The New Mass
Pope Paul VI's imposition of the New Mass on the priests and faithful of the Roman Rite went into effect on Nov. 31, 1969. Many bishops, among them Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer, thousands of priests and faithful opposed this poisoned neo-Protestant rite.
I. Definition of the New Order of Mass
When an artist shows his finished painting, he doesn't need to explain what he intended to paint: a group of houses surrounding a church in the pouring rain, and above it a dark sky with a jagged flash of lightning—this is enough to give the impression of a village in a storm. It is impossible to be wrong about this, unless one is blind, or has never seen either a storm or a village.
The same is true in the case of the New Mass. A study of the rites it contains ought to be enough to show us what its nature is; we should easily be able to conclude that it is ambiguous and ecumenicist (capable of both Catholic and Protestant interpretations). Some people, however, do not get as far as these conclusions, either because they are blind or myopic, or because they do not know what a Protestant service is (a normal state of affairs for Catholics). They do not have sufficient points of comparison and, since they are Catholics and the New Mass is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a Catholic way, they naturally interpret it in that way.
There is a way of showing such people: let the "artist" speak for himself. If he says he has painted a village in a storm, there is no further reason to doubt him. That is what we shall do in this final section. We shall examine the explanation of the New Mass given by those who constructed it.
On April 3, 1969, at the same time as the New Order of Mass, Pope Paul VI promulgated a General Introduction (Institutio Generalis) which was to replace the "General Rubrics" of the Missal of St. Pius V. This long document was not content, like the traditional rubrics to indicate how the Mass was to be celebrated: as its principal editor said, it was "a comprehensive theological, pastoral, catechetical and rubrical explanation, showing how the mass is to be understood and celebrated." Therefore we can refer to this text if we wish to comprehend the theology of the New Mass. However, as soon as it was published, this text created a scandal, so much so that Pope Paul VI ordered it to be revised. A new, slightly improved edition of the General Introduction appeared in 1970, but the liturgical text of the New Order of Mass itself was not changed. For greater clarity, we shall refer here to the first version of the Institutio Generalis, and we shall examine four essential points:
a) transubstantiation
b) the propitiatory character of the sacrifice
c) the sacerdotal character of the Priest
d) the definition of the Mass
II. The Practical Negation of Transubstantiation
The word "transubstantiation" does not figure in any of the 341 articles of the Institutio Generalis. In 1794 Pope Pius VI condemned a proposition of the Synod of Pistoia simply because, in setting forth the Catholic teaching, it omitted to mention the word "transubstantiation," which is the only word exactly describing what takes place at the consecration. For this reason alone, this theological proposition was condemned as "being favorable to heretics." There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Institutio Generalis can be said, at the very least, to be "favorable to heresy."
We say "at least," for there is worse. The condemned proposition of the Synod of Pistoia was setting forth Catholic doctrine, whereas the Institutio Generalis does not do so. The term "real presence" no longer appears in the text. True, some articles say that "the oblations become the Body and Blood of Christ," that during communion the faithful "receive the Body of Christ" and that "under each of the species alone the whole Christ and true sacrament is received; ...those who receive only one species are deprived of no grace necessary for salvation," but all these propositions could be accepted by Protestants, who admit a certain (spiritual) presence of Christ in the species of bread and wine. They reject the real presence as designated by transubstantiation, which is not affirmed in the Institutio Generalis. Furthermore, the context weakens these articles, for Christ's eucharistic presence seems to be put on the same level as His spiritual presence in the "word of God" or in the assembly:
When Sacred Scripture is read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people; and Christ, present in his Word, proclaims his gospel (art. 9).
When the entrance song is finished, the priest and the entire congregation make the sign of the Cross. Then the priest, by means of the greeting, signifies to the congregation the presence of the Lord (art. 28).
In the readings...through his word Christ himself is present in the midst of the faithful (art. 33).
The greatest reverence is to be shown to the gospel reading...also on the part of the faithful, who by means of the acclamations recognize and acknowledge that Christ is present and is speaking to them... (art. 35).
