AND THE CASE FOR THE NEW MASS - IN LATIN

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

 "The New Mass, properly celebrated, displays more overtly “sacred signs and symbols."

We might have known. Leo the Lion Rampant of Benneydale has roared his response to last night's post, 'THE MASS PEOPLE HAVE GONE MILES TO GET TO, FOR CENTURIES'.

If Leo the Lion Leitch had his wicked way, the Novus Ordo would be celebrated in Benneydale, in Latin. It's an unusual preference, but might resonate with some readers. So here goes Leo - with occasional interruptions and objections: 

"All the claims of Dr (Peter) Kwasniewski as to the superiority of the Old Mass are only subjective, only his opinion, although that opinion might be shared by very many including, obviously, your good self. 

Let’s look at the points one by one.

1.  Yes, the Old Mass is the Mass of ancient venerated saints, such as many to whom you often refer. But the New Mass is also the Mass of saints such as Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. 

 

Pope Paul VI with the architect of the NO, the Freemason Archbishop Bugnini 

Leo doesn't get far before he's rudely interrupted: Pope 'St' Paul VI is a joke in poor taste. 

"Many who have studied the life and pontificate of Pope Paul VI are convinced that he was far from exemplary in his conduct as pastor; that he not only did not possess heroic virtue, but lacked certain key virtues; that his promulgation of a titanic liturgical reform was incompatible with his papal office of handing on that which he had received; that he offers us a portrait of failed governance and tradition betrayed. In short, for us, it is impossible to accept that a pope such as this could ever be canonized. Not surprisingly, then, we are vexed about Pope Francis’s “canonization” of Giovanni Battista Montini on Sunday, October 14, 2018 and have grave doubts in conscience about its legitimacy or credibility" -.https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/  

As for Pope 'St' John Paul II: "His pontificate is forever tainted by the priestly sex abuse crisis and it was only at the very end of his pontificate after a decade of public scandal, that John Paul spoke forthrightly about the issue. At the time of his beatification in 2011 – the stage in the Catholic “sainting” process that precedes canonisation – the Boston Globe quite rightly described him as “a flawed man who presided over a church that was guilty of one of the biggest institutional cover-ups of criminal activity in history.”

Canon lawyer Tom Doyle, one of the first figures to bring the depth of the scandal to light, and who wrote the earliest report to the Vatican on the crisis, put it this way:

Hundreds of thousands of lives were ruined because this pope looked the other way, and now they are falling over themselves to make him a saint … It is self-serving, and it is counterproductive, more evidence that the people who run the church don’t understand that these very actions are driving people from the church. It mystifies me. And when I think of the survivors of sexual abuse, it saddens and angers me".https://theconversation.com/john-paul-is-no-saint-his-canonisation-is-political-theatre-26040

 And I think there are others currently being investigated for canonisation for whom the New Mass was their norm.

They're being investigated under the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Say no more. 

Leo's kind of Novus Ordo Missae?

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there is an emotional attachment to the Old Mass which we can associate with those ancient saints.

Yes, there certainly are emotions involved. Like love, loyalty, admiration, veneration, wonder, amazement ... but those emotions don't by any means denote an 'attachment'.

It’s a bit like why so many Catholics love to traverse the Holy Lands. They love to feel that they are walking the roads that Jesus might have walked. But most of us never get to visit the Holy Lands, and we are no less Catholics because of that.

But Catholics who do get to visit the Holy Lands may become more Catholic because of it. 

If younger, perhaps, Massgoers never get to experience the Old Mass, they are no less Catholics because of that.

But younger, perhaps, Massgoers who do get to experience the Old Mass are very likely to be more Catholic because of it. Surely that's proven by the TLM's comparative retention rate of younger Massgoers. 

2. Yes, our children will benefit from experiencing a Mass with “sacred signs and symbols”, altar boys perhaps more than others. But the Old Mass, unless a High Mass (which is uncommon), does not exhibit obvious signs and symbols. The priest, with his back to the congregants, hides almost all the signs and symbols from the congregants.

'The priest with his back to the congregants' has his face towards God. 

I think it is apparent that the New Mass, properly celebrated, displays more overtly “sacred signs and symbols”, for example, the most sacred consecration of the wine and bread into the blood and body of Our Saviour. The New Mass, properly celebrated (with altar boys and not altar girls), includes the bells, the candles and the incense which have often been said to characterise Catholic liturgy.

The sad fact is that the New Mass, by the licence it allows, is far more likely to be badly celebrated. 

Our seven children were raised attending Sunday New Masses ordinarily, only occasionally attending the Old Mass. The five of them who continue to practise the Faith (five out of seven is well above the norm today) all normally attend the New Mass, with our grandchildren, although one son is attached to the Old Mass.

