “the brothers and sisters” of Jesus were the product of a biological relationship.

Things now begin to get a little more complex. The next traditional prayer is the “Hanc Igitur”

Wherefore we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

We now have

Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]

Again we have the removal of a significant word - oblation. Oblation implies an immolative sacrifice and not a sacrifice of “praise and thanksgiving.” In the Traditional Mass, the priest extends his hands over the bread and wine - symbols of Christ’s body, as was pointed out in the section on the Offertory. In the Sacrifices of the Old Testament the High Priest would extend his hands over a goat, thereby placing his sins and those of the people onto the animal which was then led out into the desert and allowed to fall off a high cliff. And so it is with Christ who took our sins upon Himself prior to His Crucifixion. Some older priests may do this from habit, but there is no rubrical instruction requiring it be done. Needless to say, in time it will be forgotten.

Next, let us consider the Quam Oblationem, the prayer before the Consecration.

And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless +, consecrate +, and approve + this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the body + and blood + of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Again, this has been in part retained:

Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.

The phrase “for us” in the absence of an offertory allows this prayer to be understood in a Cranmerian (Anglican) sense - namely that the bread and wine are not themselves transubstantiated so that they become the body and blood of Christ substantially and in themselves, but rather that as we receive them “with lively faith,” they might become FOR US the presence of Jesus Christ. Cranmer was attacked by his fellow reformers for leaving these two words in his rite to which he indignantly replied: “We do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made into the body and blood of Christ, but that UNTO US in that holy mystery they may be made so; that is to say, that we may be partakers in Christ’s body and blood, and that therefore in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished.” Consider further that in the Traditional Mass there is no such phrase as “in spirit and truth.” Now there is nothing wrong with the phrase, but it’s introduction here cannot be other than highly significant - the more so as the NOM is in essence modeled on the Anglican-Lutheran rites. It is pertinent that in Eucharistic Prayer No. 2, the prayer most recommended for use and supposedly taken from Hippolytus’s Canon, the words FOR Us have been inserted gratuitously.[26]

I have concentrated on Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 because it is said to most closely resemble the Traditional Mass. The other Eucharistic Prayers (and there are countless others, though four are usually given in the Missalettes. The one most commonly used and most urgently recommended is No. 2 where the prayers are simply reduced to the following

“Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become FOR US the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”

THE INSTITUTION NARRATIVE

The Institution Narrative is the same throughout the various Eucharistic Prayers. If one looks at the NOM Missalette no distinction is made between the “Words of Consecration,” now called the “Words of our Lord” and the rest of the text. In the Missals used with the Tridentine Mass the critical words are highlighted so there can be no mistake but that these are the very words of Christ, given us at the Last Supper when He established the Mass.

In the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration - the very heart of the Traditional Rite - are now part of what is called the “Institution Narrative,” an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church.[27] The phrase refers to the Last Supper at which time Christ established the Mass. It is obvious that it is intended that the priest-president read this as a narrative.- as if he were merely retelling the story of the Last Supper, some 2000 years ago, instead of actually consecrating the bread and wine here and now. Retelling the story of the Last Supper alone does not change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ - the priest must act in persona Christi, that is, he must say these critical words “in the person of Christ,” for it is Christ who, by His infinite power, through the words of the priest, “confects the Sacrament.” The “revised” version of the General Instruction, seeking to mollify critics of the New Mass, does speak of the priest acting in persona Christi, but not with regard to the manner in which he says the words of Consecration. Even if the use of the phrase “Institution Narrative” were the only defect in the New Rite, it would be sufficient to raise grave doubts as to whether or not the elements of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in the NOM. To simply read this as a story, as for example when the priest reads the Gospel, Transubstantiates nothing.

It is generally assumed that the words of Consecration are taken from Scripture. This is false. The first Scripture was written some 8 years after the Crucifixion and others much later. As St Thomas Aquinas tells us:

“The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the form of the Sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ.” (Summa, III, Q78, Art.3)

These words were given us by Christ Himself. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913):

“Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites; for some Sacraments (e.g., Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g.., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders.”

Now in all the 80 plus valid rites of Mass the form is essentially the same. Some do not include Mysterium fidei which tradition tells us St. Peter added. Others do not add “for the forgiveness of sins” to the consecration of the wine. But what does the NOM do.

It uses the words of Luther (who totally rejected the sacrificial nature of the Mass) which he in turn took from the Scriptures. Moreover it persistently uses the word all in place of many which violates the constant teaching of the Church and the canons of the Council of Trent. True it uses multi (many) in the Latin, but in the practical order who hears a NOM in Latin?

It beggers the mind that anyone would have the nerve to change the very words of Christ, especially in this critical place. Moreover, Paul VI doesn’t even refer to them as “Words of Consecration,” but rather as “The words of our Lord.”

Beyond this, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) notes “that there are three elements in the narrative not commemorated by the Evangelists: ‘with his eyes lifted up to heaven,’ ‘and eternal testament’ (whereas the Gospels give only ‘of the New Testament’) and ‘the mystery of the faith (mysterium fidei),” and these he holds to be derived from Christ and the Apostles, “for who would be so presumptuous and daring as to insert [much less remove] these things out of his own devotion? In truth, the Apostles received the form of the words from Christ Himself, and the Church received it from the Apostles themselves.”[28]

Can the Church - or rather its leaders, do such a thing? Listen to the words of Leo XIII taken from the irreformable Encyclical Apostolicae Curae:

“The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or “ceremonial” parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns before or after the actual words of the form are recited....”

Consider further the effect of the changes in the last sentences Instead of “do these things, “ we find the celebrant instructed to “do this,” that is, “take and eat (drink),” thus strongly suggesting that what is in involved is a “supper” and a “memorial,” rather than the entire action. And all this activity involves a “cup” rather than a “chalice,” thus further reinforcing a merely culinary implication. Next, note the additional phrase “Which will be given up for you,” which is a phrase introduced by Luther because as he said “the word ‘for you’ simply calls for believing hearts.”

The further removal of the Mysterium fidei - the mystery of the faith which surely refers to the Transubstantiation - which in itself could be tolerable - but placing it in a context which implies that this mystery is the Death, Resurrection and Final Coming. And referring to this as the “Memorial Acclamation” certainly leads one to believe that no Sacrifice and no Transubstantiation has occurred.[29]

AFTER THE CONSECRATION/ SUPPOSED CONSECRATION

In the Traditional Mass a series of prayers follow the Consecration.

“Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, His resurrection from the grave, and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer up to Thy most excellent majesty of Thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a victim + which is pure, a victim + which is holy, a victim + which is stainless, the holy bread + of life everlasting, and the chalice + of eternal salvation.”

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that these five signs of the Cross during this prayer represents the five wounds of Christ present on the altar.