How, then, should we not also interpret the following as a spiritual presence:
The Last Supper, in which Christ instituted the memorial of his death and resurrection, is made continually present in the Church when the priest, representing Christ the Lord, does the same thing which the Lord himself did...(art. 48)?
This ambiguity is reinforced by Article 8, which seems to put the "liturgy of the word" and the "eucharistic liturgy" on the same level, and particularly by Article 7, to which we shall return.
III. The Propitiatory Character of the Sacrifice is Effaced
The word "sacrifice" occurs about ten times in the Institutio Generalis, but the Council of Trent is very clear on this subject, showing that it is not enough to use the word "sacrifice":
If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving: or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; ...let him be anathema (Sess. XXII, ch. IX, can. III).
The word "propitiatory" does not appear in any article of the Institutio Generalis and if several articles mention the sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving, and the memorial, the aspect of propitiation is always suppressed.
Moreover, the Institutio Generalis insists that the Mass is not only a memorial of the Passion, but also of the Resurrection and Ascension. This is true, but only insofar as Christ's Resurrection and Ascension are the necessary crowning of His redemptive mission and the consequence of His Sacrifice. The Mass is principally the renewal of Christ's Sacrifice; and it is because the latter is not complete without the Resurrection and Ascension that the Mass also includes, albeit in a subordinate way, the celebration of these mysteries of the life of Christ. By omitting to make this clear and by speaking of the Mass as a "memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ" or as the "memorial of the Lord," the Institutio Generalis attenuates its sacrificial aspect.
We must also draw attention to the ambiguity of the term "memorial." Catholic theology had already used the term, but its meaning was carefully defined: it referred to a sacramental memorial, and the nature of a sacrament according to Catholic theology is to render really present the supernatural (invisible) reality which it signifies through a visible sign. It is not merely a question of "remembering" but of rendering present the sacrifice of the Cross, thanks to the words of consecration. These precise definitions are not given; it seems, rather, that the word "memorial" has been chosen deliberately to signify something different from what is meant in Catholic theology. Max Thurian [of the Protestant Taizé community] wrote:
The sacrificial aspect of the Mass, which was the source of so many misunderstandings, is now illuminated by the biblical theme of the memorial. The acceptable sacrifice which saves the world is the sacrifice of Redemption, and it is the memorial of this sacrifice which the Church celebrates today by offering the Body and Blood of Christ.
Or, as A. Fermet wrote:
In the word "memorial" we have the biblical idea which will reveal all its richness and all its unifying and ecumenical power in providing an account of the Eucharist.
The Second Vatican Council itself underlined the ambiguity of this word "memorial," when speaking of Protestants:
...Although we believe they have not preserved the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory. For these reasons, the doctrine about the Lord's Supper, about the other sacraments, worship, and ministry in the Church, should form subjects of dialogue.
This quotation is interesting: in 1964 Vatican II defines the Protestant Supper as "the commemoration of the Lord's death and resurrection," and hardly five years later, thanks to "dialogue" with Protestant experts in the liturgy Consilium, the same expression defines the new Catholic Mass!
Article 55 is similar, speaking of the Consecration as the "narration of the institution," without making it clear that it is not only a narration.
Worse still, the sacrificial aspect is pushed into second place. For the Church, the Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice, and if it can also be called a "meal," this is always with reference to the sacrifice: the "meal" is essentially a way of uniting oneself to the Victim of the sacrifice (like the eating of the victim in the Old Testament).
Now, while the word "sacrifice" is mentioned about ten times in the 341 articles of the Institutio, the "meal" aspect is omnipresent: there is ceaseless talk of the "feast," of the "Lord's table," of "spiritual food," etc. From reading the Institutio Generalis one would never understand that the Mass is essentially a sacrifice—which is what the Church teaches.
Here again, Protestant influence is evident. The theology that underlies the New Mass is not Catholic, does not explicitly deny any truth of Faith, but instead it says something else.
