Traditional Mass - Latin tridentine rite

Rev. Rama Coomaraswamy

CREED AND CULT IN THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH
A STUDY IN AGGIORNAMENTO (part 10)

There are some who claim that the president makes the Sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo clear when he says at the time of communion 'The Body of Christ'. Not so. Let us listen to the instruction of the Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, which laid down the rule that the priest was to use this new expression:

'We 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 to 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 in the worshiping community, and finally, it demonstrates the importance of Christ's presence in liturgical celebrations.'

And indeed, in line with this 'new gospel', the Bishop's Committee strictly forbade the priest to say 'THIS is the Body of Christ'!

Let us before closing consider once again the traditional Mass. In this picture drawn from an old text-book we see illustrated the perpetual sacrifice of the Lamb as it occurs in heaven, and we see how, not even the 'new people of God', but the priest, acting alone in persona Christi, makes present this Sacrifice upon the altar. As Father Olier put it: 'one must know that this sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Heaven... a sacrifice is offered up in Paradise which, at the same time, is offered up here on earth, and they differ only in that here on earth the sacrifice occurs unseen.' What power! What a sacred action! The Divine made present on our altars'. St. Alphonsus Liguori tells us that 'The entire Church cannot give to God as much honor, nor obtain so many graces, as a single priest by celebrating a single Mass.' Indeed as he also says, 'the sacerdotal dignity surpasses the dignity of the angels.'

Enough has been said to show that the Novus Ordo Missae is capable of being interpreted in a variety or ways. It resembles the First (Anglican-Protestant) Prayer Book of Edward VI which Bishop Richard Cheyney described as 'expressly designed to suit persons of various and even contradictory religious views: Catholic; not-so-very Catholic; ex-Catholic; non-Catholic; and anti-Catholic'. It is understandable why in almost every major City of North America and Europe there are priests who refuse to have anything to do with it, and who continue to pay the ancient Mass at great personal sacrifice. It should not be forgotten that the Apostolic Bull Quo Primum guarantees their right to do so just as it guarantees the laity the right to attend.

It must also be admitted that the majority or Catholics have accepted the Novus Ordo Missse. Those who are inclined to orthodoxy look at it through traditional eyes and continue to understand it as a true Sacrifice. For them every ambiguity is seen in the light of pure faith and sound doctrine. (Pope Leo XIII taught that in a rite created by Protestants, every ambiguity should be given a Protestant interpretation.) Despite the fact that between 60 to 80% of the so-called Tridentine Mass has been deleted and despite the fact that the very words of Christ - given us. 'in specie' (exactly) have been altered, they accept the assurances of Paul VI that 'nothing has been changed in the essence of the Mass' and that it is in fact 'a step forward in the Church's authentic tradition'. Others - both Catholic and non-Catholic - see it through the eyes of modern man and welcome the fact that it is both progressive and evolutionist, that it is centered on man rather than Goo, and that it has -to use the current phraseology - 'gotta rid of all the mystery' and brought the world into the sanctuary'. Still others, perhaps the majority, attend it out of habit and without thought being given to any of the above considerations.

Does a true immolative sacrifice occur in the Novus Ordo Missae ? If one accepts Paul VI's definition and accepts the wording of the rite in its lateral meaning, and the interpretation that the General Instruction forces upon them, one cannot see how such is possible. Add to these factors the the training offered to modern seminarians as illustrated by the authoritative commentaries given and doubt becomes an impossibility. This was clearly seen by cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who asked: 'will priests who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo in order to 'do what the Church does' make a valid consecration?' The answer that they give is: 'one may be permitted to doubt it.'

The fact remains that, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci have stated, 'The Novus Ordo teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith'. Even if parents are unaffected, it is bound to produce a generation of Catholics that are totally modernist in outlook. Even more important is the obfuscation of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The fact that 'by a Series of equivocation it obsessively places its emphasis upon the 'supper' and 'memorial' instead of on the Sacrifice of Calvary', and that The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is 'implicitly repudiated' will inevitably result in the development of a clergy who increasingly see their function only in terms of presiding over a community celebration and a laity who have no understanding of its purpose. This is to say nothing of the psychological and spiritual effects on a clergy that will be inevitable effect of participating in a false rite. As Luther predicted: 'Tolle Misuse, tolle Ecclesiam ( destroy the Mass and you destroy the Church').

Those who argue that obedience requires acceptance of this modernist and man created rite should further reflect on the fact that obedience also requires that the rite be accepted in its literal meaning and interpreted in accord with the introductory instructions. This means that they must accept - if obedience is their argument - the definition of the Mass as given by Paul VI in Paragraph seven and eight. Obedience does not allow for private interpretations of ambiguous phrases along traditional lines. One further point on obedience: Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues and as such of a higher order. Common logic makes it clear that obedience to a false faith, hope or charity can never lead heavenwards.

And so as St. Ambrose tells us: 'He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it' Every Catholic who still retains a love of Holy Mother Church must ask 1) is the Novus Ordo an example of legitimate development, the growth of an acorn into an oak, or is it the product of change such as attempts to alter an oak into a fig-tree barren of fruit? 2) Will the new orientations of Vatican II and their reflection in the Novus Ordo bring mankind back to any kind of Catholic unity, or will it - may God forbid - bring about the reign of the Anti-Christ?