“Vouchsafe to look upon them with a gracious and tranquil countenance, and to accept them, even as Thou wast pleased to accept the offerings of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham, our patriarch, and that which Melchisedech, Thy high priest offered up to Thee, a holy sacrifice, a victim without blemish”[30]

This prayer points to the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is perpetual, for He is in fact always sacrificing Himself for us. It may have taken different forms throughout history, but it is one and the same Sacrifice - previously seen as it were in “shadow” but now blatantly before us on the altar.

“We humbly beseech Thee almighty God, to command that these our offerings be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high in the presence of Thy divine Majesty; that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred + Body and + Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace; Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.”

Next comes the Commemoration of the Dead.

“Be mindful, also O Lord of Thy servants N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith and who sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all wo rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen”

Protestants of course reject the idea of Purgatory. The Orthodox say they do also, but they have simply given it a different name. Protestants also object to priests collecting stipends for saying Masses for the dead. Actually, the destruction of the Chanceries (where such stipends were deposited) was a great source of income to the Reformers. As for stipends, they are offerings made to the priest for saying Mass and are supposed to provide him with enough funds for food clothing and shelter for a one 24 hour period. A priest can only accept one stipend a day and cannot spend it before fulfilling his commitment.

Next the priest strikes his breast thus recognizing that he also is a sinful man and says:

“To us sinners, also, Thy servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy apostles and martyrs, with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all thy saints. Into their company do Thou, we beseech Thee, admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely pardoning our offenses: through Christ our Lord.”

This is after all what its all about - where we hope to end up so to speak. Here are listed the Apostles missed in the earlier prayer, as well as various functionaries of the Church, Ignatius, a bishop, Marcellinus a priest, Peter a Deacon, and those glorious martyrs of the early Church.

In the NOM these prayers have all been eliminated.

Next the priest makes three signs of the Cross over the Body and Blood of our Lord and says:

“By whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify +, quicken +, bless+, and bestow upon us all these good things.”

Then uncovering the chalice and taking the Body of Christ in his consecrated and purified fingers he makes three signs of the Cross over the Blood saying:

“Through Him +, and with Him +, and in Him + is to Thee, God the Father +, almighty, in the unity of the Holy + Ghost, all honor and glory.”

As he says “all honor and glory” he raises the Body over the Chalice in what is called the “little elevation.”

Then he puts the Body of Christ back on the Corporal, rubs his fingers over the chalice to be sure no particles of the Host have stuck to them, and recovers the chalice.

In the NOM this prayer in mitigated form has been retained. The priest-president lifts the bread and the cup and says what is called a Doxology ( according to Webster’s Dictionary, a Doxology is a kind of hymn of praise to God):

“Through him, with him; in him; in the unity of the Holy Spirit; all glory and honor is yours; almighty Father for ever and ever.”

THE OUR FATHER

Both the Traditional Mass and the NOM say the Our Father out loud. It is not surprising that this was retained in the NOM as all the Protestant sects kept the Our Father. In passing, it is worth noting that this most sacred prayer was always said in secret during the office or when in a public setting. However, in the Mass of the Faithful it was allowed to be said out loud as it would not fall on profane ears. This practice was mitigated over the centuries.

In the NOM however, after a short hiatus, an additional Doxology is appended to it, namely “For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and for ever.” This was always the Protestant addition which those who grew up before Vatican II and went to public school were well aware of. In those days when school children were allowed to say the Our Father in school at the start of day, Catholics stopped before this Doxology was added. Where does it come from? It is in the King James version. The Latin from which they worked had a note in the margin by a scribe which stated this brief hymn of praise, and they by mistake incorporated it into the translation. It is not in the original Scripture they worked from. It is of course quite appropriate, but hardly carries the stamp of exactitude that we are informed is so important to the innovators. This Doxology follows the next prayer. It should also be noted that the Our Father has been displaced in the NOM into what is called the “Communion Rite.”

The next prayer the Traditional Priest says is the following. Taking the Paten, he blesses himself and then kisses it. At the end he carefully places the Host on the Patten in preparation for what comes next.

“Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever a virgin, Mother of God, and of Thy holy apostles Peter and Paul, of Andrew, and of all the saints, graciously grant peace in our days that through the help of Thy bountiful mercy we may always be free from sin and secure from all disturbances.”

This has been replaced by a variety of very similar options

“Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

One suspects that one has to thank Freud for anxiety being inserted in this mass of sorts. Requesting the intercession of Mary and the saints is once again downplayed. And again the idea of the second coming is stressed, as it was in the Gospel Acclamation - this at a time when our Lord is supposedly present on the Altar.

.

The Traditional Mass follows with a very mystical prayer. The priest, uncovering the chalice, breaks the Host in two over the Precious Blood, being careful that no particles fall outside the chalice. As he does this he says “Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord.” Then he breaks off another small piece and says “Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God.” Then taking this small piece he says out loud Per omnia sacula saeculorum - “World without end,” to which the server responds Amen.

After this he makes three signs of the Cross with this piece over the Precious Blood saying:

May the peace + of the Lord + be always with + you.

To this the server answers on behalf of all present, “And with Thy spirit.”

To understand (if one can ever fully comprehend) what happens here one must again refer to the fact that the Traditional Mass recapitulates the entire life of Christ. Of course, this life is capsulated in the various acts and prayers of the priest. We join (hopefully) Christ in His Birth (Gloria), in His Baptism (Asperges), in His Youth and maturity (Epistles and Gospels), and in His triumphal entry of Jerusalem (Sanctus). It is His life we offer up in the Offertory, for what other “spotless host” is there, derived from the Divinity of God and encircled in the flesh of his most pure Mother? We also join Him in His Passion (The “unbloody Sacrifice”) and now in His Resurrection, for as Paul tells us, “we must be Crucified with Him and Resurrected with Him.” St. Thomas explains:

“The breaking of the host denotes three things: first the rending of Christ’s body, which took place in the Passion; secondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow from Christ’s Passion as Dionysius observes.”

St. Thomas gives other explanations such as that of Pope Sergius “ the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body, namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. The part consumed denotes those still walking on earth, because while living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. The part reserved on the altar till the close of the Mass is His body hidden in the sepulcher, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the end of the world: though their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one part on the altar till the close of the Mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger...[ It is now reserved in the Tabernacle.] Others however say that the part put into the chalice denotes those still living in this world, while the part kept outside the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body, while the part consumed means the others.

The point of all this is that Christ, having divided Himself up for us into innumerable pieces is reconstituted by the priest. The Body and Blood are united again which speaks to the Resurrection. In the NOM the bread is broken during the so-called consecration which goes to reinforce the culinary aspect that is so heavily stressed. Why is it broken here in the traditional rite? Because, as the great liturgist William Durandas explains, it recapitulates the breaking of the bread in Emmaus.