IV. The Sacerdotal Character of the Priest Is Diluted
In this matter, three essential realities are denied by Protestants:
1) Jesus Christ is the principal Priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (by the hands of the priest); He is simultaneously Priest and Victim of the Sacrifice of the New Covenant.
2) It follows from this that the priest is, first and foremost not the representative of the people, but the (free and willing) "instrument" of Jesus Christ, the Sovereign Priest.
3) Thus there is a difference not only of degree but of nature between the priesthood of the priest, which is an active priesthood (since he has the power to act in the name of Christ), and the "priesthood" of the faithful, which is passive (since they have the power to participate in the sacrifice of Christ which is offered by the priest in the name of Jesus Christ).
Let us now examine what the Institutio Generalis teaches on these three subjects:
Certain articles explain that the Mass is "an act of Christ and the Church" and that in it the priest represents Christ; but the context waters down these expressions:
...[T]he priest presides over the assembly in the person of Christ (art. 10).
The Last Supper, in which Christ instituted the memorial of his death and resurrection, is made continually present in the Church when the priest, representing Christ the Lord, does the same thing which the Lord himself did... (art. 48).
The priest celebrant likewise heads the assembled congregation in the person of Christ, presides over its prayer, proclaims to it the message of salvation, associates the people with himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father, and shares the bread of eternal life with his brethren. Therefore, when he celebrates the Eucharist, he is to serve God and the people with dignity and humility, and, in the manner of conducting himself and pronouncing the divine words, to show to the faithful the living presence of Christ (art. 60).
There is nothing here to make clear what is affirmed by the Council of Trent, namely, that in the Mass Jesus Christ "offers himself to be immolated for the Church through the ministry of priests." In fact, the recommendation that the priest should "in the manner of conducting himself...show to the faithful the living presence of Christ" tends, rather, to make him a mere actor in a theatrical presentation; this is very close to the Protestant idea.
Similarly, the emphasis placed on the priest's "presidential role" tends to obscure the specific character of his priesthood. According to the Council of Trent, this priesthood "was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood was the power delivered of consecrating, offering and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and retaining sins (Sess. XXIII, ch. I). There is nothing of this in the Institutio Generalis. On the contrary, certain of its explanations actually attack the Catholic understanding of priesthood:
Of what is assigned to the priest, the Eucharistic prayer holds first place, for it is the climax of the whole celebration. Then there are the prayers....The priest, who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ (personam Christi gerens), addresses these prayers to God in the name of the holy people in its entirety and of all those present (art. 10).
This is a very serious error, since while it is true that a part of the "Eucharistic prayer" is effectively said "in the name of the holy people in its entirety," this is not true of the central part of this prayer, that is, the Consecration. The Consecration is said in the name of Christ alone. So we see that this article attacks the Catholic dogma according to which Jesus Christ is the principal Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice by the hands of a minister.
The nature of the presidential parts demands that they be voiced loudly and distinctly and be listened to attentively by all (art. 12).
It must be noted that the Eucharistic prayer was mentioned as one of the "presidential" prayers. Quite apart from the fact that this practically negates the specific character of the priest (who is regarded here only as a "president"), it flatly contradicts the Council of Trent.
Article 12 says that the Canon (a "presidential" prayer) should, of its "nature," be voiced "loudly and distinctly": this is not, therefore, a purely practical recommendation, but a universal principle that touches the essence of this prayer. The Council of Trent, however, teaches the exact opposite:
If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; ...let him be anathema (Sess. XXII, ch. IX, can. IX).
Article 271, which urges the celebration of Mass facing the people, contradicts the Church's tradition and manifests an erroneous idea of the priest's role. Instead of being the guide in a common action drawing men into Christ's oblation, the anonymous representative of the Mediator between God and man Who is put at their head in order to offer Himself as a Victim, the sacrificing Priest who, in the place of the Word Incarnate, presents Himself before the eternal Father, the priest now seems to be the president of a festive meal, an actor playing the stage role of Christ, or, worse still, sometimes the animator of a humanistic funfair.
