|
|
| |
|
Is the
NEW MASS LEGIT?
5-25-2011
Pope Paul VI published
on April 3, 1969 the Apostolic Constitution, Missale
Romanum that supposedly promulgated the
Novus Ordo Missae; but was this a legitimate act? |
 |
|
|
|
Universae Ecclesiae is the name of a recent Instruction which provides some
precious clarifications on the four-year-old
Summorum Pontificum, which signaled the liberation
of the Mass of All Time. The Pope’s intention is that the Mass may
receive “full citizenship” in the Church today, and not be
ostracized as it has been in the last four years by the diktat
of omnipotent episcopal conferences which reveal a rather loose
conception of Catholic obedience. Time will tell whether they will
toe the Roman line or do as they have done so far. Here we would
like to expand only on #19 which states:
The faithful
who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria
must not in any way support or belong to groups which show
themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy
Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria
or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal
Church.
By so doing,
the Instruction attacks any group of faithful doctrinally attached
to the Mass of All Time even if they recognize in principle that
the New Mass is valid. There may be nothing new under the Roman
sun, but this document affords us the chance to go over the
reasons why Archbishop Lefebvre always contested the legitimacy of
the liturgical revolution of 1969. We will show this in three
ways, of increasing importance: the legal aspect, the historical
context, and the dogmatic context.
A. The
legality of the New Mass
|
|
Cardinals
Ottaviani and Bacci |
A law is
legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully
constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another
of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be
for the common good.1 And precisely on this score, the
Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was
attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than Cardinals
Ottaviani and Bacci: |
|
It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to
present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent… It
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. The “canons”
of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an
insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the
integrity of the mystery.2
|
A concelebrated
New Mass |
|
|
The legal
aspect here does not address so much the question of the
suppression of the Old Mass, since its continuous existence was
supported not only by the general norms of the new Code, (can. 20)
but was openly admitted by Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum.
Rather, the legal question we wish to study deals with the
juridical validity of the promulgation of the NOM. Here, we
are largely indebted to Itinéraires, the magazine of Jean
Madiran, which was the French voice of Tradition years before the
liturgical changes.
We need to look
at the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3,
1969) which allegedly promulgated the NOM.3 Most
of the document describes the novelties and the final part never
declares clearly what the Pope commands, forbids, or concedes. As
to the final “Nonobstant”, it is too generic to pretend to
abrogate the perfectly clear legislative act of St. Pius V who
promulgated the Mass of All Time. It appears that Paul VI never
wanted to render his missal mandatory, with a truly juridical
obligation. Why?
-
Itinéraires
could say as early as 1970 that the future was already present:
a constant process of mutation. Changed were the “original”
edition of the Institutio Generalis (see below regarding
the theological aspect), and the editio typica [typical
edition―Ed.] of the NOM rite within months. The
Apostolic Constitution in its second Latin edition was enriched
with a new paragraph drawn from the French/Italian version, as
we are to explain presently.4
-
The original
Constitution concluded rather innocently with: “From all that
has been said so far regarding the New Roman Missal, in the end,
we are now pleased to draw a conclusion.”5 But,
sensing that something was missing, the French and Italian
translators (not to speak of other versions) boldly modified the
text making it say: “We want (placet!) to give
force of law (cogere et efficere!) to everything
(quiddam!) which we have exposed above regarding the
new Roman Missal.”
-
The same
translators also completed the authentic Latin text of the
Apostolic Constitution, adding: “We order that the
prescriptions of this Constitution become effective on November
30th of this year, the First Sunday of Advent.”6
Both these modifications and additions objectively constitute a
forgery. This alone manifests the essential problem of a
Constitution which some wish to be mandatory, but which, in its
authentic tenure, is not.
-
The question
remains why Pope Paul VI seemed to substitute in fact
another law to one which he did not abrogate by right.
Worse is the other stunning question: why did he not say clearly
that he did not want to abrogate the other? Why leave the minds
of confused priests and laymen in the agonizing doubt that
everything was taking place then as if the authors (which ones?)
were imposing an obligation while letting you free to believe
the opposite?
B. The
Historical Context
Cardinal Gut,
the Prefect who presided over the liturgical reform, gave a
revealing insight into the pressure which led the Pope to promote
the New Mass:
|
|
Cardinal Gut
with Pope Paul VI |
We hope that,
now, with the new dispositions, contained in the documents, this
sickness of experimentation will come to a stop. Until now, the
bishops had the right to authorize experiments but, sometimes,
such limits have been trespassed and many priests simply did what
they wanted. Then, what happened is that, sometimes, they imposed
themselves. One could not, very often, stop these initiatives
taken without authorization because they had gone too far. In his
great goodness and in his wisdom the Holy Father yielded, often
against his will.7
|
|
|
As any decent
legislator would do, Paul VI, in establishing his liturgical
reform, elucidated the motives of such drastic changes. Here they
are:8
-
The reform is
an act of fidelity to the “demands” of Vatican II.