THE RITE OF PEACE

After the prayer for relief of anxiety, the Doxology mentioned above after the Our Father is said. And this in turn is followed by a short prayer which will be given below, by the kiss of peace. A Ritual kiss of peace was given in the Traditional High Mass, though it was restricted to those on the altar. Now this has become a varied affair; the less said about it the better. Not infrequently the priest comes down off the altar and shakes hands with those in the first row. Actually, it can be quite disturbing, for while Christ is actually on the altar, we are greeting each other as if He wasn’t there. It is the “community” that is important and indeed this is what seminarians are taught. This is what the General Instruction would teach us, namely that Christ is present in the community and the Eucharist is a symbol of the unity of the community, and hopefully of all the baptized.. Also, at this time the priest should normally be concerned about God’s business. He has no business leaving the altar and joining the crowd, much less shaking hands before the ablution of his fingers.

The traditional priest on dropping the particle of host into the wine says:

“May this commingling and consecrating of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail us who receive it unto life everlasting. Amen.

In the NOM this has been deleted and no such action takes place. No Resurrection? Who knows?

THE ANGUS DEI

In the Traditional Rite the priest then genuflects and says the following prayers, striking his breast each time.

“Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”

This in the NOM is called the “Breaking of Bread,” though I am not sure why. This has been retained unchanged. The priest-president then holds up the fractured bread and says:

“This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

This is perhaps the only prayer that suggests - only suggests mind you - that something has happened on the table (the reference to table will be explained below). But lest the suggestion be taken too seriously, we are once again regaled with the fact that it is a “supper.” As Paul VI said (in a somewhat ambiguous way) “The Mass is and will remain the memorial of the Lord’s Supper.”(DOL1759).

He then holds up the bread and says “The body of Christ. Amen” and communicates himself, followed by “the blood of Christ. Amen.” (Both Body and Blood being in lower case). He then takes the supposed Body of Christ and places it in the hands of those standing around where once the altar rails were. If the person kneels, he may place the bread on their tongue, but often he will tell them to stand up and either give it on the tongue or place it in their hand. He may of course let the Eucharistic Ministers do this while he sits in the “Presidential chair.“

It is pertinent that He says when giving out the bread, “The body of Christ. Amen.” and similarly, should he give out the wine, he will say “The blood of Christ.” [31] He is forbidden to say “This is the Body of Christ” by the American hierarchy because that specifies the bread is the Body in question. The Body is, according to current theology, in the community and the bread is a sign of the “unity” of this community.[32]

There is no clear cut instruction for the priest-president to wash his hands, though many do so either out of habit or to keep their fingers clean. And indeed, how could there be in so far as there is no clear cut rubric stating that they must purify their fingers at the beginning, and no care taken to keep the index and thumb closed except when handling the Sacred Species and over the Corporal at all times once the Consecration has occurred.

There are many other points of significance which space and time do not allow us to go into. But a few words must be said about what is called the “Concluding Rite.” The priest-president says “The Lord be with you,” and the congregation answers “And also with you.” He gives them a simple blessing: “May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (He has a choice of several.) After this the faithful are dismissed in the following words:

“Go, the mass is ended, go in peace.” or “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord...” They answer “Thanks be to God.”

The traditional priest doesn’t have it so easy. He is still about God’s business. He has not yet turned away from the altar. He next says three prayers in an attitude of deep obeisance:

“O Lord Jesus Christ Who didst say to Thine apostles: Peace I leave you, My peace I give you: look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church, and vouchsafe to grant her peace and unity according to Thy will: Who livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.”

The NOM has taken part of this prayer and transferred it to the “Rite of Peace” It is also somewhat modified to make it more communitarian.

“Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever. Amen”

The following two prayers of the traditional priest have been deleted in the NOM:

“O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, Who, according to the will of the Father, through the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast by Thy death given life to the world: deliver me by this Thy most Sacred Body and Blood from all my iniquities, and from every evil; make me always cleave to Thy commandments, and never suffer me to be separated from Thee, Who with the same God, the Father and the Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen”

“Let not the partaking of Thy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, all unworthy presume to receive, turn to my judgment and condemnation; but through Thy loving kindness may it be to me a safeguard and remedy for soul and body; Who, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, livest and reignest, God world without end. Amen”

The traditional priest then kneels (genuflects) down in adoration and says:

“I will take the Bread of Heaven and call upon the Name of the Lord.”

This is a most significant prayer for the Name of Jesus is most sacred. It was given him at the time of His Circumcision - a feast which has been suppressed - at the time when he first shed His blood for mankind. It is the most powerful Name at the sound of which “every knee should bend, in heaven, on earth and in hell.”[33]

Than the traditional priest rises, and taking the two pieces of host on the paten between the consecrated fingers of his left hand, adores it and says three times:

“Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”[34]

COMMUNION

The NOM priest-president also says a similar prayer: which we have given above under the section entitled Angus Dei.

The traditional priest then takes the Host in the consecrated fingers of his right hand, and holding of the paten which is in his left hand, he signs himself and says “may the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto everlasting life” and communicates himself. After this he folds his hand and says a brief prayer - brief because he must proceed to service the congregation. He next kneels again, and taking the paten carefully gathers any particles that may have fallen on the corporal. These he brushes into the chalice with care, again using his consecrated fingers. He then says the following prayer:

“What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things that He has rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies.”

The priest then signs himself with the chalice and says:

“May the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”

After consuming the Precious Blood, the priest covers the chalice and unlocks the Tabernacle. Again he kneels down in veneration. Rising he removes the Ciborium, a gold coated vessel usually containing the reserved Hosts from a previous Mass, removes its veil and kneels down again. When he was consuming the Precious Blood, the server repeats the Confiteor. This repeated Confiteor - the same as that initially said - is appropriate, for during the course of Mass our minds have almost inevitably wandered and been distracted. The priest in turn turns to him and tothe congregation and says the Misereator and the Indulgentiam - these prayers are given at the start of Mass and can be referred to. The priest then takes the Ciborium, and raising a small Host for all to see, says

“Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.”

Than three times he repeats the statement:

“Lord I am not worthy that thou should enter under my roof (palate or mouth), but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

After this he approaches the kneeling faithful and holding the Host he makes a small sign of the cross and says to each and every one:

“May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting.”

The server holds a Paten attached to a handle under each person’s chin lest any crumb should fall, for each and every crumb is in itself the entire Body and Blood of Our Lord. When the priest has communicated all the faithful, he returns to the altar, takes the servers paten and carefully wipes any crumbs into the chalice. He then returns the Ciborium covered with its veil, to the Tabernacle; kneels again, closes the Tabernacle and locks it. He then takes the chalice and the server places more wine in it so that any of our Lord’s Blood is diluted and swallowed. When he does this he says the following prayer:

“Into a pure heart, O Lord, may we receive the heavenly food which has passed our lips; bestowed upon us in time, may it be the healing of our souls for eternity.”