Instead of being turned entirely towards God, the Mass becomes a human face-to-face encounter. And is it a pure accident that the origins of this refocussing on the assembly can be found in Calvinist practice?
If the Catholic teaching on the role of the priest is not openly denied by the Institutio Generalis, it is passed over in silence, just like the propitiatory sacrifice and transubstantiation. The effect is to suggest the Protestant version.
V. A Definition of the Mass That Inclines to Protestantism
Article 7 constructs a synthesis of all the aspects developed in the rest of the document on the meaning of the Mass. This is the key to the Institutio Generalis: it sums up in a single formula what the other 340 articles teach:
The Lord's Supper (the Mass) is a sacred assembly or congregation of the People of God who come together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Therefore, Christ's promise, "Where two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them" (Mt. 18:20), is eminently realized in a local assembly of holy Church.
This Article appeared out of the blue as a definition of the New Mass, and provoked energetic reactions. The editors of the New Order of Mass wanted to save face by pretending that it was not a definition of the Mass but rather the description of a rite, and that the Institutio Generalis was not a doctrinal document. Annibale Bugnini went into print to say that, "This presentation should not be regarded as a doctrinal or dogmatic document, but as a pastoral and ritual instruction describing the celebration and its parts." But this argument is highly debatable, for various reasons:
1) Firstly, because it contradicts what the same Annibale Bugnini taught a few months earlier, when he said that this document was "a comprehensive theological, pastoral, catechetical and rubrical explanation, showing how the mass is to be understood and celebrated." If these words mean anything, they mean that the document is presenting a doctrine concerning the Mass. Pope Paul VI himself affirmed the same thing:
There is something else to which the Holy Father would like the participants of the "Liturgy Week" to devote attention. The new missal is preceded by a general introduction which is not a simple collection of rubrics but a synthesis of the theological, ascetical and pastoral principles which are indispensable both for a doctrinal understanding of the Mass and for its celebration, catechesis and pastoral significance.
It cannot be denied, therefore, that the Institutio Generalis has a doctrinal scope; the way in which Annibale Bugnini tried to deny this, involving himself in self-contradiction, casts doubt on his honesty.
2) Whatever the intentions and declarations of its authors may be, Article 7 presents itself as a definition: it says what the Mass is, what constitutes its specific nature. It is not content to describe a rite: it gives its meaning (memorial of the Lord, Christ's promise) and relates it to passages of Holy Scripture (the Last Supper, the quotation of Mt. 18:20) and to theological concepts ("people of God," presence of Christ). It is a doctrinal formulation.
3) Finally, this Article 7 perfectly sums up what the whole document teaches concerning the Mass; it is the key to the meaning of the liturgical reform as it appears both in its rites and in what the Institutio Generalis says.
One final time let us go through the characteristics of the New Mass as summarized in Article 7:
A. An "assembly"—The definition mentions this idea three times; it seems to be something essential.
A comparison is very revealing here: the Ordo Missae of St. Pius V begins with two words: "Sacerdos paratus—The priest being equipped," (i.e., clothed in his priestly apparel and ready for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice); the new missal, by contrast, begins with the words: "After the people have assembled." This already indicates a whole shift. In the first case we have a sacerdotal action on the part of a priest through whom our Lord is about to renew the oblation of His Sacrifice; and in the second case we have an assembly of the faithful "presided over" by the priest.
Let us remind ourselves that, in all its 341 Articles, the Institutio Generalis never once says that Jesus Christ is the principal Priest of the Mass; all the changes introduced into the Ordo go in the direction of obscuring the priest's sacerdotal character.
B. A "memorial"
The Catholic Mass is a sacrifice, whereas the Protestant Supper is a simple commemoration. The expression "memorial of the Lord" introduces two ambiguities here:
• The word "memorial" can be understood in the sense of the Protestant "simple commemoration" because no explanation is given which would establish a Catholic meaning. Once the word has been used by Protestants, it has become equivocal.
