The Novus Ordo Missae

Those who know me well know I do not like the New Order (Novus Ordo) of Mass. I have no difficulty saying the Novus Ordo is legitimate (it is, after all, built from the elements of the Traditional Mass) and valid (it has been promulgated by the Church’s Supreme Authority).  But whereas Vatican Council II asked for noble simplicity in the Mass, what we have in the Novus Ordo is banal and skeletal.

I hold however, that the Norvus Ordo Rites cannot be invalid, since if the New Rites (for Mass, Ordinations, Anointing of the Sick etc) are indeed invalid, [1] God has been failing to feed His flock for the last fifty years, and [2] Christ has failed to keep His promise that His Church will not fail. I believe we cannot accept that the new Rites are invalid unless we also hold that that God has failed to feed His flock and Christ has failed to protect His Church.

That does not mean the New Rites are good, however. To be good a Rite should express clearly the reality is holds, and the New Rites do not always do this. In that sense the New Rites can be said to be entirely ‘fit for purpose’. Still, when compared to the Traditional Rite, the Novus Ordo Missae does not come off too badly in that:

1.    Both contain an entrance antiphon (Introit)

2.    Both contain a Confiteor which actively seeks the intercession of the angels and saints

3.    Both contain the misareatur

4.    Both contain the Kyrie

5.    Both contain an Epistle

6.    Both contain the Gospel

7.    Both contain the Credo

8.    Both contain the ancient Roman Canon

9.    Both contain the Our Father

10. Both contain the prayer for peace (Libera nos)

11. Both contain the Agnus Dei

12. Both contain the Domine non sum Dignus before distribution of Holy Communion

13. Both contain a final antiphon

14. Both contain a blessing and dismissal.

Sadly however, we have to recognise that though much as has been retained, it is the significant elements that the Novus Ordo omits that disturbs, for it omits:

1.    The seeking of God’s grace before we dare to enter His sanctuary (Judica me),

2.    The Indulgentiam (minor absolution)

3.    The genuflection during the Creed by which were honour the Incarnation

4.    The genuflections given to the Blessed Sacrament before and after every time the priest touches the Sacred Host

5.    The Offertory (the prayers preparing for a Holy Sacrifice having been replaced with a prayer based on the Jewish Grace before Meals, thus giving lie to the central reality of the Mass as His Body given up and His Blood being shed: “every time you eat this bread and rink this cup you are proclaiming the lord’s death” 1.Cor.11v26).

6.    The prayer to the Holy Trinity (Placeat tibi) asking that the Sacrifice offered may bring forgiveness for all for whom it is offered, yet forgiveness (mercy) is at the core of the Gospel.

Indeed, even in what has been retained there was an unnecessary meddling with the texts. For example:

1.    The Kyrie has been reduced from nine invocations to three, and re-ordered so that it now sounds like a plea to the Trinity rather than to Christ alone, who in the Traditional form was named in each of the three stanzas, thus making clear that the whole of the Kyrie is addressed to Christ and not to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2.    There has been a interpolation into the Roman Canon of an acclamation said by the people, using the words ‘ Mysterium fidei’ as its introduction. This is an unwarranted (and ill-mannered) interruption of the prayer of the Son to His Father, and for no other reason than to give the people something to say. It is also a sneaky way of undermining  the priest’s unique, irreplaceable and singular role in the recitation of the Canon and the confecting of the Consecration.

3.    The very words of the consecration have been changed, despite the injunction of Vatican II that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (SC #23). There was no ‘genuine and certain need’ for the words of the consecration to be changed. This can only have arisen from a political ideology (such as diminishing  the role of the priest by introducing a people’s acclamation of the Mysterium Fidei).

The Novus Ordo also fails in its concrete celebrations, in that it

(a)  most usually ignores Vatican II’s injunction that Latin be retained:

“In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and the common prayer, but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. (cf. 36. 1: Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.)

(thus)…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed (that is, that the permission of Rome is sought and obtained -GD).

(b)  has opened the Rite of the Holy Eucharist –the Most precious Gift Christ gave us- to novelties:

(i)   Communion in the hand (a Protestant invention long abandoned by Rome) despite the ruling by Paul VI that this may not be introduced after 1969 –cf. Memoriale Domini, 1969) and can be permitted only in those countries which prior to 1969 had illicitly begun the practice: Holland, then Belgium, France and Germany).

(ii) Lay Extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (which destroys the priest’s role as he who stands in the place of Christ who ‘took, blest, broke and gave’).

(iii)  Ladies acting as Extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (Christ established only males as ministers of His Body and Blood)

(iv) A people-facing orientation of the celebrant (making the Mass a dialogue between priest and people rather than a pilgrimage of priest and people toward the heavenly Jerusalem of the spiritual East).

None of the above novelties are found in the documents of Vatican II, and indeed, and this is very important, they are not found in the N.O.M promulgated by Paul VI as the faithful implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical decree.