-
It is meant
to revive the languid and awaken the sleepy.
-
It
wishes to supplant the “opaque glass” of the old Mass by
another which will be a “transparent crystal” for “the
children, the youth, the workers, and businessmen.”
-
It wishes to
be “a resolute gymnastic of Christian sociology.”
|
|
What about the
“ecumenical” motive? As strange as it appears, Paul VI never
invoked this motive. This omission rightly raised the eyebrows of
Protestants and Catholics alike who, unanimously, recognized it on
every page of the Ordo. Said an intimate friend of the
Pope, Jean Guitton:
There was
with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least
to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the
traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the
Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist service...9
|
Jean Guitton,
friend and confidant of Pope Paul VI |
|
|
As
to the motives given by the Holy Father, the most important would
be the first, stating, in a democratic fashion, that this was the
will of the conciliar bishops. He directs us to #50 of the
liturgical decree [Sacrosanctum Concilium―Ed.]. But
was it really so? The said paragraph recommends indeed in generic
terms a certain revision of the Mass. Yet, when these 2000 bishops
signed this paragraph, did they wish the suppression of the
Offertory? Did they wish the addition of ad libitum new
Canons to compete with the Roman Canon from the 3rd century? Did
they want such ambiguous Ordinary texts of the Mass that these
would immediately seem agreeable to men who have no faith in
transsubstantiation, the sacrificial oblation, and the Catholic
priesthood? No! Certainly, the Council never wanted such a
revolution.
In the same
context of the end of that fatal year, 1969, we need to add a
letter addressed to the Pope, utterly unnoticed by the press,
signed by 6000 Spanish priests.10
…We shall not speak of the doctrinal Catholic reasons;
we could not expose them better than the document A
Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, which Your
Holiness has recently received, accompanied by a letter signed
by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, and which one would need to
refute in details according to the doctrine of the Council of
Trent if one wished to prove the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo.
|
|
Pope Paul VI
thanking the 6 Protestant ministers
for their assistance in creating the New Mass.
Max Thurian is circled. |
|
We shall
not speak of this, but we shall bring up the Protestant reasons.
Mr. Max Thurian affirms in La Croix of May 30, 1969 that,
with the Novus Ordo “non Catholic communities will be
able to celebrate the Last Supper with the same prayers as the
Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.” |
|
|
Thus, if
the celebration by a Protestant is theologically possible, this
means that the Novus Ordo expresses no dogma with which
the Protestants are in disagreement. But the first of these
dogmas is the Real Presence, essence and center of the Mass of
St. Pius V. Could a Protestant pastor celebrate the Novus
Ordo if he was to perform the consecration in the intention
used by the Catholic Church? “Lex orandi, lex credendi”:
the liturgy is the highest expression of our faith. Where shall
we go if, in the best of cases, the Mass silences the Catholic
truths? If the good people, with no knowledge and against their
will, are thrown into heresy, as long as they preserve the
Christian morals (unfortunately, they do not), they will save
their soul. But this will not be the case of those who will have
pushed them into it. Most Holy Father, we do not want to endure
this responsibility. This is why we boldly address this letter
to you, after we begged of you in a previous one (November 5,
1969) to allow the universal Church to preserve the Mass of St.
Pius V together with that of the Novus Ordo.
In the name
of the Pope, some Roman authority (which one?) demanded total
submission and blind obedience from all these most devoted
priests. The strangest thing is that none of them reacted and
nothing was heard anymore of this tyrannical act. Moreover, an
Italian committee was gathering signatures to petition Paul VI to
abrogate the NOM. Behold the judgment proffered by Vatican
Radio: “Do you wish to be sure of disobeying the Pope: sign!”11
Hence, whoever dares to make a petition to the Pope is in the
state of disobedience! This idiotic idolatry to the goddess of
false obedience, unheard of during twenty centuries of the Church,
raised no protest.
|
|
This
cowardly servility reigns almost universally: it is the
sentiment of most cardinals who dare neither speak to the Pope
nor ask anything from him, not even to beg: they would be
tagged disobedient to the Pope, and they accept this slavish
tyranny. Is it not true that where truth and justice cease to
be upheld, arbitrary despotism reigns, with no basis and no
limits? Does not the statement of Louis Veuillot [author of
The Liberal Illusion―Ed.] express
aptly the mindset of many a churchman: “there is no one more
sectarian than a liberal.” |
The Liberal
Illusion:
available from
Angelus Press |
|
|
C. The
Theological Context
We have already
alluded to the underlying dogmatic truths which the NOM has
silenced or covered in ambiguous terms, so as to please heretical
communities. These half-truths (and half-errors) were markedly
expressed in what can only be called the definition of the NOM:
“The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly
of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the
priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”12
This text was found so offensive and raised such a worldwide
uproar that Rome had to come up with something less heterodox.