• The phrase "of the Lord" empties out the sacrificial character of this memorial, which seems to refer to Christ's entire life, or else to his "farewell meal with his friends."
The whole New Order of Mass tends in this direction. The Offertory no longer expresses the propitiatory character of the sacrifice. The Canon allows the consecration formulas to be taken as a simple narrative; ultimately it becomes a kind of stage presentation in which the priest, playing the part of Christ, revives the faith of believers and facilitates a certain spiritual presence of Christ. The meal aspect (which is normally secondary, because it is relative to the sacrifice) takes precedence over the sacrificial aspect both in the Institutio Generalis and in the New Mass (the Offertory no longer speaks of Host and victim, but of "bread" and "spiritual drink").
C. An essentially spiritual presence
The application of the quotation from St. Matthew ("When two or three...") to the Mass is a very serious matter. If it does not formally utter a heresy (at Mass, as at all communal prayer, there is a particular presence of the Lord thanks to the communal exercise of the theological virtues), it is very close to heresy and favors it quite scandalously by what it does not say, namely, that in the Mass our Lord Jesus Christ is really present, not only in a spiritual way, but in His Body, His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity; and this presence is produced not by the faith of the assembly, but by the ritual words pronounced by the priest.
VI. Conclusion
Article 7 gives a perfect explanation of the internal coherence of the New Mass. Now a grave question arises: is not this Article 7 heretical? Is it possible without heresy to define the Mass as "a sacred assembly or congregation of the People of God who come together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Therefore, Christ's promise, 'Where two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them' (Mt. 18:20), is eminently realized in a local assembly of holy Church"? A distinction must be drawn here:
1) Article 7, considered as an absolute definition, is incontestably heretical. A definition (by "definition"!) must allow us to grasp the nature of the thing defined. If it does not allow us to grasp this nature, it is a bad definition. For example, if I say that Jesus Christ is a man, it is a partial truth, but a truth nonetheless. But if, on the other hand, in defining the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, I simply say that He is a man, I am uttering a lie and a heresy, because a definition must manifest what is essential about this reality, and here I am concealing what is essential: His Divinity.
2) Article 7, considered as a simple affirmation, is not necessarily heretical (since it does not say anything formally false), but it is gravely incomplete and is dangerously favorable to heresy.
Is Article 7 the definition of the New Mass? Is the New Mass heretical? The question is more complex than it may seem at first sight, and requires a very careful answer: Article 7 is a perfect summary of the Institutio Generalis, which is in turn the explanation of the New Mass. To the unwary reader, Article 7 would necessarily seem to be the definition of the New Mass. However, it does not claim explicitly to be such a definition, and, in order to face their critics, its authors have even claimed that it was not a definition. In other words, the Institutio Generalis of 1969, considered in itself and according to its own logic, and without introducing any external criterion of interpretation, certainly implies a heretical understanding. Yet, insofar as it does not explicitly contradict any dogma of faith, a Catholic who applies to it a Catholic meaning (which it does not, in itself, possess) can understand it in an orthodox way. In this case it will appear no longer heretical, but "only" gravely defective and favorable to heresy.
The same thing applies to the New Order of Mass. Taken in itself, it lacks Catholic meaning. Its immanent principle of organization is not the Catholic Faith. In other words, intrinsically, by what it signifies of itself, it is not a Catholic Mass.
Must we conclude that Masses celebrated according to the new Ordo Missae are invalid? No. Three conditions suffice for a Mass to be valid:
• The matter designated by Christ (wheat bread and grape wine);
• The words of consecration;
• A validly ordained priest who intends to do what the Church does.
A Catholic priest who, without any other ceremonies, were to pronounce the ritual words over bread and wine with the intention of consecrating them and of offering the Sacrifice would be committing a grave sacrilege by performing the Holy Sacrifice without surrounding it with the necessary respect (and this is strictly forbidden by the Church), but the Mass would nonetheless be valid.
