Chapter I, Part 1 the problem: is it the same church? Vatican 2 can be described as a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Prior to this event the Church considered herself a 'perfect society' in no need of change

Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер1.21 Mb.
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   33

CHAPTER XI, part 5


(1) Michael Davies, Institutions Liturgique, Vol. III. A translation of this is available in Studies in Comparative Religion, Summer, 1975; and The Roman Catholic, Vol. II, No. 3, May 1980.

(2) Quoted in Michael Muller, God the Teacher of Mankind, St. Louis: Herder, 1885.

(3) Alphonse de Liguori, The Holy Mass, London: Denzinger, 1887.

(4) St. Leonard of Port Maurice, The Hidden Treasure, Ill: TAN, 1982.

(5) Dr. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, St. Louis: Herder, 1929.

(6) Dr. Nicholas Gihr, op. cit. The Liturgy of the Apostle James can be found in The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Mich: Eerdmans, 1967.

(7) The describe the efficacy of the bread and wine used in their services in a wide variety of ways. Some admit that Christ is 'subjectively' present for the worshiper, but all deny any objective 'Presence' independent of the worshiper.

(8) The Anglicans and Lutherans say the Nicene Creed. The statement however is taken from 'The Thirty-nine Articles' to which the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches demand assent.

(9) Nicholas Gihr, op. Cit.

(10) ex opere operatio - literally 'by its own power'. The defects of the priest or communicant do not affect its power except as explained in the text.

(11) Confessions, I, 9, c. 11-12.

(12) Ad. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, N.Y.: Desclee, 1959.

(13) Rev. Greg. 1937, p. 79.

(14) A.M. Henry, O.P., Introduction to Theology, Vol I., Chicago: Fides, 1954.

(15) The Apostles established different Masses in different parts of the world - all with the same essential core. (Revelation comes to us from the Apostles as well as from Christ.) Many of these have been translated into other languages such as Arabic, Coptic, etc. Thus it is that the Church recognizes some 76 different 'rites' as valid.

(16) The reasons for the creation of the new mass will be discussed in the next chapter.

(17) Quoted by Patrick H. Omlor, Interdum, issue No. 7, Menlo Park, Calif., 1970. He also quotes Muratori (1672-1750) who The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) describes as 'one of the greatest scholars of his time' to the effect that 'in ancient times, although the liturgy of the Roman Mass was observed generally in the churches of Italy, France, Germany, Britain and other countries, yet there was no small variety in their Missals; but this did not affect the substance of the mystery, or the chief and essential rites of the Mass. The difference ran in adding collects, sequences, and special feasts which each Bishop might insert in his own Missal. But to change the sacred words of the Canon was a crime.'

(18) Fr. Louis Bouyer, The Decomposition of Catholicism, Chicago: Fransciscan, 1969. Prior to Vatican II Father Bouyer gave his full support to the Liturgical revolutionaries. After he saw their new mass - the Novus Ordo Missae - he stated 'the present situation in Catholic worship has merely gone the same road as the east traditional and must undisciplined aspect of Protestantism.'

(19) Paul VI stated that 'in no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent' (Custos quid de nocte). Post-Conciliar defenders often state that changes were made in the Mass after the Council of Trent. This is false. There were four minor corrections made necessary by the carelessness of printers or reference to original texts. One has only to examine the so-called 'reforms' of Popes Clement VIII and Urban III to see that they have absolutely nothing in common with the 'reforms' of Paul VI. Similarly, Pius X made a revision, not of the text, but of the music, in order to bring the Gregorian Chant back into usage.

(20) A 'Constitution' is defined as 'an irreformable statement of what the Church's belief is' (Louis Bouyer, The Liturgy Revived), and 'the binding force of a pontifical constitution is... beyond question' (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908).

(21) Quo Primum does not forbid a Catholic from attending a Mass of the Eastern rite, though Canon law required that the faithful remain within one rite (and remain attached to a single parish church) unless special circumstances prevailed. Church law since Vatican II allows people to go to any Church they wish (providing it isn't traditional); and thus they are free to pick from a spectrum of conservative to liberal Novus Ordos.