The priest then takes the empty chalice to the Epistle side of the altar. The server then pours both wine and water over his consecrated fingers so that he can wash them of any small and invisible particles that may have clung to them. While he is washing these fingers he says the following prayer:

“May the Body, O Lord, which I have received and Thy Blood which I have drunk cleave to mine inmost parts, and do Thou grant that no stain of sin remain in me, whom pure and holy mysteries have refreshed: Who liveth and reignest world without end. Amen.”

Just as the priest for the first time after the start of the Canon turned to the congregation when giving the absolution before Communion, so also, after what is called the “ablutions,” he for the first time need not keep his consecrated thumb and index finger together. He now wipes the chalice with care and covers it once again. He then folds the corporal and replaces it in the Burse - placing both in the center of the altar. In the interim the server has moved the Missal from the Gospel to the Epistle side and the priest goes to the Missal and says a short Communion verse which is usually related to the Mass said. He then goes the center, kisses the altar, turns and says

“The Lord be with you,” to which the server answers “And with thy spirit.”

He then returns to the Missal and says one or more “Post-communion” orations or prayers, closes the Missal towards the Center, and turns to the people and says,

“Go, the Mass is ended.” to which the server answers, “Thanks be to God”[35]

Turning back to the altar, he bows low and says:

“May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord.”

The priest then kisses the altar, turns and blesses the people:

“May almighty God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bless you.”

Not finished yet, he next turns with a complete circle and reads the Last Gospel, which is taken from the first chapter of the Gospel of John. This was also dropped by John XXIII - I suspect because it has an implied criticism of the Jews, for as John says, “He came unto His own, and b His own received Him not” It also makes it clear the in so far as “All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing that was made.” that current biological theories about the origin of life are hardly compatible with Catholic teaching. This passage is one of the most pregnant doctrinal passages in Scripture and was added during the 1100's to counteract certain heresies about the Incarnation.

After this the priest says some prayers at the foot of the Altar - prayers originally requested by Pope Leo XIII and in use through the time of Pius XII. There is a story behind these prayers. After saying Mass at the High Altar in St. Peters in 1878, Leo XIII heard a dialogue between Satan and Christ standing on either side of him. Satan was complaining that he had not been given a free hand to “furrow” (to test) the faithful. Christ informed him that he could have 100 years to do what he wished without restrictions. This thoroughly frightened the Pope and he instituted these prayers to protect the faithful. These prayers were somewhat shortened during the reign of Pius X, but their purpose remained unchanged. (Minor variations may be heard in different dioceses.)

It is only then that the priest leaves the altar and the server puts out the candles, starting on the Gospel side. The priest however is obliged, unless charity dictates otherwise, to say a thanksgiving for the privilege of saying Mass - a series of prayers which takes some ten to fifteen minutes. This is why traditional priests are not readily available after Mass to talk to parishoners.

THE ALTAR

Now all this “spiritual nourishment” is effected, not on an altar, the purpose of which is for sacrifice, but on a table. An altar stone containing relics is no longer required for the NOM. Tabernacles are no longer placed on these tables and indeed it would be awkward to do so. The six candles representing the Jewish Manorah - the seventh being Christ Himself - are no longer used. Nor does the priest-president have to face a Crucifix (which the Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the Principle ornament of the altar... place there to remind the celebrant and the poeple that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross.” (The General Instruction does call for a Crucifix to be placed on the table, and usually a small one is present, though not in clear public view.

The Jews always prayed towards the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, and at the Last Supper Christ and the Apostles also did so. With the establishment of the Church the faithful faced the tabernacles and these were oriented towards the East from whence Christ would come again.

There is absolutely no historical basis for having altars or tables facing the people. It is true that in a few of the early churches in private homes, architectural constraints made this necessary, but this was a break with standard practice. It is also true that some of the early Masses may have been said without an altar stone, for it took a short time to produce the martyrs relics required. One cannot help but think that Cranmer was correct when he said in discussing this issue that “an alter is for Sacrifice, and a table is for a meal”

It is perhaps pertinent to consider what Scripture has to say about the establishment of “second altars.” When queried about signs indicating the approaching end times, Christ said “when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the holy place, let him who reads understand.” Church Fathers have always interpreted this as related to sacrilege in the Holy Place. Now the only other place in Scripture where the phrase “abomination of desolation” occurs is in Maccabees 1 where it is described as a second altar which is erected upon and/or over against the true altar of God in the Jewish temple as an integral part of a false and idolatrous worship, introduced in substitution for or of the true Sacrifice at a time of general apostasy of Jewry from their received faith. Looking at the Jerome Biblical Commentary, we find it stated that the Jews under the false High Priest Jason, changed their constitution which constituted an abandonment of their covenant with Yahweh, and that the Holy of Holies ceased being a central part of Jewish worship. It is perhaps pertinent that women, who took no part in Jewish liturgical practice, were all over the sacred precincts and this second altar.(2 Macc. 6:4) Let him who reads understand.

Again, with the table we have the culinary aspect of the NOM stressed. Cardinal Lercaro, president of the Concilium that created the NOM informed us that this changes “makes for a celebration of the Eucharist which is true and more communal...” (DOL., No 428) Pau l VI approved the new arrangement, because the altar was now “placed for dialogue with the assembly,” and because it was one of the things that made Sunday Mass, “not so much an obligation, but a pleasure; not just fulfilled as a duty, but claimed as a right” (DOL., No. 430).

CONCLUSIONS

So far I have tried to simply present a contrast between the traditional Mass and the NOM on a factual basis. If occasional comments take on a pejorative connotation, I can only apologize.

The conclusions however are mine. I cannot speak for the Church for I have no such authority. I do however have an intact reason and it is a principle of the Catholic faith that one cannot believe what is against reason. Moreover, we are instructed in 1 Cor. 2:15 to “judge all things.”

It is of course, nothing less than extraordinary that anyone - even an angel from heaven - should presume to change the Mass which Christ gave us! All the arguments about development, all the academic exercises that so many have been involved in, are so much sand in the eyes. The fact remains extraordinary. I would rather St. Peter’s were blown to smithereens, than that one word of our Holy Christ-given Mass should be changed. What an extraordinary lack of faith was involved in all these innovators. How they have turned their back on Christ!

I cannot help but embrace the opinion that the NOM fails on all points as a Catholic rite. There is no clear cut evidence that any sacrifice other than that of “praise and thanksgiving” occurs. It is true that there are certain phrases that are ambiguously suggestive of a real sacrifice, but these are always hedged in with actions and other phrases that limit their import.[36] I am reminded of Luther’s comment when he changed the Mass. He said, they should keep the outer trappings, because most of the faithful wouldn’t notice the difference. This is all the more true in that we were used to trusting our priests.

Many older Catholics used to going to Mass, do not follow closely what goes on - as St. Thomas says, “it is not important that they follow the priest closely, what is important is that they know what he is doing.” Thus satisfied with their trust in the Church, and seeing a fairly superficial resemblance of the NOM with what they were used to, they accept everything as fine.[37] Others will use the ambiguous phrases as their defense in terms of its validity. However our children have no such protections and are corrupted by all this, especially when it is explained to them by the modernist liturgical experts and “facilitators” who insist on stressing its “communitarian” nature.