You've done exceedingly well, Leo (and your Lioness) in bringing up your children and grandchildren in the faith. Your blessings both here and in eternity will be commensurate.(But do you realise that 'attached' in a spiritual context is a somewhat pejorative term?)  

It is not obvious to me that children need familiarity with the Old Mass to keep the Faith.

It's pretty obvious from the stats that more children familiar with the Old Mass will keep the faith than otherwise. 

Novus Ordo celebrated ad orientem

3. Yes, the Old Mass, by virtue of its exclusive use of Latin language, affirms the universality (catholicity) of the Mass. But, if our bishops and priests were willing, the New Mass could also exhibit that universality by being celebrated in Latin. It is not that the New Mass is per se non-universal.

A Mass celebrated in the vernacular is surely by definition non-universal.

You’ll be aware that Vatican II expected that the Mass would continue to be celebrated in Latin. 

That may well be what Vatican II said it expected. Like it expected a 'new spring' in the Church ... 

4 – If the New Mass were faithfully rendered in Latin, without Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and the Prayers of the Faithful and the Kiss of Peace and the banal songs, all of which are not compulsory, you would “always know what you are getting”.  Again, it comes back to proper celebration.

You'll have to wait for the 'Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers' (the only Eucharistic Minister is the priest) and the prelates who ushered them in, to die off, or for a deus ex machina, to get rid of them.   

5. It might be only the opinion of Dr Kwasniewski that the texts of the Old Mass are more Catholic than those of the New Mass. I have not found reason to agree with that.

It's also the opinion of many priests and theologians. One has only to become familiar with the texts, and daily to read them in one's missal while listening to the Novus Ordo texts being read, to agree with Dr Kwasniewski. 

As for the authenticity of the Mass being affected by “the ad orientem stance of the priest”, I acknowledge that such as the very respected Cardinal Sarah have given emphasis to that. But that is clearly not an essential of the Mass. 

If by 'an essential' you mean the Mass may be celebrated versus populum and still be Mass, that's obvious.  

I can remember many occasions when, such as, on a CYM ski trip, our chaplain offered Mass on a table in the lodge lounge. He just faced whatever way he had to.  

Before Vatican II, 'the way he had to' was ad orientem. Depending on the surroundings, not always literally, but always facing the same way as the congregation, i.e. towards God.  

And how often have Masses, mostly Old Masses been celebrated in dire circumstances, think St Edmund Campion, when ad orientem was the least of the concerns?

It wouldn't have been a concern. It would have been automatic. It would have been unthinkable to celebrate Mass facing the people rather than God. 

6 & 7. The superiority of the calendars is necessarily a matter of opinion.

The superiority of the old calendar is best manifest in giving saints, feasts, solemnities and holy days their due recognition as opposed to conflation, suppression and abolition.  

8. I think here Dr Kwasniewski unwittingly concedes what some might call the superiority of the New Mass scriptural readings. 

Dr Kwasniewski writes nothing 'unwittingly'.

Dr Kwasniewski acknowledges that the Old Mass readings are limited and brief and repetitive, while the three-year readings programme of the New Mass is designed to provide a comprehensive coverage of scripture, while retaining a relevance to Feast Days along the way.

Dr Kwasniewski stresses that it's the very limitedness, brevity and repetition of the Old Mass texts which is their chief asset, in fixing those scripture readings in the hearts and minds of their hearers. But it's the deletion or restricted nature of texts on the subject of Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell which would seem to be the most unfortunate aspect of the New Mass texts. 

9. Reverence for the Most Holy Eucharist is certainly an element of the Old Mass, but so it is in the New Mass properly celebrated.  I can certainly testify to that in New Masses celebrated by those truly Catholic priests that I know.

You mean that they always kiss the altar, wherein the relics of saints always reside? Kiss the lectionary? Raise their eyes to heaven? Never disjoin their forefingers and thumbs after the Consecration, until the washing of the fingers? That the N O chalice wears a pall? That the priest bows, genuflects, kneels, and makes the Sign of the Cross over the offerings? That he strikes his breast three times? That before touching the offerings he goes to the side of the altar to wash and dry his hands with water offered by altar servers? Etc ...

10 .The New Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is also the same mystery as that of the Old Mass – the transcendent mystery of the Consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that the New Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

That's not disputed - as long as the priest has the intention to confect, and is not a heretic or an apostate.. 

So, Dr Kwasniewski is entitled to his opinion, and it is a praiseworthy opinion. The Old Mass is certainly a glory of the Church. It can never be honestly despised, and its widespread suppression by bishops and priests is a serious sin for which they will have to answer. But that vile behaviour, like the vile behaviour of our homosexual clergy does not destroy the worthiness of the priesthood, does not negate the validity and worthiness of the New Mass." 

Dominus vobiscum,

A Benneydale Chap

 

 

'His Holiness Pope Francis' celebrates the Novus Ordo