(22) The so-called 'Mass of the Indult' is the Mass of John XXIII and not, as is usually claimed, the traditional Mass as codified by Pius V. Some have referred to it as the 'Mass of the Insult'. Those interested in a comparison between these two Masses are referred to The Roman Catholic, Vol VI, No. 8, Sept. 1984.

(23) Quoted in Gaby, Le Sacrifice dans l'ecole Francaise de Spirituality, Paris, 1951.

(24) Canon George d. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1949

(25) Dangle Rock, D.D., ... Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, London: Booker, 1883.

(26) This is not unrelated to the Platonic conception of 'recollection'.

(27) During the Reformation in England, altars were destroyed and replaced with wooden tables. Altar stones were incorporated into church steps to force the faithful to walk on them when entering the churches (F. G. Lee, The Church under Queen Elizabeth, London: Baker, 1896). As for the post-Conciliar Church, it has spared no expense in tearing up altars and replacing them with tables. While some of the traditional regulations are still recommended, they are no longer mandatory and hence are ignored with impunity. For example, in the traditional Church an altar stone or its equivalent was mandatory. Now, 'an altar stone containing the relics of the martyrs is to be commended but is optional' (General Instruction to the New Roman Missal). Traditional rubrics required that the alter be covered with three clean and blessed linen cloths which symbolized the members of the Mystical body as well as the shroud in which Christ was wrapped before being placed in the tomb. Now, only one, and not necessarily linen, is required. Former regulations demanded two lighted candles on the altar at the time of the low Mass, and these made of beeswax for the wax extracted by bees from flowers symbolized the pure flesh that Christ received from the Blessed Virgin. It is no longer necessary to have candles of any kind on the altar. (The use of six candles at High Mass represented the incorporation of the Jewish Manorah into the Christ's sacrifice. The seventh light is Christ Himself.) The Crucifix, which formerly always had to be present on the altar before the priest, is now, according to the rubrics, only required to be 'near by'.

(28) The post-Conciliar rite, is described as a 'Supper', takes place on a 'table', around which the faithful are said to 'gather'. The Chalice is not referred to as a 'cup'. These are all Protestant ways of denigrating the sacrificial character of the Mass. The new rite was also created by individuals whose names we know.

(29) Dom Gueranger, Institutions Liturgique, op. Cit.

(30) St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, London: Benzinger, 1889.

(31) Father Dennis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society, Dublin: Regina, many editions. The faithful can survive without the sacraments, as indeed the Japanese Catholics did for some 300 years. At the end of this period however, they immediately recognized the priests who came to them. The desert fathers also went for years without receiving the sacraments. However, the ordinary means of sanctification are the sacraments of the Church and the faithful have the right and the duty to receive them without having doubts about their validity.

(32) Quoted in Father Hartman Grisar's six volume study on Luther, Herder: St. Louis, 1917. As to the collapse off the Church, consider the following: 'in Europe, 39 of the population still officially calls itself Catholic, and 25 in the United States. But the hard core of 'practicing' Catholics is growing ever smaller both in the Old World and in North America. A priest of the populous periphery of Rome said last month that the percentage of practicing Catholics in his parish is only a bit more than 2 of those registered as Catholics. In France there are some who speak of a 'terminal crisis' of Catholicism.' (30 Days, March 1989).

(33) Quoted in Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order, Devon: Augustine, 1976.

(34) While they were said to be only 'observers', and indeed such was claimed by the post-Conciliar Church (La Documentation Catholique, July 4, 1976), the fact remains, that as Cardinal W. W. Baum said, 'they are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contributed' (The Detroit News, June 27, 1967). Michael Davies gives much more ample evidence of their participation in his Pope Paul's New Mass.

(35) Le Monde, Paris, November 22, 1969.

(36) Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, Texas: Angelus, 1980.

(37) Notitiae, April, 1974. If Bugnini was primarily responsible for its creation, it was Paul VI who was totally responsible for its implementation.

(38) They are 're-ordained' in the post-Conciliar Church but encouraged to use their own rites because their congregations are used to them. Even Cardinal Newman admitted that 'Catholic and Protestant modes of worship represent radically different beliefs' (Loss and Gain).

(39) La Croix, Paris, May 20, 1969.

(40) B. M. Pawley, Rome and Canterbury through our Centuries, London, 1974.

(41) Quoted by Michael Davies, op. Cit.

(42) Twin Circle, Oct. 23, 1973.