The main problem is the priest's intention. Ordinarily (and in the traditional Mass) the rite itself, which is explicitly Catholic, provides this intention. In a way, the priest has only to let himself be carried by it and acquiesce interiorly to what the rite expresses. This Catholic meaning, however, is no longer present in the new rite (since the consecration can be taken for a simple narration). The priest has to make a personal act of will to interpret it in a Catholic manner if he wants to adhere to the Church's intention.
An example may make this clear. A kitchen knife is not a weapon; by its purpose and its own nature, it is an item of kitchenware. But if, during a riot, the police arrest a demonstrator carrying a kitchen knife, he will be charged with carrying a weapon "with intent." The kitchen knife, which is not a weapon in itself, becomes one through the intention of the one carrying it. According to its nature it can serve as a weapon. The same thing applies to the New Order of Mass: strictly speaking, according to its own nature, it is not a Mass. (The principle of unity of this rite, that which organizes and orders its different parts, is not the Catholic definition of the Mass). However, it is a rite, which is apt to be used as a Mass—if the one using it has the intention to do so.
Two conclusions follow from this principle:
1) A celebration performed according to the New Ordo is not necessarily invalid. A Catholic priest can impart a Catholic meaning to this rite and make it really a Mass; but, since the rite is not Catholic of itself, such a celebration will always be doubtful. For a Mass celebrated according to the traditional rite to be valid, it suffices for the priest to accept the meaning carried by the rite itself, unless he introduces some obstacle; and insofar as he uses this traditional rite, it can be reasonably assumed that he accepts its meaning. The same does not apply to a celebration performed according to the New Ordo because this rite does not, of itself, express the Catholic faith; there is no way of being certain a priori that the priest is actually imparting the meaning of the Catholic Mass to this rite. Since the rite is not intrinsically Catholic, its validity is a priori doubtful, and theology teaches us that we should abstain from receiving doubtful sacraments.
2) Even if valid, the Mass celebrated according to the New Ordo is performed within a rite which is not Catholic. We need only consider the marks of respect surrounding the Blessed Sacrament (gilded vessels, etc.) to realize that the Holy Sacrifice cannot be enshrined in a ceremony which is not perfectly Catholic. The respect due to our Lord demands a faultless monstrance, spotless ornaments, and a rite as pure as gold. What are we to say of an ecumenical rite, which is not of itself Catholic, and which is used to diminish all the marks of respect towards the Real Presence, a rite which is used as such by those who do not believe in the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and in the miracle of transubstantiation? How, without offending God, could such a rite serve as a sacramental shrine for this re-presentation and this transubstantiation? It is impossible. Anyone who has understood what the Mass is and what the New Order of Mass is, will not be able to bear to see them linked. It is an objective outrage to the divine Majesty and divine Justice.
Of course, God will not attribute this outrage to those who are unaware of it, and we have no intention of judging the good priests and faithful who, through obedience, have accepted the New Mass in a Catholic spirit, without realizing what is at stake. God will no doubt look on them with mercy. But as for us who have seen, we cannot continue to tolerate these unconscious blasphemies. We must refuse to participate in them and try to wean truly Catholic souls away from them.
"Os bilingue detestor," God says. "I hate language with double meanings." How could He appreciate an ecumenical, equivocal, ambiguous Mass?
The New Mass faces us, willy-nilly, with the necessity of making a choice, like the faithful of the Vendée. It has been well observed that many martyrs of the French Revolution were not martyred so much for having attended Mass celebrated by priests who would not accept the Revolution, as for having refused to attend Mass celebrated by those who were "Jureurs" (who had sworn allegiance to the Revolution). It was their refusal which was considered to be so serious. We are in the same situation today: certain Masses, even if they are valid (as were the Masses of the Jureur priests) must be met with a clear and straightforward refusal when they offend the honor of our Lord.
For the Immaculate Host to be offered, it is essential to have a rite that is beyond reproach.
(This article has been translated from the magazine Savoir et Servir, No. 55, a publication of the MJCF, a traditional French Catholic youth group. Reprinted from St. John's Bulletin, No. 60, Oct.-Dec., 1999.)
Current Issue