One cannot help but agree with the statement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bachi about the NOM, namely that:

“...the Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements 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.”

Elsewhere he explains:

“The position of both priest and people is falsified, and the celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister... By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed on the “supper” and the “memorial,” instead of on the unblood renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary... The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated... It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.”[38]

Paul VI assured us that the NOM gave greater clarity to the doctrines of the Church, even using the traditional phrase that the lex orandi reflected the lex credendi (the form of prayer reflects the form of belief.) If he is being honest, one is led to ask just which Church he is speaking of - the Church we have been familiar with for some two thousand years or the post-Conciliar Church (the name they have given themselves) with its new Pentecost and its new “economy of the Gospel”? It is clear that the NOM was created for a variety of reasons, one of the most important being to make it possible for our “separated brethren” to unite with us. Of course, if we are to have the Protestants unite with us, we have to remove all the sharp doctrinal distinctions that the traditional Mass used and which the Protestants rejected over several centuries. These “stumbling blocks” to the Protestants would never allow for any kind of union. The net result is a mushy mass with many fine sounding phrases but no solid content. It has no “meat,” and indeed, not even any “milk.”

It is a constant teaching of the post-Conciliar Church that the Catholic Church has lost its unity, and hence all the apologies and even talk of canonizing Luther. This is of course a total impossibility. Unity pertains to Truth and is intrinsic to the Catholic Church. If only one Catholic is alive who adheres fully to the Catholic faith, unity resides with him. The Church, the Bride of Christ, simply cannot loose its unity without becoming other than what it is. Unity is intrinsic to its very nature. But we are told this has been lost, which implies that the Bride of Christ has committed adultery, which is frankly a heresy. And it follows that the Eucharist is now proclaimed as the “Sacrament of Unity.” It is of course a Sacrament of Unity, but not in the sense given to it by the modernist theologians. The very word “com-union” makes this clear, for it is the Unity with Christ that is involved. When we receive the Consecrated host we enjoy a unity primarily with Him. Any other unity with our fellow worshipers in purely secondary. Without a common Father there can be no brotherhood among men. And along with this new interpretation what happens to the priest-president? The traditional priest knows that his primary function is to perform the Sacrifice. This is why he is a priest, and only he has been given the power (though this power is of course that Christ may do so through him). In the absence of a true Sacrifice, the priest-president is reduced to a kind of social worker, not much different from his Protestant colleagues. He can do many good things, and be a wonderful community leader. He is however no longer a man walking apart, another Christ whose life is committed to sanctity despite his personal weaknesses. Cardinal Ratzinger’s recent article published in the Homelitic and Pastoral Review makes this quite clear, but in terms of the primary priestly function (to which he provides one short sentence) nothing is stressed, and has been described by one eminent Catholic are “pure piffel.” I am in no way trying to lay all the blame on Paul VI. The subsequent people occupying the Chair of Peter are fully in agreement with him. John Paul I declared that whereas he formerly believed only the Truth had “rights,” he subsequently stated that error also has rights. John Paul II has repeatedly stated that he intends to carry out the program established by his “spiritual father” Paul VI, and indeed his actions bear this out. [39]

The picture becomes more complicated. Where once the faithful were obliged to go to and support our own parishes, they can now go to any parish indiscriminately. Thus they can choose either conservative or liberal priest-presidents. In addition, many priest-presidents have made compromises by either retaining the proper Words of Consecration, or using care about the handling of our Lord’s Body and Blood. In this of course they depart from obedience to the rubrics, for as any priest knows, to intentionally change or fail to follow the rubrics in the traditional Mass is a serious offence against God. And is this not a silent but most powerful proof of my contention that there is something seriously wrong with the NOM?[40] In addition, several groups are using the Indult Mass but who are ordained by Bishops consecrated by the new rites which are in themselves dubious.[41] It is not of such that I presume to judge within the confines of this paper. It is only the NOM that I judge - and in this, not its “abuses,” but its intrinsic nature.[42] No Catholic can accept the definition of the NOM Mass as given in the General Instruction. This definition is so bad that many like Michael Davies assure us that we can ignore the General Instruction. This is of course a purely personal opinion and goes against what the post-Conciliar “Magisterium” instructs us. I do not see how anyone who uses the NOM can refuse to accept this definition.

While the “Indult” Mass, if said by a properly ordained priest is valid, implied in its use is the acceptance of the NOM as being equally valid. And indeed, the Society of Pius X, the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, among others, all use the NOM at times. Moreover, the Indult is by its very nature a concession to those who have a special “bond” with the pre-Conciliar liturgy. As such, it is a temporary grant aimed at keeping such individuals within the arms of the Conciliar Church. The recent “Protocol 1411" which insists that any priest is free to say the NOM, and which insists upon their doing so whenever there is a “community” reason doing so reminds one of the dilemma many priests faced in early Rome when all they had to do was to “sacrifice to the gods.”

One must protest against the labeling of the Indult Mass - even when valid - as “Tridentine.” It is not the Tridentine Mass as codified by Pius V. Similarly, one must beware of such phrases as “the Latin Mass,” for even the NOM can be said in Latin. All this is not a matter of language or titles - it is a matter of doctrine. Father Noel Barbara’s comment about the NOM in Latin is pertinent. To quote him, “if you wrap garbage in silver paper, it is still garbage!”

The purpose of the Indult Mass is to keep conservative minded Catholics who find the NOM objectionable within the post-Conciliar Church. This is well explained by Msgr Calkins of the Ecclesia Dei Commission who summarized for us the Vatican’s policy regarding the Old Mass:

“Out of ‘compassion’ for those unfortunate individuals afflicted with psychological hang-ups, Pope John Paul II decided to provide the indult Mass, with the expectation that such indivuduals would eventually outgrow their sad condition, give up the liturgical equivalent of a childhood condition, give up the liturgical equivalent of a childhood security blanket, and rejoin their New Order parishes.” (The Remnant, August, 31, 1999)

As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, the labeling of the Indult as “Tridentine,” and the use of the Latin NOM to satisfy the nostalgic requirements of an older generation further confuse the picture. In other words, you are never quite sure what you are getting, and neither names or Latin is any guarantee.

If NOM is not a Catholic rite; If the NOM does not Transubstantiate, then there is no grace received from receiving this bread - that is to say the grace which flows ex opere operato (i.e., despite the defects of the priest). One cannot help but conclude that “some enemy hath done this.” However, those that go in good faith certainly receive the graces that flow from the disposition of their souls. If the NOM is objectively sacrilegious, it is not necessarily subjectively sacrilegious. Those who go to it in innocence cannot be judged to sin. It is more difficult to judge of priests - for just as a surgeon who doesn’t know his anatomy is to be condemned, so also priest who doesn’t know his Mass. Again, no judgement of individuals is involved. One judges the NOM, not those who say or attend it whose personal culpability is in God’s hands. (And what of us who say the Tridentine Mass! What tremendous boldness in such unworthy people. We have far more to answer for.)