(43) This is to ignore the fact that the Mass was established by Christ over 300 years before the Bible came into existence.

(44) According to Michael Davies, 'a priest placed what he claimed was documentary evidence proving that Mgr. Bugnini was a Mason in the hands of the Pope himself and warned that if drastic action was not taken, he would be bound in conscience to make the facts public.' What followed was the 'exile' of Bugnini and the dissolving of the congregation. Michael Davies, having investigated the evidence, is willing to stand warrant for its truth. (Pope John's Council, Devon: Augustine, 1977). No wonder the new mass is little more than a 'Masonic meal'.

(45) Cf. C. W. Leadbeater, The Science of the Sacraments, and an excellent discussion in The Remnant, March 16, 1981. Leadbeater:. actually wrote a new mass, but the Novus Ordo Missae goes much further than his creation in the direction of Freemasonic conceptions.

(46) Published for the Church of South India by the Christian Literature Society (P.O. Box 501, Park Town, Madras). The purpose of this rite was to allow a variety of different Protestant sects to worship together. Taize is a Lutheran community in France. Taize currently uses the Novus Ordo Missae.

(47) Abbe Didier Bonneterre, Le Mouvement Liturgique, Switz: Fideliter, 1980.

(48) 'Pope Pius XII... did not understand the real nature of the 'Liturgical Movement'. The most dangerous membersof this organization were covered over and protected by the highest dignitaries of the Church. How could the Pope suspect these experts, so much praised by cardinals Bea and Lercaro, were in fact the most dangerous enemies of the Church?' The abbe Bonneterre, op. cit.

(49) For Bugnini's Freemasonic affiliations see note Note. 43. For Freemasonry and the Church see Monseigneur Jouin, Papacy and Freemasonry, and Cardinal of Chile, The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled, both from Christian Book Club of America: Hawthorne, Calif. To quote one of Freemasonry's authorized spokesmen, F. Limousin: 'Freemasonry is an association... an institution... so it is said... but it is not that at all. Let us lift up the veils risking even to evoke numberless protestations. Freemasonry is a Church: It is the counter-Church, counter-Catholicism: It is the Other Church - the Church of Heresy and Free thought. It is opposed to the Catholic church... The first church... The Church of dogmatism and of orthodoxy.'

(50) He was the individual at Vatican II who first spoke out against the prepared schemas and selected appointees. Archbishop Lefebvre among others have identified him as a Freemason.

(51) It should be remembered that Pius XII was both elderly and sick. This is three years before his death. Surrounded with like minded individuals and with the revolutionary Cardinal Bea as his confessor, it is not surprising that he gave into these innovators.

(52) Previous attempts at introducing St. Joseph's name into the Canon had been rejected. Pius VII on being pressed to do this answered 'Negative quod additionem nominis S. Joseph Sponsi B.V.M. in Canone.' (Urbs et Orbi decree, Sacred congregation of Rites, Sept. 16, 1815.)

(53) Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1982. This is perhaps the most valuable single source of information about launching the Reform.

(54) This intervention was the height of hypocrisy. It enabled people to see him as a defender of orthodoxy when he is totally responsible for the introduction of the new 'mass'. Most of the faithful failed to notice the minor changes in Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 that brought it into line with Protestant theology.

Virtual Vandée's Editorial Note
We preserved the integrity of the text which we received as computer files from Doctor Coomaraswamy in 2000. This edition of the book, second one, doesn't differ from the first one in the sphere of conclusions , however, the book was practically rewritten from the beginning. In January 2002 Doctor informed us that he works on the next edition, which will be published on his own internet page.


Novus Ordo Missae

'He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe.'
St. John Fisher (1)

As noted previously, those who wished to achieve an aggiornamento with the modern world, feared 'that nothing would come out of the Council.' Innovators are always impatient people. Even though they had managed to insert their false ideas into the 'official' documents of the Church, they knew that this alone was insufficient.

For most people things would have gone on much as before. The only way to introduce all these new ideas -- what Paul VI called 'the new economy of the Gospel' -- into the hearts of the Catholic laity, was by means of the liturgy. This way the innovators would have a captive audience on every Sunday. Of course, as was demonstrated in the previous chapter, the innovators had planned long and well. Revolution is always well planned and directed from above.