All in all, while there is indeed a significant similarity between the 1570 and 1970 editions of the Missale Romanum, there are also striking divergence, and it is this divergence that leaves one’s soul seeking more. What is truly sad is that those who refuse to welcome the Traditional Rites demonstrate an antagonism to their own roots, and cut off from their roots they die, as is seen in the massive lapsation, the dearth of vocations and the closure of schools, parishes and convents that has followed this rejection of Traditional Liturgy and the Tradition of the Catechism.

Manner of Receiving Holy Communion

In briefly reflecting upon the Novus Ordo Missae in my last post (and I shall reflect on it in more depth in a later post), and recalling the experience of a gentleman at a Novus Ordo Mass where Holy Communion on the tongue was refused by a Bishop who lifted the man from his knees to a standing position, I am brought to consider the moment of contention in the Mass: that moment wherein a celebrant is faced with a communicant who absolutely refuses to receive on the tongue, or becomes a priest who refuses to distribute on the tongue. It has happened to me only once that reception on the tongue was refused, and the lady in question had the charity and humility to telephone me later that day to say she was wrong and shouldn’t have refused to receive the Lord or put me in a such bad position publicly for simply following the liturgical law of the Church.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue remains the Universal Norm (Redemptionis Sacramentum #92); it can be received in the hand only where the Bishops of a country have requested this from Rome and have been given Rome’s permission or ‘Recognatio’  (ibid, 92); thus there is no absolute right to receive in the hand. In the Ordinary (new) Form of Mass people may indeed choose between receiving in the hand or on the tongue, and the celebrant cannot refuse a person rightly disposed because of the method chosen (ibid, 91), but in the Extraordinary Form Rome has declared the bindingness, in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form, of the liturgical law in force in 1962, with Holy Communion distributed only on the tongue (cf. Universae Ecclesiae  2011  #24., 28). 

From Universae Ecclesiae:

24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly…

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

                   (emphasis added)

Thus the priest has no choice about this. The people however, do: they can choose to receive on the tongue or not to receive at all. Obviously the former is to be preferred! Why refuse to receive Our Lord because we feel humbled (not humiliated) by the method? Why as priests would we refuse to distribute on the tongue? Are we more committed to affirming the laity in their dignity than affirming the Lord in His? Why would we demand that Our Lord be received in the hand as a common bus ticket or biscuit when before Him every knee shall bow and every tongue confess?

Thoughts on the SSPX, The Church and the Crisis of The Faith

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SSPX AND OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Those who know me know I am grateful to God for the presence of the SSPX in the world in that I believe they have promoted Tradition and thus been a thorn in the side of Rome for several decades. It is my personal belief that Archbishop Lefebvre was an instrument of God in the forming of the Society, and I do not underestimate the courage this great man needed to stand against the might of the Church of Rome, Mother and Mistress of Truth, when she veered from her true course.

Bishop Fellay, the current Superior General of the SSPX, is one of the few courageous, sound, balanced Episcopal voices of today, and I am delighted he holds the office he does in the Society, since I think he continues very much in the mould of the great Archbishop.

The priests of the SSPX whom I have met have been, on the whole, very balanced men very much in the mould of Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre, with one or two slips that have disturbed me (such as a homily in which a priest said, “N, whom Rome today would have us believe is a saint…” –which suggests a rejection of the legitimacy and authority of the post-Vatican II Papacy and is thus a contradiction to the said priest offering Holy Mass and praying for ‘Francis our Pope, and N., our Bishop’ (that bishop being the Ordinary of the Diocese in which their Mass centre is situated).

CONCERNS ABOUT THE SSPX AND ITS LAY ADHERANTS

I do however, have serious concerns about a number of SSPX lay adherents whose positions seem to me to be more reminiscent of Bishop Williamson than of the Society per se. these concerns arise from the fact that from a number of the SSPX laity I hear convictions that 'the Novus Ordo Missae is evil', and that 'the priestly ordinations and epsicopal consecrations according to the post-Vatican II Pontificale are invalid' (sadly, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has all but aligned himself with this latter position, if reports of his sermon during the ordinations on June 29th 2016 are correct).

My concerns is that there is a growing attitude among SSPX laity that the Catholic Church no longer exists except in the SSPX, since the Church of Rome and all those in Communion with her have lost valid Orders over the last 50 years by use of a invalid Rituals. If the Rituals are in fact invalid, there can be no valid Bishops and priests in the Roman Church, but that leaves the SSPX laity heading toward a sedevacantist position since only a validly consecrated bishop can in fact hold the See of Peter and there are, they say, few if any valid bishops left in the Catholic Church. Thus, very soon there can be no Pope. This begs two questions: first, if the Papacy has been lost, why are the SSPX seeking union with Rome at all? Second, if Rome is the Rock of the Church and it has been destroyed, in what way can they claim to have faith in Christ who declared that His Church would NOT be overcome? They follow a Christ who is either too weak to protect His Church, or a Christ who has not bothered to keep His promise.