I cannot help but think that Heaven has in a certain way protected itself from profanation. If in fact there is no Transubstantiation in the NOM, then the objectively sacrilegious action is less offensive to almighty God. Placing the bread in unconsecrated hands and failure to care for crumbs or fallen pieces is no great problem. The mysteries of God are great, and hence, to a certain degree one can relax about what goes on. Our duty in the present confusion is quite straight forward. We have one task: and that is to be Catholic. There is nothing going on that prevents us from being fully Catholic. We will have to work for it. We will have to study and pray. If in the course of things we loose our faith, or replace it with a new and different faith, that will be our own fault.

A further caveat. One hears increasing talk to the effect that the matter and form of the Sacrament is not important; that the faith of the recipient will validate what is lacking in any rite. This of course is the Lutheran and Anglican position and is nothing more than wishful thinking. It should be absolutely clear that no amount of faith on the part of the recipient can transubstantiate.

Without sound doctrine and unquestionably valid Sacraments, there can be no true spiritual life. Christ who said He was the Way, the Light and the Truth, did not appoint His Apostles and die on the Cross so that we could make up our own doctrines and Sacraments. The idea that the Church is in any need of aggiornamento, of adapting itself to modern times, is absurd. It is we and the modern times which has to adapt itself to the Church that Christ established. Those who wish to find a Tridentine Mass can do so - at some inconvenience admittedly - in almost every part of the country. It’s a matter of whether it is worth it to them. And so it is that I leave you with this comparison which will help you make choices. May they be the choices that God would have us make.

A NOTE ON OBEDIENCE

Since it is in the name of Obedience that we have been asked to accept the NOM, a note on Obedience is in order. Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues and thus of a higher order. We owe no obedience to error. We are not obliged in any way to obey an order that destroys our faith.

This poses somewhat of a problem for conservative NOM priest-presidents. Obedience means accepting the entire rite, the NOM and the General Instruction that goes with it. The compromises which many older priests have made with this rite, such as saying the correct Words of Consecration or handling the hosts with appropriate veneration, is to depart from the rubrics and hence to fail in obedience. (There are so many liberties taken that such is easily ignored by those in authority.)[43] I do not criticize them, for if they were to insist on saying the Tridentine Mass they would be forced to leave. This is an intolerable burden for an older man who has never had to earn his living in the world. And how many of these older priests have stayed on to help and protect the faithful. Who can judge of such. Yet frequently, after years of trying to find a middle path, they find themselves increasingly forced to leave. Initially they were offered retirement and literally thousands took advantage of this. Younger priests, not aware of these difficulties, do not face such a conflict.

Again, I say, no one has to agree with my conclusions. But they do have to make choices. The Church has always rejected the idea of “blind obedience.” It is perhaps worth while to consider what St. Maximus the Confessor said when he was challenged while defending the Orthodox faith. The bishops asked him “Will you alone be saved and all others lost?” His Answer:

“The three young men who did not adore the idol when all others adored it did not condemn anyone. They did not attend to what belonged to others but attended to this, that they not lapse from true worship. Likewise, Daniel, when thrown into the lion’s den, did not condemn anyone who did not pray to God in accordance with the decree of Darius, but attended towhat was his own role, and he preferred to die and not offend God than to be afflicted by his conscience over the transgression of the law of nature. Thus it is with me as well; may God grant that I neither condemn anyone nor say that I alone am saved. But I prefer to die rather than to have on my conscience that I in any way at all have been deficient in what concerns faith in God.”[44]

Appendix I on the rules governing the Indult Mass in the USA : (taken in part from a theological tract published by Maeta.)

The Indult Mass is a valid Mass, providing the priest is himself validly ordained. The question of ordination is discussed in my book on The Problem with the Other Sacraments. As explained in my book on the Mass (The Problem with the New Mass), the Mass of John XXIII or the Indult Mass, was primarily an attack on the traditional breviary - the changes in the rite were minimal. However, those that take advantage of the Indult do so with certain understandings that a traditional Catholic cannot accept.

One must once again call attention to the current practice of referring to the Indult Mass as the Tridentine Mass. This is an inaccuracy. The Indult Mass is the Mass of John XXIII as promulgated in 1962. The Tridentine Mass as such remains forbidden. This was dropped from use with the introduction of the NOM in 1969, though its final enforcement as the missa normativa (normal Mass) did not occur till some time later

The first decree of indulting was initiated on Oct. 3, 1984 when John Paul II issued a circular, Quattuor abhinc annos, which addressed Catholics who remained attached to the “Tridentine Rite.” If such Catholics “without ambiguity and publicly have no association (nullam partem) with those who put in doubt the legitimacy and doctrinal correctness” of the new services, and if without any detriment to the liturgical revolt and at the discretion of their local bishop, these could be allowed in special cases to have the “1962 Mass” somewhere “outside of a parish church.”

Two days after Lefebvre’s consecrating bishops on June 30, 1988, JP II issued a motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. By this decree, he expressed a special pastoral concern for those who had “feelings” towards (or nostalgia concerning) the “old Mass” They and their obsolete and institutionally outlawed Mass service could be indulted in special cases.

Ecclesia Dei

With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination of 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre... even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all...To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin Tridentine Mass... moreover respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

Through this letter, JP II established the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Its purpose (according to its director, Cardinal Innocenti) was “to work itself out of existence.” JP II urged bishops “to respect the feelings of those ‘Catholic who were attached to the Latin Liturgical Tradition... to facilitate their ecclesial communion [with the new Church].

Ecclesia Dei today:

“Our Holy Father told me on several occasions he gave authorization for the Tridentine Mass with the clear intention that only persons who went to that Mass before 1965 should benefit from that permission.” (Cardinal Mahony, Fideliter, July 1997) Faithfully implementing the papal will, Cardinal Mahony forbids anyone born after 1965 to attend an Indulted Mass.

Conditions for Indulting in the USA: (It should be emphasized that while all these requirements are not everywhere insisted upon, they are in principle required. This list is in large part made available by MAETA, Metairie, La.)

1) Indulted priests and people must be specified. They must profess their belief in the New Church - in its religion and its liturgy.

2) The celebrant of an indulted Mass must be specifically chosen by the local ordinary for each such indulted Mass.

3) Indulted priests and their designated congregations must accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II and all policies, decrees and programs emanating from New Church. They must whole heartedly accept the religion and liturgy born out of and conforming to “the spirit of Vatican Two.”