The Novus Ordo Missae was first publicly offered in the Sistine Chapel before a Synod of Bishops in October of 1967. At that time it was called the Missa Normativa (or 'normative Mass'). The bishops were polled as to their opinion. 71 voted yes; 62 voted yes with reservations, and 43 rejected it outright. To accommodate their wishes, a number of minor changes were made, including the restoration of two of the traditional offertory prayers.

Paul VI promulgated the final form as the Novus Ordo Missaein his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969). Tied to it was an explanatory text entitled the Institutio Generalis (General Instruction). While the liberals were delighted, others were far from pleased. cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI in September stating that the new 'mass' represented, 'both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.' Along with the letter they presented to him the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae by a Group of Roman Theologians. In an attempt to deflect the criticisms of this document, a revised General Instruction was issued on March 26, 1970 -- but absolutely no change was made in the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself. Since then some further minor changes have been made; the current version appeared in 1975. Let us examine this new rite in greater detail.

If the Novus Ordo Missae was to reflect the beliefs of the post-Conciliar Church and at the same time remain acceptable to Catholics brought up in the ancient faith, it had to 1) Avoid professing the new doctrines too openly, while expunging anything which contradicted them. At the same time it could not deny any Catholic doctrine directly -- it could only dilute or expurgate it; 2) Introduce changes slowly and retain enough of the outer trappings of a true sacrifice so as to give the impression that nothing significant was changed; 3) Create a rite that for ecumenical reasons was acceptable to Protestants of every shade and persuasion, but all of whom consistently denied that the Mass was truly the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary and that a 'sacrificing' priest was necessary; and 4) Soften up Catholic resistance and introduce into the lives of the faithful the modernist ideas promulgated by Vatican II. The only way the Novus Ordo Missae could achieve all this was by the use of ambiguity.

There is nothing ambiguous about the traditional rites of the Church; and indeed, the Mass is, as the theologians say, a primary locus (source) of her teachings. Despite the laxity of modern language, we should not forget that the ambiguous statement is fundamentally dishonest. Every father knows that when his child resorts to equivocation, he is attempting to hide something. And every priest knows how penitents sometimes use this technique in the confessional. It is even more dishonest when the Magisterium of the Church has once clearly spoken to an issue, and then those responsible for preserving the 'd eposit of the faith' use equivocation or ambiguity to disguise a change in belief. As it says in Proverbs, 'God hates a forked tongue.'

Cranmer used ambiguity in order to establish the Anglican-Protestant (Episcopalian) sect in England (2). Pastor Dryander wrote to Zurich stating that The First book of Common Prayer harbored 'every kind of deception by ambiguity or trickery of language.'(3). According to T. M. Parker, an Anglican theologian, the net result was that: 'The First Prayer Book of Edward VI could not be convicted of overt heresy, for it was adroitly framed and contained no express denial of pre-Reformation doctrine. It was, as an Anglican scholar put it, 'an ingenious essay in ambiguity', purposely worded in such a manner that the more conservative could place their own construction upon it and reconcile their consciences to using it, while the Reformers would interpret it in their own sense and would recognize it as an instrument for furthering the next stage of the religious revolution.' (4)

Apart from ambiguity, one must consider the numerous 'deletions' which the post-Conciliar innovators made - some 60 to 80 percent of the traditional rite depending upon what Eucharistic prayer is used. And these deletions are precisely those which Luther and Cranmer made - those which relate to the Sacrificial nature of the Mass. Ambiguity, deletions and lastly mistranslation; all were used to achieve the goals of our outline.

The second requirement was the need that the Novus Ordo Missae retain the outer trappings of a Catholic rite. Once again there were plenty of precedents. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service as given us by the great Jesuit scholar Hartmann Grisar: 'One who entered the parish church at Wittenberg after Luther's victory discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as of yore, 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, despite the fact that Luther omitted all prayers which represented the sacred function of the 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 is a 'purely external thing,' and said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'' (5)

The post-Conciliar innovators followed the same pattern. As the authors of the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae noted: 'having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up a scaffolding.' One is reminded of Lenin's dictum: 'keep the shell, but empty it of substance.'

