Dear Matt:
I see you have locked the thread I started at the Catholic Exchange Roundtable. I have no problem with that; you're the moderator and it's your decision. However I would like to say that there was no schismatic intention, either on my part or on that of the author of the article. (I don't know him, but I'm assuming that, because the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales which posted his article is emphatically not schismatic and has no connection with the SSPX. It is an affiliate of Una Voce.) And he does say — and I quote him — that “Of course, if it is said exactly as laid down with right intention, the new rite is a valid Mass.” I thought the article was a legitimate but not disloyal criticism. However, as I say, I'm not challenging your decision.
Michael G.
Dear Michael G,
I do not believe that you had a schismatic intention. However, there is a veiled schism in the article that at the very least undermines the authority of the Catholic Church.
Since I believe that the article is at least implicitly attacking the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and indirectly Vatican II, therefore it is not a subject that is going to be discussed on catholicexchange.com as it goes directly contrary to Catholic doctrine. See Rules of the Roundtable.
First, let me explain some background and then explain the particularly problematic parts of the article. I am not sure if you are aware of the background surrounding this issue on Catholic Exchange. The favorite thing to attack from within the Church by “Traditionalists” is the Novus Ordo Mass. This past summer, two other related threads were locked because of such outright attacks by certain posters. You can look at the threads titled “Challenge to the Trads” and “Why the Novus Ordo.” In additional to what is still there, there were also more posts that crossed the line and warranted deletion. I do not want to invite another uncharitable exchange.
Now, just some of the problematic nature of the argument presented in “The Novus Ordo: a Mass of Reduced Power?” includes the following:
1. The title of the article leads to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is somehow less of a Mass than previous rites. Note canon 7 quoted from the Council of Trent that any Mass approved by the Church is fully the Mass. Also, there is no greater or lesser form of the Mass. If any rite of the Mass is approved, it is fully the Mass in all of its glory.
2. The author writes “The obfuscation of the most sacred part of the Mass and the accentuation of the other parts in the Novus Ordo has given [the Devil] a not inconsiderable victory.” The author is asserting that the approved rite of the Mass has given the Devil a victory. If this is not an attack on the Novus Ordo, I am not sure what is.
3. The author writes “I suggest that the Novus Ordo is not such an efficacious means of grace as the Tridentine Mass and the whole modern Church is now like an engine with its fuel line partly blocked.” Again, see canon 7. He is saying that the Novus Ordo is not an incentive towards piety. The Council of Trent says “let him be anathema” to that.
4. The author writes “It is no small matter to tamper with the Mass!” I agree. I also add that it is no small matter to verbally assault the Mass approved by the Church.
5. The author writes “It has often been said but I will say it again: the new rite of Mass was in no way mandated by the Second Vatican Council.” The Supreme Authority of the Roman Pontiff is all the authority necessary to issue any Apostolic Constitution or amend any liturgical books. To say or argue or imply otherwise is nothing less than a denial of the supremacy of the successor of Peter. Such a denial places one outside of the communion of the Catholic Church.
6. In reference to an apparent Novus Ordo Mass, the author states flatly “It was an excellent communion service but not substantial enough to stand on its own as the official worship ceremony of the Roman Catholic Church.” Again, refer to Canon 7. The author is assuming the authority of the Magisterium in such proclamations.
7. The author writes “Does the Novus Ordo produce adequate power for a priest to carry out his more than human tasks?” The author is denying outright the sacramental power of the Mass in the Novus Ordo. Again, see Canon 7. Also, Canon 6: “If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.” Canon 1: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.” The author’s entire argument against the Novus Ordo is in direct conflict with Canon 1. He is arguing that the Novus Ordo Mass is not a sacrifice anymore but is just communion.
8. The author writes “The Society of St Pius X have exposed all this with what is perhaps too devastating a logic and will have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.” Here the author is siding with declared schematics against the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. Those who formally adhere to the SSPX are ipso facto excommunicated as schematics.
9. The author writes “Of course, if it is said exactly as laid down with right intention, the new rite is a valid Mass. However, if a priest modifies it according to his own eccentricities he runs into the danger of tipping it into invalidity and this is, of course, totally unacceptable.” Here the author again decides to be the authority to determine what is valid and what is invalid when concerning the Mass. The Magisterium of the Church has the authority to make such a claim. A layman does not. Even if abuses occur in the Mass, the presence of an abuse does not invalidate the Mass. An abuse may be illicit and those inserting abuses may be morally culpable, but an abuse does not ipso facto make a Mass invalid. That authority is reserved to the Magisterium and they have not declared such. They have said that certain abuses are illicit, but they have not said that they invalidate the Mass.
10. No one is denying that the lack of reverence for the Mass is a problem. However, no logical connection can be made of any causality between the Novus Ordo and lack of reverence. If it is just Novus Ordo problem/cause, then why has lack of reverence for the Mass and the Eucharist also been a problem in society in centuries past? This is another poor argument against the Church, Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo. There are much better explanations for the problem — like the disregard for the authority of the Magisterium of the Church, which preceded the lack of reverence in Mass.
11. I applaud the return to the faith by the youth. However, I would say that it has more to do with teaching the fullness of the Gospel rather than the Tridentine Mass. The same wonderful success stories are also found in Novus Ordo parishes that preach the fullness of the Gospel in union with the pope. In places of dissent, reverence is one of the first things to go.
In summary, I find this article to speak at least implicitly against the authority of the Church, and it shows a profound disrespect to the Magisterium and the canons of the Mass laid down in the Council of Trent.
In Christ,
Matt Vetter
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