4) The indulted Mass is not allowed for funerals, weddings, religious education and conferences . Also, seminarians must neither be trained to say the Canonized Mass Liturgy nor must they be unnecessarily exposed to this obsolete and outlawed liturgy.

5) Advertisements for this indulted Mass are forbidden.

6) Consecrated “hosts” for indulted Masses must whenever possible originate from Novus Ordo “Masses”

7) Homilies must stress the “spirit and theology” of Vatican II.

8) Priest-presidents who take advantage of the Indult have almost invariably come from saying the NOM which is bound to contaminate their thinking and actions. It is almost inevitable that they will introduce into the Indult changes that have become habitual from the use of the NOM.

9) To this list must be added the fact that the Indult does not use the traditional feasts of the Liturgical year - a traditional pattern in which we live the life of Christ as it were on a daily basis. Thus the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, the Feast of the Circumcision, The Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, etc., are all “suppressed,” which in the practical order means they are obliterated.

How, may we ask, can the Christ given Mass which the Church has used for so many centuries ever become “outlawed and obsolete.”?

It is important to understand that those who accept the Indult Mass - be they priests or laity - must recognize that in doing so they are accepting the entire post-Conciliar establishment, Vatican II and the NOM. In doing so, they immediately declare themselves part of the problem. They may decry the post-Conciliar church and insist on their conservative position. They may even think they are somehow preserving the faith. But facts are facts. They are recognizing and embracing the authority of the current post-Conciliar hierarchy; they are accepting all the sacramental changes; all the encyclicals and doctrinal statements of John Paul II; Their conservative opinions are just that, opinions, and they have no more force than the most liberal opinions of any fellow priest-president. This is precisely why the post-Conciliar hierarchy allows them to use the Indult. Of course there are many who are simply taking advantage of the situation, taking advantage of the opportunity of obtaining valid Sacraments. At the present time the granting of the Indult allows the novus ordo hierarchy to keep people who don’t like the Novus Ordo Missae within the fold. At some point the Indult will be withdrawn. This is not a speculation. They have told us that they intend to do this. By then older priests will have died out and traditional priests will be as rare as hen’s teeth. Those without a clear understanding of the doctrinal issues involved will be easily swept into the new church.

The writing is on the wall. May we have the grace to see it.

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M. D.+

ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001

---

[1] The references to DOL throughout this paper are to the Documents on the Liturgy published by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.,56231. This is a standard reference work. The Tridentine Mass was allowed for older priests who claimed to be too old to change, but only sine populo, that is with no one else present, not even a server. This for all practical purposes removed it from circulation. John Paul II, who considers Paul VI his “spiritual father” is equally committed to this position.

[2] The term “Tridentine” is somewhat of a misnomer. The Canon of this Mass goes back to Pope St. Gregory who added one or two phrases to the then existing form, and almost certainly it goes back to the Apostles, though written records are not available from the period when the Church was under persecution. Cf. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, TAN, Rockford, Ill., 1992. Over the years many additional prayers outside of the Canon were added and at Trent it was cleaned up and returned to its earlier form. Pope Pius V then promulgated his bull Quo Primum which made it clear that this was the Mass to be used in the Roman Church (except for those rites of immemorial custom like the Ambrosian, Dominican, Mozarabic, etc.) and that no one could prevent anyone from attending or saying it. When Paul VI claims that he did nothing in creating the new mass other than what Pius V did at Trent, that is simply not true.

[3] The problem of the new rites of Holy Orders is discussed in Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problem with the Other Sacraments, TAN, Rockford, Ill., 61105,1999

[4] Cf Appendix 1 on the Indult and its implications.

[5] I remember being instructed when working in a psychiatric emergency room not to wear white coats as this separated us from the patients. A few days later the secretaries and aids were all wearing white coats while we physicians were in street clothes. The patients didn’t want to see us, they insisted on talking to the aids.!

[6] There is a blessing for the sick which is only given when the patient is alive. It is not equivalent to the old extreme unction. See my book, The Problem with the Sacraments, TAN, 1999.

[7] One can insist on the use of black which is an “option,” however obtaining black vestments is almost impossible. Praying for the soul of the “faithful departed” is possible within the rite if two optional prayers are incorporated - which being “optional,” they rarely are used. The priest of course can add any prayers he wishes.

[8] It is true that the Asperges is not always said. Nevertheless it is there in principle. And every time one blesses oneself with Holy Water one can be said to be performing an Asperges.

[9] Wherever + is written, the Priest blesses himself or the Sacred Species.

[10] There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the laity praying or confessing with the priest, but in the present context this practice again stresses that the priest-president is “presiding” over the ceremony and that the priest has no separate function from the laity.

[11] Father Jungmann explains “that the Misereatur was retained, as this prayer, unlike the Indulgentiam, could be said by any layman.” The Mass, p. 167.

[12] Homily on Luke, Book 10, chap.22. Feast of St. Apollanaris.

[13] It is still retained in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, and in some of the Eastern Rites.

[14] This practice dates back to the early Church as we know from the Martyrdom of St. Procopus who was a “lector” whose function was to read the translation.

[15] At the “Last Supper” Christ and the Apostles faced the Temple, as was customary among the Jews. The High Priest of course never faced the people when entering the Holy of Holies. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that the facing the east was because: 1) The way in which the heavens move from the East to West symbolizes God’s majesty; 2) It symbolizes our desire to return to Paradise; and 3) Christ, the Light of the World, is expected to return from the East. ( II-II, Q84, 3 ad. 3). Durandas informs us that the Epistle was read on the right side for its contents were offered to the Jews, but when rejected, the Gospel was taken to the left side of the altar when it was offered to the Gentiles. Beyond this there is the orientation of North and South that follows from such an arrangement which carries still further significance. Msgr. Gaume in his Catechism of Perseverance explains that the north wind represents the breath of the evil spirit; and that Scripture itself teaches us this signification, since it addresses the devil thus: O Lucifer, thou didst say in thy heart, I will establish myself on the side of the north. (Isa. xiv:13). Hence the reader of the Gospel turns towards the left side of the Church, which is usually the north, to show that he purposes to destroy the evil influences of the devil’s breath. For the Jews the Holy of Holies was the “center” of the world. In Catholicism, every tabernacle becomes this center. Thus Christ arises in the east; the North and South represent extensions as does the West which s where under normal conditions the Nave exists.

[16] Fr. Martin von Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass., TAN, Rockford, Ill., 1997

[17] At this point it is perhaps useful to consider and provide an example of how one can indeed apply Christ's life to ourselves. According to the Blessed Johannes Tauler, the story of the Flight into Egypt is full of meaning for us. In the Gospel story, the angel warned Joseph that although Herod had died, his son Archelaus had taken the throne and still sought to kill the Christ-child. Tauler viewed this entire drama as taking place within the soul - even though the Herod in our souls is dead as a result of Baptism which engendered the Christ-child within us, Archelaus still continues to live within our souls and still seeks to kill the Christ-child. Thus it is that, like the Magi, after the encounter with Christ, they had to travel a different path.