THE CRISIS OF THE FAITH

Yes indeed there is a deep and profound crisis in the Church of today that we cannot deny: there is little or no Catechesis worthy of the name in Catholic schools today; we celebrate a liturgy that focuses on affirming man and are part of a dying post-Vatican II Church, as indicated by a precipitous fall-off in baptisms, marriages, Mass attendance, religious vocations and ordinations -all of which has Bishops the world over establishing projects focused on the ‘renewal of structures’ that are really about managing decline rather than promoting the Faith, no matter how they dress it up (and it is usually dressed as ‘the Holy Spirit providing us with the opportunity to utilise the gifts of the laity in ecclesial ministry’, yet Vatican II -the Council on which they purport to base their changes- clearly stated that the laity were to be engaged as the leaven in the world. Vatican II never once used the term ‘lay ministry’ (a term which is an elephant in the room that the contemporary Church never acknowledges), the Council only spoke of lay mission.

Of great concern to me is how a number of people I have spoken with, and this includes young people, are losing their faith. One reason why their faith is being lost is that they see the Church is in a woeful situation and that the bishops appear to refuse to acknowledge this, either because they have not the humility to admit they were wrong; are too blinded by error to see that they are wrong, or are wilfully following their own designs rather than the direction of Vatican II (which stands in direct contrast to today’s man-centred liturgy, religious indifferentism and use of the laity as ministers). We are certainly in a time of crisis; a crisis that is pushing people to opposing extremes: a large portion of the official Church pushing its distorted application of Vatican II further and further while the SSPX appears to harden in one limited understanding of the pre-Vatican II Church. A second reason that faith is lost is that many are fighting a political corner in the Church, be it liberal or Traditional, when they should be fighting to overcome their personal vices; to acquire personal virtues and to promote social virtues.

Many folk seem to have forgotten that there have been times huge crisis before in the Church before. One thinks of the Arian Crisis, of Augustine’s battle against the Donatists, of the split between East and West, and of the Protestant Revolt. Today’s crisis is not something that has no precedent -and just as Rome has always triumphed by the hand of God in the past (since He is indeed faithful to His promise that the Church will not fail) we can believe that Rome will triumph again today (it may not be in our lifetime –and I doubt it will be during the Pontificate of Francis- but it will come).

OVERCOMING THE CRISIS

It is my firm conviction that the Church must [1] restore the Penny Catechism (the English equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism) to schools (since unless the faith has been changed this cannot be objectionable to the Bishops), and [2] order that the Novus Ordo be celebrated according to the directives of Vatican II (Latin for the Ordinary with Gregorian Chant as its proper music) and according to the rubrics approved by Pope Paul VI (which favour ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and presuppose Holy communion received on the tongue); rubrics he saw as embodying the reforms required by Vatican II. Until these are restored we must pray for grace for the Church, and challenge respectfully wherever we see Rome and the Bishops making pastoral, liturgical or teaching errors. As an encouragement to readers who are dismayed by the state of the Church and consider leaving the Faith I want to conclude with part of today’s second reading from the Novos Ordo Divine Office. It is a reading from St Augustine:

Our Holy Scriptures do not promise us peace, security and repose, but tribulations and distress; the Gospel is not silent about scandals, but ‘he who preservers to the end will be saved’…

You find men complaining about the times they live in, saying that the times of our parents were good. What if they could be taken back to the time of their parents, and should complain? The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now…

have we forgotten those burdensome times of famine and war [of the Arian Crisis, of Donatism, of the Protestant Revolt? –Fr GD]. What times those were!

Francis Versus Islam

Francis has made remarks that the recent spate of violent acts by Muslims are ‘not a religious war’; that the Muslim religion is ‘one of peace’, and that Catholics too can be violent. According to Francis “the world is at war…it’s not a religious war…It’s a war of interests, a war for money. A war for natural resources and for the dominion of the peoples…Every religion wants peace”

 In saying such things Francis can be said to be showing that his opinions are based more on secular PC (politically correct) values, than on Gospel values (thus his aversion to Traditional Catholics and his desire to accommodate cohabitation, civilly ‘re-married’ divorcees and active homosexuality etc. While orthodox Catholics have long decried his statements and leanings toward cohabitation, civilly ‘re-married’ divorcees and homosexual activity, an Isis Magazine has now corrected his statements on Islam and Muslim violence. According to Brietpart.com the Isis article apparently states that:

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” 

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality…

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.”

CathNews notes that Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Younan of the Syriac Church has noted that by saying Islam is non-violent Francis is not in tune with the experience of Christians in Syria. Has the Patriarch got it wrong? Have ISIS got themselves all wrong, or is Francis wrong and we are being attacked for religious purposes? I would like to think Francis is right; but he appears to be either incredibly naïve or too PC for the good of his souls and ours.