After the Council, following the pattern established by Luther and Cranmer, changes were introduced, at first slowly, and then, at an increasing pace. Those victimized by the early days of aggiornamento will remember the almost weekly changes mandated. Cardinal Heenan bears witness to this, stating that we would have been 'shocked' if all the changes had been introduced at once. Changes came however, one on top of another, and if we are to believe the hierarchy, still more are in the offing. There is much talk today of 'institutional violence.' I can think of no better example of this than the manner in which the new 'mass' was forced down the throats of the laity.


Two techniques of deletion

The innovators used two techniques to purge the Mass of Catholic doctrines - omission and emasculation. As noted above, between 60 and 80 percent of the traditional Mass was deleted. I would ask the reader to compare the NOM with the traditional rite as found in any old Missal published during the past 500 years - that is, prior to 1964. (Old Missals usually give the Latin on one side and the English on the other.) The number of prayers missing is astounding.

Gone are all the prayers said at the foot of the altar (not a 'table') including Psalm 42 and the Aufer a nobis. Confession is replaced by a truncated 'Penitential Rite' which stresses sins against our 'brothers and sisters.' The prayer for absolution (indulgentiam) is omitted. In the Offertory, the Suscipe Sancte Pater, the Deus qui Humanae, the Offerimus tibi, the Veni Sanctificator, the Lavabo (Ps. XXV), and the Suscipe Sancte are all gone. Note how many of the doctrinal concepts clearly proclaimed in these prayers the New Church finds objectionable. Only the In Spiritu Humilitatis and the Orate Fratres have been retained, and this, as we shall se, for specific reasons. In the Canon, if the 'president' (6) chooses not to use 'Eucharistic Prayer No 1', (which is falsely called the Old Roman Canon, and which, being the longest Eucharistic Prayer, is in fact, rarely used), the following six prayers before the highly questionable consecration have been deleted : The Te Igitur, Memento Domine, Communicantes, Hanc Igitur, Quam Oblationem, and the Qui Pridie. After the consecration, the following seven prayers are dropped: the Unde et Memores, Supra quae Propitio, Supplices Te rogamus, Memento Etiam, Nobis quoque Peccatoribus, and the Per quem haec Omnia. As if were not enough, numerous prayers that used to follow the Pater Noster are also dropped: the Panem Coelestam, Quid Retribuam, the second Confiteor, the Misereatur and the Indulgentiam or Absolution are gone. Also eliminated are the threefold Domine non sum Dignus, the Corpus Tuum, Placeat Tibi and the Last Gospel. Once again, consider the innumerable doctrinal concepts that have been cast into oblivion - above all, any reference to an immolative sacrifice and the need for a true sacrificing priest. And this says nothing of the numerous genuflections, Signs of the Cross, blessings and other actions of the priest which also are expunged

An excellent example of the second technique of deletion -- emasculation -- is provided by the changes made in the prayer Libera nos (Deliver us...) which follows the Our Father. In the traditional rite it reads:

'Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come, and by the intercession of the Blessed and Glorious Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, together with Thy blessed Apostles Peter, Paul and Andrew, and all the saints, mercifully grant peace in our days, that through the bounteous help of Thy mercy, we may be always free from sin and secure from all disturbance...'
It now reads:
'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 Saviour, Jesus Christ.'

Note that the references to the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the saints have been obliterated. Their intercession is no longer required -presumably because it would offend Protestant sensibilities and thus frustrate the 'pastoral' intent of the rite.

Note that in both techniques the innovators cannot be accused of directly 'changing' Catholic teaching -- just of ignoring it. This pattern is consistent throughout: all clear cut references to the propitiatory, and impetratory nature of the Mass are removed. Every reference to the immolative aspect of the Sacrifice and the Real Presence is deleted. The residue is but a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' such as the Protestants find acceptable. Recalling that the lex orandi is the lex credendi, and admitting that adults well formed in the faith may have some degree of protection, how, we must ask, can our children avoid having their religious beliefs 'neutralized'?