[18] There is a certain ambiguity in the wording of the General Instruction. DOL 1439, and especially footnote R10 removes this ambiguity.

[19] I have placed the Lavabo somewhat out of order. In the Traditional Mass it is said before the Suscipe sancte Trinitas and the Orate Fratres. In the NOM it’s equivalent is said after the preparation of the Gifts and before the start of the Preface and Eucharistic Prayer.

[20] DOL 1442

[21] In the new rite of Paul VI for ordaining priest-presidents, there is no consecration of the priest’s hands.

[22] In the NOM the Preface includes the initial prayers. The following is the Preface usually used with Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 for comparative purposes. “Father, it is our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son Jesus Christ. He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary. For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people. And so we join the angels and the saints in proclaiming your glory as we say...”

[23] Dr. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Herder: St. Louis, many editions

[24] Quoted by Patrick H. Omlor, Interdum, Issue No. 7, Menlo Park, Ca.

[25] It is true as Jungmann has shown, that there were slightly different variations of this prayer before the time of Gregory the Great. Indeed, even today on certain feasts different words are used. However from the time of Gregory it and these were fixed.

[26] As the superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, a major Luther authority said, “We acknowledge our willingness to take part in the ‘Catholic eucharistic celebration’ in as much as ‘they felt at home with the new eucharistic prayers’ because ‘they had the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of the sacrifice’ than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. Anglicans have also used the NOM, though they usually prefer their Anglican rites.

[27] The term doesn’t appear in the NOM Misselette, but is a part of the General Instruction and hence has the force of a “rubric.” Priests brought up in the NOM are taught this as a matter of course.

[28] De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, quoted by Maurice de la Taille, TheMystery of the Faith, Theses XXIV and XXXVB, p. 454.

[29] Several “Memorial Acclamations” are provided for the NOM priest-president to choose from. At first they wished to leave this entirely up to the priest, but Paul VI said no because he feared that people might say “My Lord and My God.” This is documented in The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 by Anbnibale Bugnini, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1990

[30]That the sacrifice of Melchisedech was a figure of the Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Paul explains this in his letter to the Hebrews, Chapters VII, VIII, and IX. He expatiates at length on the priesthood of Christ showing that Christ was a priest but not of the order of Aaron, because He was not of the tribe of Levi whose sons alone were ordained to the priesthood. Being of the generation of Juda, from which kings were chosen, Christ was a King and, therefore a priest according to the order of the King-priest Melchisedech. The two priesthoods differed in two things. In the first place, Aaron sacrificed the blood of animals, while Melchisedech offered bread and wine. Secondly, the priesthood of Aaron was temporal and was to terminate, but the priesthood of Melchisedech, or Christ, was eternal, and its institution was sealed with an oath of God concerning which the Psalmist writes: “And the Lord hath sworn and he will not repent. Thou are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Ps. 109:14). St Cyprian tells us “Christ offered that which Melchisedech offered, bread and wine, that is His Body and Blood” (Lib.2, ca.3). It is of great significance that all references to Melchisedech have been eliminated both in the NOM and in the new Ordination rites.

[31] Giving out blood was very popular in the beginning, but because of inconvenience and fear of infection, it has in many parishes, fallen into disuse. Catholic theology holds that you receive both under either species by “concomittance.” and there is no objection to receiving under both.

[32] The U.S. Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy has stated: “The use of the phrase “the body of Christ, Amen” in the communion rite asserts in a very forceful way the presence and role of the community. The minister [sic] acknowledges who the person is by reason of baptism and confirmation and what the community is and does in the liturgical action.. The change in the use of the phrase “The body of Christ,” rather than the long formula which was previously said by the priest, has several repercussions in the liturgical renewal. First, it seeks to highlight the important concept of the community as the body of Christ; secondly, it brings into focus the assent of the individual to the worshiping community, and finally, it demonstrates the importance of Christ’s presence in the liturgical celebration.”

[33] Cf. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Invocation of the Name of Jesus, Fons Vitae, Ky., USA. 1999

[34] These words being taken from the Centurian whose son Christ healed.

[35] The phrase Ita Missa est is usually translated as God, the Mass is ended. An alternative however is to consider the Hebrew word mincha, which is translated oblation. Nearly always in the Old Testament this word has the specific signification of an unbloody sacrifice, and, though occasionally meaning any sort of real sacrifice, is never used to signify interior acts of worship or such exterior oblations as are not real sacrifices. The Prophet Micheas announces the coming abrogation of the old rites and the institution of a new and universal sacrifice. His hearers of course could not understand the full meaning of his words, but ever since the days of the Apostles Christian writers have been unanimous in interpreting them as a reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Council of Trent authoritatively confirmed this interpretation in its decree upon the sacrifice of the Mass: “And this indeed is the clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or wickedness in those who offer; the clean oblation which the Lord, speaking by Malachy, foretold would be offered in every place to his name, which would be great among the Gentiles.” (Ps cix vii).

[36] The Council of Trent states that “if anyone saith that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, let him be anathema!” (Third Canon).

[37] Father Grisar’s famous study entitled Luther describes what happened when Luther introduced his new service: “one who entered the parish church at Wittenberg after Luther’s victory, discovered that the same vestments were used for the divine service as of youre and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, except that Luther omitted all prayers which represented the sacred function as a sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. ‘We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the gospel is well understood’ said Luther. The rite of celebration of the Mass he explained as ‘a purely external thing’ and he further stated that ‘the damnable words referring to the sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since ordinary Christians would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal. The words in question, especially those of the Canon are pronounced almost inaudibly in the popish Church’.”

[38] The best translation of this telling document is that made available to us by Father Cekada and published by TAN under the title of The Ottaviani Intervention. Cardinal Ottaviani was at the time head of the Holy Office which gives even heavier import to his statements.

[39] When Mother Theresa (whom I have operated on and worked with in Cacutta) asked him on my behalf if my wife could go to the Tridentine Mass, he said “absolutely not.”

[40] “Only those Eucharistic prayers be used which have been approved by the lawful authority of the Church, for they clearly and fully manifest the sentiments of the Church,” from the demand of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in a Circular Letter on Eucharistic Prayers addressed to the Presidents of National Conference of Bishops, April 27, 1973.

[41] See Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problem with the Sacraments, op. cit.

[42] A priest has the power to consecrate in any setting - thus for example, he can consecrate in a Black or Satanic Mass. As a Catholic I have every right to judge rites supposedly used to give praise to God - if not, how would I be in a position to reject Vodoo rites, much less those of the Anglicans and the Lutherans, etc., etc.

[43] Msgr. W. B. Smith has discussed this in the Nov. 1999 issue of Homolitic and Pastoral Review. He points out that SC, n 22,# 3 in the Vat. II document “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” states “absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

[44] Maximus Confessor, Paulest Press; p. 22.