They revised the definition into something less heretical, but did
not touch anything in the rite itself, the perfect expression of
the early definition. Yet, this definition and this rite omits or
denies the three doctrines which are at very heart of the Mass:
the priest who, by his sacerdotal character, is alone capable of
consecrating the Eucharist; the propitiatory sacrifice of the
Mass; and the real and substantial presence of the Victim of
Calvary through transubstantiation.
|
|
The Problem
of the Liturgical Reform:
available from
Angelus Press |
The SSPX has
presented a book to the attention of Rome,
The Problem of the Liturgical Reform. It
explains how the new Mass is the plain expression of underlying
principles drawn from the theology of the Paschal Mystery [NB:
this refers to the false interpretation of the Paschal Mystery as
found in the NOM, as opposed to the correct one expressed
in all of the traditional liturgical rites―Ed.]. Here are
the book’s conclusions:13
-
The
propitiatory aspect of the Mass has been effaced from the new
missal because the Paschal Mystery holds that there is no debt
to be paid in order to satisfy divine justice offended by sin.
But, by refusing to see that the Redemption includes the act by
which Christ paid to God the entire debt of pain incurred by our
sins (the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction), the theology of
the Paschal Mystery sets itself in opposition to a truth of the
Catholic Faith.
|
|
-
The structure
of the new missal is that of a memorial meal that celebrates and
proclaims the divine Covenant and not that of a Sacrifice. But,
by considering the Mass as a sacrifice only insofar as it is a
memorial which contains “in mysterio” the sacrifice of
the Cross, the theology of the Paschal Mystery weakens the
visibility of the sacrifice as taught by the Church, and can no
longer “vere et proprie”—truly and properly—designate
the Mass as a sacrifice. This cannot do justice to a truth of
Faith, and seems thereby to incur the condemnation pronounced by
the Council of Trent as regards the “Nuda commemoratio”—mere
commemoration.
-
The New Mass
has displaced Christ the Priest and Victim, and replaced it with
the Kyrios who communicates Himself to the assembly,
making the Eucharist no longer a visible sacrifice but rather a
mysterious symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection. Insofar as
it rests upon philosophies of the symbolic type, this notion of
sacrament cannot be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on the
sacraments. Because this notion corrupts the branches of
theology where it is introduced, it is dangerous for the Faith.
Now, even if
one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the
sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass
renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who
refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon
become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from
vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a
deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition
of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil
in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil
by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what
Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real
Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already
been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the
New Mass was promulgated:
The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes
in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete
bewilderment of the faithful, who already show an indubitable
lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the
result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless
instances of which come to our notice daily.14
|
|
|
Footnotes
1 Michiels, Normae generales
Juris Canonici (1929), p. 486, and in
The Problem of the Liturgical Reform,
Angelus Press (2001), p. 106.
2 The Ottaviani Intervention, p. 28, TAN Books (1992);
cf.
the PDF.
3 Itinéraires, #140, pp.39-2, February 1970.
4 Ibidem, p. 45.
5 "Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactenus de novo Missali Romano
exposuimus, QUIDDAM nunc COGERE et EFFICERE placet."
6 Our version for the French, published from La salle de Presse
du Saint Siège (sic, in Documentation Catholique,
n. 1541, June 1, 1969, col. 1 initio).
7 Docum. Cathol. n.1551, Nov. 16 1969, p.1048. col. 2.
8 L'Osservatore Romano (Italian Ed.) of November 20-27.
9 December 19, 1993 in Apropos (17), p. 8ff.
In Most Asked
Questions About the Society of St. Pius X [online version on this site], Angelus Press (2011), p. 39.
10 December 11, 1969, Priestly Association of St. Anthony Mary
Claret; see Itinéraires, #140, pp. 32 ff.
11 La Croix, Jan 6, 1969, quoted by J. Mardiran in
Itinéraires, #141, p. 9.
12 Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version.
13 The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, Angelus Press
(2001), pp.80-98 passim.
14
The Ottaviani Intervention, p. 28, Tan Books
(1992).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