* * *

While most Catholics, accustomed to trusting Rome, went along with the changes, others protested strongly. Petition after petition was sent to Rome, and were consistently ignored. (Some conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are still playing this game.)(7) Paul VI, desiring to foster the revolution without losing any of the faithful, gave his usual conflicting responses. He told us on the one hand that the New Order of the Mass was changed in 'an amazing and extraordinary way', that 'it was singularly new,' and that 'the greatest innovation -- [he used the word 'mutation'] -- was in the Eucharistic Prayer.' On the other hand, he found it necessary to repeatedly assure us that 'nothing had changed in the essence of the traditional Mass'(8). Other witnesses were more honest and straightforward. Father Joseph Gelineau, S.J., one of the Conciliar periti, bluntly declared that the end result was 'a different liturgy of the Mass.' He continued: 'This needs to be said without ambiguity. the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.' Cardinal Benelli stated that the new liturgy reflected a 'new ecclesiology.'(11) The liturgist Father Louis Bouyer opined that 'the Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more compatible with the contemporary outlook'. Finally, Archbishop (Freemason) Bugnini, Paul VI's executive officer in the creation of the NOM, described the result as 'a new song' and as 'the conquest of the Church.' Despite all this Paul VI persisted: 'Be very sure of one point: nothing of substance of the traditional Mass has been altered' (DOL 1759).There was no retrenchment. The Liturgical Revolution became a fait accompli.

Who wrote the 'Novus Ordo Missae'?

We know that ultimately the Holy Ghost is the author of the traditional Mass, 'the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven,' as St. Alphonse Liguori called it. According to the Council of Trent, the central part, the 'Canon', was 'composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs.' As Father Bouyer once said, 'to jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the part of the Roman Church to represent the true Catholic Church.' As for the prayers ceremonies surrounding the Canon, these are all drawn from Scripture and/or Tradition.

When we come to the NOM, we also know its authors. While Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was composed by a committee called the Consilium which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as Conciliar periti. At its head was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini whose Freemasonic connections are virtually beyond dispute. He was helped by six Protestant 'observers' whom Paul VI publicly thanked for their assistance in 're-editing in a new manner liturgical texts... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief).' As previously noted, we are forced to assume that either the lex orandi prior to this time did not conform to the lex credendi, or else that the lex credendi was changed. And since when did the Church need the assistance of Protestant heretics -- men who by definition reject her teaching -- to assist her in formulating her rites? Considering the nature of those responsible, and despite the NOM's bland use of Scriptural phrases, one can certainly question whether the Holy Ghost had anything whatever to do with it.

Holy Ghost. Aufer a nobis. Suscipe Sancte Pater, the Deus qui Humanae, the Offerimus tibi, the Veni Sanctificator, the Lavabo. Te Igitur, Memento Domine, Communicantes, Hanc Igitur, Quam Oblationem, and the Qui Pridie. Unde et Memores, Supra quae Propitio, Supplices Te rogamus, Memento Etiam, Nobis quoque Peccatoribus, and the Per quem haec Omnia. Unde et Memores, Supra quae Propitio, Supplices Te rogamus, Memento Etiam, Nobis quoque Peccatoribus, and the Per quem haec Omnia. Domine non sum Dignus, the Corpus Tuum, Placeat Tibi . Holy Ghost.


Why was it written

The claim that the laity had demanded the 'renovation' of the Mass has never been substantiated; but then, revolutionaries always attempt to promulgate their dictatorial schemes 'in the name of the people'. Why then all the changes? And these, not only in the rite, but in everything that went to support the rite - the altars turned into tables, the tabernacles displaced, the priest facing the congregation, the altar rail removed - the list is endless, the cost enormous.

According to the statements of Paul VI, the changes were made: 1) to bring the Church's liturgy into line with the modern mentality; 2) in obedience to the mandate of Vatican II; 3) to take cognizance of progress in liturgical studies; 4) to return to primitive practice: and 5) for 'pastoral' reasons. Let us consider each of these in turn.

The first reason is but a way of expressing the principle of aggiornamento, of bringing the entire gestalt of the modern world; its anthropocentricism and utopian thought; its false ideas of Progress and Evolution as applied to truth itself -- into the bosom of the Church. As Paul VI said,'if the world changes, should not religion also change?... it is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the Council, undertaken so many reforms...' (General Audience, July 2, 1969). Is the Father of the 'Prodigal' to join his son in dissipating the treasures of the family, or must the son return to the bosom of his Father?

The second reason: Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy recommended that the rite be revised 'in accord with sound tradition'. It also said that the liturgy was made up of 'unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.' Surely the 'unchangeable elements' referred to the time honored Canon, and above all to the form and substance of the Sacrament itself. Indeed, such an opinion is strengthened if one reads the Council Daybook which states that the Fathers 'insisted that the Canon of the Mass especially should remain intact'(Nov. 5, 1962). If one compares the NOM with the traditional rite however, one soon finds that few if any items were considered truly unchangeable. Furthermore, the Latin original of Paul VI's New Missal is loaded with 'options' and whatever reflections of Catholic doctrine were found within it were soon obliterated by translations into the vernacular - translations sanctioned by Rome's official guidelines. True, such words as 'Alleluia' (why not in the vernacular?) and certain prayers such as the Our Father were left intact. But these were, in any event, always acceptable to the Protestants. One thing is clear however: despite the many 'time bombs' in the Constitution on the Liturgy, none of the Fathers at Vatican II -- except those 'in the know' -- envisioned the radical changes that followed as a 'mandate' from this Council.

The third reason: One presumes that Paul VI was referring to the voluminous modernist productions that fill the liturgical journals of the pre and post-Conciliar period. Examples of this will be given in the next Chapter on Orders. However, to call these pseudo-scholarly productions, all aimed at fostering the Liturgical Revolution, 'progress' is an abuse of language. It is also to forget the tremendous legitimate scholarship that preceded the codification of the Mass by Pius V.

With regard to the fourth reason, it is hard to understand just why those who would adapt our faith to the modern world, would at the same time have us return to primitive practice. Like burning a candle at both ends, it soon leaves very little in the middle. Beyond this, the only ancient document with any real significance that has come to light since the time of Pope Saint Pius V is the 'Apostolic Tradition' of Hippolytus, and of this we only have a partial and reconstructed version of the original document. Moreover, Hippolytus was both a schismatic and an anti-Pope at the time he wrote. It was at the suggestion of the of Hans Kung -- a person who denies many of the Church's teachings -- that the Second Eucharistic Prayer was taken from this dubious source. Moreover, as we shall see below, it was drastically rephrased so as to bring it into line with Protestant and Modernist theology. So much is this the case that Father John Barry Ryan calls the result an entirely 'new creation.' The only other ancient prayer incorporated into the NOM is what Father Jungmann calls a 'reconstruction... probably the very words used at the blessing of bread and wine in a Jewish meal at the time of Christ.' It is indeed such. Anyone who has had the privilege of attending a Jewish banquet is familiar with the phrase 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord, God of all creation...' It is the Jewish grace before meals said by the Rabbi as he cuts the loaf of bread.

Paul VI's last reason was 'pastoral'. As far as I can determine, neither he nor the Council ever defined this term. In the 'double-speak' of the post-Conciliar Church, just what does 'pastoral' mean? The answer can be found in the Letter to the Presidents of National Councils of Bishops concerning Eucharistic Prayers sent out by the Sacred congregation for Divine Worship.

'The reason why such a variety of texts has been offered [referring to the multitude of Eucharistic Prayers in the NOM], and the end result such new formulas were meant to achieve, are pastoral in nature: namely, to reflect the unity and diversity of liturgical prayer. By using the various texts contained in the new Roman Missal, various Christian communities, as they gather together to celebrate the Eucharist, are able to sense that they themselves form the one Church, praying with the same faith, using the same prayer.'

In other words, the 'pastoral intent' was and is to create a service that any Christian body can use -- to foster that ecumenism and 'unity' which the post-Conciliar Church believes and teaches is its 'internal mission.'

The result is entirely acceptable to the Protestants

Now, the real issue for the innovators was not whether the NOM retained enough of its Catholic character to be acceptable to the Catholic faithful, but whether it was sufficiently 'ecumenical' to satisfy Protestants of both liberal and conservative persuasions. Here the answer must be a resounding yes! As pointed out in the previous chapter, Lutherans, Anglicans and a wide variety of other sects not only find it acceptable, many of them have actually changed their own rites in order to bring them into line with the NOM. In order to understand why, let us turn to a French Protestant theologian: 'If one takes account of the decisive evolution in the eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice and of the possibility of receiving communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.' (19)

Now there is something a little surprising in all this. Let us recall that the Anglicans (Episcopalians in America) officially consider the Catholic teaching on the Mass to be a 'blasphemous fable,' and a lot of hocus pocus (the anti-Catholic epithet based on the phrase Hoc est enim corpus Meum - the words used by a priest at the time of Consecration); that the Lutherans clearly hold it as a point of doctrine that 'the Mass is not a sacrifice' and that it 'is not the act of a sacrificing priest.' As Luther said, the Canon is 'a confluence of puddles of slimy water...' worse than 'all brothels, murders, robberies, crimes, and adulteries.' Even more to the point, Luther said of his own Novus Ordo: 'Call it a benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's table, the Lord's Supper, memory of the Lord, or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a sacrifice or an action.'

The Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae by the Roman Theologians also explains just why the new 'mass' is so acceptable to those who reject all belief in an immolative Sacrifice: '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 upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody 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.'

We shall see whether this statement is justified as we go through the rite itself.

CHAPTER XII, part 10

Is the Novus Ordo Missae a sacrifice?
The structure of the rite

The traditional Mass is divided into two parts: 'the Mass of the Catechumens' and 'the Mass of the Faithful.' As the St. Andrew Missal states, 'the catechumens, Christians by desire and belief, could take part in the prayers and chants of the faithful, listen with them to the readings and instructions, but as they were not yet baptized, they could not communicate or be present at Mass. They were dismissed before the Offertory.'

The Novus Ordo Missae is also divided into two sections, 'the Liturgy of the Word,' and 'the Liturgy of the Eucharist.' The former roughly corresponds to the Mass of the Catechumens, but has been altered so as to bring it completely into line with Protestant theology. Gone are the prayers before the altar. After the 'priest-president' greets the parishioners, we start out with a truncated confession 'to our brothers and sisters.' Post-conciliar Catholics no longer confess to the Blessed Virgin, the angels and the saints. They are also denied the traditional absolution formula... 'Indulgentiam...' which is capable of forgiving those venial sins that even the best of us fall pray to . The Gloria is still allowed on Sundays and a few feast days, but falsely and incompletely rendered -- with the false concept that peace is available to 'all me,' and not just to those of 'good will.' (It will be argued that the Latin version found in Paul VI's New Missal is unchanged, but in the practical order, Latin is a dead liturgical language.)

The principle aspect of 'the Liturgy of the Word' is the reading of Scripture. Now the idea that the 'Word' (Logos) of God is only to be found in Scripture is totally Protestant -- it is an implicit denial of the doctrine that 'the Word was made flesh', and that such specifically occurs in the second part of the rite. As to the readings, they are taken from the new ecumenical and frequently false translations. They are further, part of a 'three-year' cycle, but as such are hardly 'fixed,' for the new Lectionary allows for a whole host of options which can be followed at the celabrant's discretion. The traditional Mass used a one-year cycle established by St. Damasus in the fourth century. (Readings heard each year become part of the Catholic consciousness. Those based on a three-year cycle, even apart from the problem of 'options', never will.) Scripture is followed by a 'homily' which, in accord with Protestant practice, almost always becomes the center of the new rite. (In the traditional rite the priest is a 'nobody,' his personality counting for nothing. One never thought to ask who was saying Mass. In the Novus Ordo Missae, the personality of the priest becomes all important, his elocution significant, and people often select which service they attend on the basis of who is celebrating. This practice has the further advantage of providing everyone with a choice of 'liberal' or 'conservative' formularies.) The Liturgy of the Word concludes with the Credo -- which the Anglicans and Lutherans also retained - but rendered in the vernacular with the communitarian 'we,' so that is not so much a Credo as a Credimus. Absent from this statement of belief is the hallowed term consubstantial. (22)

All these changes in what used to be called the Mass of the Catechumens, however offensive, in no way affect the Sacrifice itself. It is to the second part of the rite that we must give our special attention. For the sake of convenience, I shall first discuss the Offertory, and then the changes in the Canon -- that part of the rite in which the Consecration occurs. It will be shown that in almost every situation accommodation to Protestant belief is implied,if not enforced. As a result, the new 'mass' lacks a clear immolative character and the celebrant no longer appears as a 'sacrificing priest.' Indeed, as will become clear, it is not the priest, but the 'people of God' who celebrate the liturgy under the 'priest-president's' direction.

1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   33

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка