IN DEFENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL MASS
PART 4 OF 4
Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass:
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema. [2]
Since there were numerous rites worldwide at the time this canon was promulgated (1562: 8 years before Quo Primum which imposed only the Tridentine Rite in the West with few exceptions), this was a canon decreeing that the canon of the Mass contains no errors. This canon is solemnly proclaimed;therefore it apples not only to Trent and the periods preceding it, but also all subsequent Mass canons as well
In the first place, most of the Canons in the Council of Trent are accompanied by Chapters. The Chapter which accompanies the above Canon (Canon 6) is as follows:
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error (canon 6), that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs. (Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter IV)
Hence, we see that Canon 6 - according to Trent’s Decree on the Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass) is not referring to every Canon in the Church, or to a future Canon which a Pope might decide to dream up, but to a Canon what was "instituted many years ago" by the Catholic Church, and in place at the time of the Council of Trent. "Eucharistic Prayers Forms Numbers 1 through 4" were not even in existence at the time of the Council of Trent, hence, they could not possibly have been instituted "many years ago." Secondly, the Fathers of the Council of Trent by no means intended to provide a one-size, fits-all, covering, to okay any changes, adaptions, innovations, translations, creations, and so forth, which some future Popes might wish to dream up, fabricate, or create, or manufacture.
If further proof is needed of the fact that these Canons from the Council of Trent, as well as the decree preceding them, were referring to the Traditional Mass alone, and not to the Novus Ordo Missae, all we need to do is look at Canon IX, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, which states:
CANON IX.--If any one saith, 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; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Hence, we see that the Canon being referred to is the one of the Roman Church, "according to which a part... and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone." The Novus Ordo Missae does not pronounce the Words of Consecration in a low tone, nor is the majority of their "canon" in a low tone. Hence, the "Eucharistic Prayers" of the Novus Ordo Missae are different from the Canon which is being referred to by the Council of Trent.
As it is, it would help things along quite a bit if Shawn would bother to read all the Canons of the Council, as well as their accompanying decrees.
(unless Trent is no longer applicable to the modern Church of course which is absurd).
In the first place, the Canon to which Shawn was referring is, indeed, applicable to the Church in modern times, since, after all, the Traditional Canon is still in existence, and is still without error. In the second place, not all the Canons and decrees of the Council are applicable to the Novus Ordo Missae, as Shawn well knows - take Canon IX, as cited above, for instance. Does this mean that the Council of Trent is no longer applicable to the Church in modern times? Of course not, this only means that the Council of Trent is no longer applicable to the Novus Ordo Missae - which is a Mass completely different from that which the Fathers of the Council of Trent knew, and which was fabricated 400+ years later.
Therefore, Canon 6 of the 22nd Session of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass (as with all other canons of Trent) apply to the Church today in their entirety and this particular canon (and the others on the Mass) also applies today to the Pauline Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI!!!
Then we see that "Pauline Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI" is being said wrongly, and possibly heretically, all over the Church, for the Words of Consecration are pronounced in a high tone - contrary to Canon IX -, and the majority of the "canons" (Eucharistic Prayers) are likewise pronounced in a high tone. Does this apply to the Novus Ordo Missae? Furthermore, I would very much like to see Shawn reconcile the Chapter (Chapter IV) which accompanies the Canon in question (Canon 6), which states that the Canon was instituted many years ago (from the time which the Council of Trent took place)! The "Eucharistic Prayers" have no antiquity whatsoever.
Therefore, anyone who claims that the Pauline Rite canon is not a valid canon is anathematized by the Council of Trent.
In the first place, as we have seen above, this Canon is not applicable to the Novus Ordo Missae. In the second place, it’s quite interesting to note how Shawn picks and chooses which Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent he is going to abide by, and which ones he is not. Which ones are applicable to the "modern Church," and which ones are not. This is very similar to the protestant "private judgment" of Scripture, where they also choose which portion of Scripture is applicable, and which portions are not.
"Traditionalists" take note: this is one canon that you are in violation of if you question the validity of the Pauline Rite canons or at all imply that they contain "invalidating" features to them. The Holy Spirit through the Council of Trent has spoken and anathema to you if you do not comply!!!
This is rather interesting, the Council of Trent refers to Canon (singular), while Shawn tries to make it into a plural "canons." Furthermore, whether or not the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid would not concern this particular Canon of the Council of Trent, even if it did - by some stretch of the imagination - apply to the Novus Ordo Missae, for the possibly invalid form of Consecration found in the Novus Ordo Missae is a mistranslation from the form decreed by Pope Paul VI, as shown above. It is not a valid translation! It is a mutilation of the liturgy, even that of Pope Paul VI!
CANON IX.--If any one saith, 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; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue ONLY; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. [3]
In the first place, I would like to point out Shawn’s dishonesty here. He cites Canon IX, but refuses to address the obvious point in the Canon (i.e. the portion where it says that the words of Consecration are "pronounced in a low tone") that states that it doesn’t apply to the Novus Ordo Missae. Obviously, Shawn is aware of this Canon, and, unless Shawn is a complete dolt, knows that it cannot be applied - in it’s entirety - to the Novus Ordo Missae, as he claimed all the Canons in this section can be.
There is nothing forbidding the celebration of Mass in the vulgar tongue from the Council of Trent. Since Latin was in the process of becoming the universal language in the West (or the "vulgar tongue" if you will) from around the mid to late 2nd century (and by the early 3rd century was the universal or "vulgar tongue" in the West) until approximately the 17th century, if Masses said in the vulgar tongue are not valid than there have been very few Masses that have ever been legitimate in all of history.
As it is, Latin was not the "universal language in the West" in the 17th century. Among scholars, yes, but not among the common people. Furthermore, if Latin was the "vulgar language" of the 17th century, then why is it that the Council Fathers of the Council of Trent referred to it as if it wasn’t the vernacular and understood by the common people? And why is it that the protestants’ biggest argument against the Latin Vulgate, and the Traditional Mass, was that the Church kept the Latin around specifically so the people couldn’t understand it? Hence, we have Luther making his spurious translation into the German in order to "give the bible to the common people." And we have the Bible which was compiled at Douay and Rheims in the vernacular. Anyone who has studied history is well aware of the fact that when the Roman empire fell, and the waves of barbarians swept over Europe, eliminating Roman Society, eliminating Roman culture (for the most part), and the arts almost completely, Latin ceased to be the language of the common people, for, indeed, the vulgar barbaric tongues took precedence. Hence, we have the development of such languages as English, Spanish, the different dialects of German, French, the Gaelic-Irish tongue, and even Italian, which is not Latin. Although Latin did stay as the universal language among scholars, and those who were highly educated in the Church, it was not the vulgar language among the people.
For that matter, prior to the 3rd century, most Masses were said in Greek (as Masses in the Eastern Rite are) so are they defective also since prior to the 3rd century Greek was the "vulgar tongue" in both the West and the East??? Would a Mass said in Greek be valid to one not speaking Greek but invalid to one for whom Greek is their "vulgar tongue"???
In the first place, the language in which the Mass is said is not essential for the validity of that Mass. In the second place, the Canons of the Council of Trent were referring specifically to the Canon of the Traditional Mass along, not the Canons of the Eastern Rites, or the Orthodox, or the Novus Ordo Missae, or the Anglicans, or the Lutherans, the Traditional Mass period, as can easily be seen from the canons which surround this one, and the Canon which was cited by Shawn himself (Canon IX),
This assertion is illogical. The very first Mass ever said was the Last Supper and with the greatest probability the language used was Aramaic: the "vulgar tongue" of the Jews in the 1st century. Was the institution of the Mass by Our Lord at the Last Supper thus defective or invalid for (most likely being) said in the "vernacular"??? Surely I need not explain the sheer idiocy of such a suggestion (even to the most ardent "traditionalist") as possibly having any bearing whatsoever on the validity or defectivity of any Rite of Mass promulgated by the Church.
Of course you don’t have to explain the sheer idiocy of such an absurd and ridiculous and unscholarly and uninformed suggestion, as that mentioned above by Shawn (i.e. that the Latin language is absolutely essential for the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass), to any Traditional Catholic, for we are well aware of the ridiculousness of such a claim. If this is what Shawn thinks Traditional Catholicism holds, then he is sadly mistaken. If this is what Shawn believed prior to his conversion to Novus Ordoism, then he was very sadly misinformed. As Traditional Catholics, we have always accepted the validity of the Eastern Rites, though, by the way, they were said in the Greek - and other ancient forms of different languages - until relatively recently.
Getting back to Trent for a moment, the only canon anathema on vulgar liturgies from Trent is Canon 9 of the 22nd Session (footnote 3) and is attached to refute the idea that the Mass ought to be performed in vernacular tongues ONLY. Thus the argument made by some "traditionalists" that the Council of Trent forbade the saying of Mass in the vernacular tongues is shown to have no logical foundation whatsoever.
As it is, the earlier decree on the vernacular languages, and this Canon as well, show that the Council of Trent wished the Latin language to be the primary language of the Mass. Not a secondary language, or a third language, or a fourth language, which is hardly, if ever, used in the mass.
II. Pope Pius XII on the Mass in the Vernacular:
Would these self-styled "traditionalists" dare claim that Pope Pius XII (whom they claim as one of their own) would contradict the Council of Trent??? Here is what the Holy Father had to say on the matter:
As it is, the citation which Shawn gives from Pope Pius XII has been answered above, when Shawn gave it the first time. Redundant? I thought Shawn was against redundancy...
Pope Pius XII can hardly be said to support the SSPX contentions in any form now can he???
As was shown above - when Shawn used the citation for the first time, against the Society - Pope Pius XII does not contradict any position held by Traditional Catholics. Furthermore, we once again see that Shawn’s article is more, or less, directed against the Society of St. Pius X, exclusively.
III. Changes to the Words of Institution:
The next area of concern to the self-styled "traditionalists" is "changing the words of institution". If we look at the Tridentine Mass we find that the words of consecration are as follows:
Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is my Body)
Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (For this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins)
We are told that we cannot tamper with these words because they are the "form" of the Sacrament. First of all, who is it that determines the valid matter and form of a sacrament??? It is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church who has ALWAYS made these determinations, not individuals exercising their own private judgment. For all of the "traditionalist" ramblings on this subject, do they ever stop and ask themselves why these exact words are "necessary" or where they are from???
In the first place, I agree completely. It is the Magisterium of the Church which makes the determination of valid form and matter. As it is, though, the Magisterium has not declared that the form which is currently used in the Novus Ordo Missae is valid at all, for the Latin version of the Novus Ordo contains the words "for many," and "remission of sins." Pope Paul VI agrees with this in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, as was shown above. The Magisterium has not declared that the mistranslation from the Latin, in disobedience to Pope Paul VI, is valid!
In the second place, the Magisterium has already declared what the valid form and matter of the Consecration formula for the Latin Rite is.
The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass: "Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." (Denzinger 715).
De Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V agrees with the statement by the Council of Florence above. To cite the document:
Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin. (De Defectibus, Chapter V, defects of form)
The Magisterium has already decreed on the matter. The form of the Sacrament for the Latin Rite has been set forth both by the Council of Florence, and De Defectibus. In De Defectibus the Church decreed that if the words are changed, and if the change in wording does not mean what the words meant before, then the Sacrament would be invalid! The "new form of consecration" indisputably means something completely different from the form set forth in De Defectibus, and the Council of Florence. Hence, if we are to believe the document "De Defectibus" the "new form of consecration" (which is not only different from the form previously held, but also different from that used by Christ Himself) is invalid.
If we look at Scripture we find that the words of institution used at the Last Supper are listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and also in 1 Corinthians where St. Paul talks about them. Let us look at the words closely:
Matthew 26:26-28: hoc est corpus meum (This is my Body)
Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins)
Obviously the words from the Tridentine formula did not come solely from the Gospel of Matthew as they are said either in the consecration of the host or of the chalice.
Mark 14:22-24
hoc est corpus meum (This is my Body )
Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur. (This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many)
Obviously they did not come from Mark's Gospel as they are said in the Tridentine Rite for either the consecration of the host or of the chalice either.
Luke 22:19-20
Hoc est corpus meum (This is my Body )
Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. (This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, it will be shed for you)
In all three Gospels where the Last Supper narratives are recorded, nowhere does Our Lord say exactly the words spoken of by the priest during consecration of either the host or the chalice in the Tridentine Rite!!!
As Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) stated:
"The Words of Consecration are not from Scripture alone but also from Tradition. Christ used specific words to change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood. The Catholic Church has retained these words as the formula of Consecration." (Pope Innocent III, as cited in "What Has Happened to the Catholic Church?" p. 121)
The Words of Consecration are from Tradition (capital T), and not from Scripture alone. As Father Wathen stated in his book "The Great Sacrilege":
If you ask the "play-wrights," they will tell you that this phrase in the True Mass is an interruption of the narrative of the Consecration of the wine by our Divine Savior. It is a break in the thought, they will say; it is not scriptural. All of a sudden, you see, they feign great scholarliness. After making a veritable shambles of the entire Liturgy of the Roman Rite through the most egregious mistranslations, silly interpolations, and needless omissions and dislocations, they have the temerity to claim that their itchy-fingered meddling is inspired by devotion to the Sacred Scriptures. Their fancied biblicism betrays them here, however, since, as Fr. Jungmann points out, liturgical usage pre-dates the Scriptures, and even explains the divergencies among the various accounts of the institution of the Blessed Eucharist:
In all the known liturgies the core of the eucharistica, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre-biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies in the biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this fact. For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the first generation of Christians.
Hence, one should not be so stupid as to assume that they are going to find the form of Consecration stated precisely, word for word, in the Sacred Scriptures. After all, the Consecration formulas themselves are taken from pre-biblical tradition, and, as in the case of the Consecration form used in the Traditional Mass, were taken from the Apostles themselves - who, in turn, received it from Our Blessed Lord!
But, then again, if Shawn were even slightly interested in what Scripture had to say on the matter, he would not be arguing in defense of the Novus Ordo Missae - which departs from both Tradition, and Scripture in it's own form of Consecration (not to mention the directions and wishes of Pope Paul VI).
The only other place where the words of the Last Supper are discussed is 1 Corinthians which are not the words of Our Lord but instead St. Paul's exposition on the words of Our Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
hoc est corpus meum (this is my Body)
Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine (This cup is the new covenant in my Blood)
As you can see, in every place where the Last Supper is discussed the words used differ. How, then, can they say that the Pauline Rite "changes" the words of institution when the words of institution in the Tridentine Rite appear nowhere in Scripture exactly as they are in the Tridentine Missal???
|
In the first place, the form of Consecration used in the Traditional Mass is taken from Tradition - which predates Biblical usage. It is nothing but the purest protestantism for Shawn to dare to use the Sacred Scriptures to attack the form of Consecration which has always been used by the Church in the Mass of the Latin Rite! To cite the Council of Florence:
Since the decree of the Armenians given above does not set forth the form of words which the most holy Roman Church has been always wont to use for the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord, it having been confirmed by the teaching and by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, we judged it should be inserted herewith. In the consecration of the Body of the Lord this form of words is used: "Hoc est enim corpus meum;" and in that of the Blood: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effudnetur in remissionem peccatorum." [For this is my Body: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.] (Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Florentinum: Decr. pro Jacobitis. p. 342, No. 1352)
As the Roman Church stems from St. Peter himself, and if we are to believe the Council of Florence, then the Consecration formula used by the Church in the Traditional Mass has been confirmed by Saints Peter and Paul! Hence, the Consecration formula used in the Traditional Mass has been confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, has always been used by the "most holy Roman Church", by Popes and Saints alike, and has been confirmed yet again by Holy Mother Church! Therefore, whether or not the precise wording is to be found in the Scriptures themselves are irrelevant. The sense of the words is still there, whereas in the Novus Ordo Missae the very sense of the words that Christ Himself spoke - according to all accounts - is completely changed! As Patrick Henry Omlor stated in his book "Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new all-English canon":
51. It cannot be doubted that the ancient, established form for the consecration of the wine comprises the words of Our Lord. But inasmuch as there are always those pseudo-Catholics who relish questioning everything - the revered Traditions of the Church and Holy Scripture not excluded - the following proofs are presented.
52. Proof from Holy Scripture. As St. Thomas observes, "Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 3). In point of fact, the only words of this form which are not to be found in the Holy Scriptures are the following: (a) and eternal and (b) The Mystery of Faith.
53. But Tradition reveals to us that these words, and eternal and The Mystery of Faith were also from Our Lord. "The words added, namely, eternal and Mystery of Faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from Our Lord." (Ibid.)
54. And, elsewhere in discussing the question, "Whether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?" (Summa Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 4), the Angelic Doctor makes this observation, "We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that 'James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the Mass.'"
55. To summarize: The words which had always been used for the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist were the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as proved from Holy Scripture and Tradition. These words were used by the Apostles themselves. It is by virtue of these words that the form for this sacrament derives its power and efficacy.
Putting Words into Our Lord's Mouth
56. The new "form" for the consecration of the wine alleges that Our Lord said: "to be shed for you and for all men . . . etc." There is no evidence - either in Holy Scripture or in the Traditions handed down - that Our Lord actually said this when instituting the Holy Eucharist.
57. Moreover, all the evidence is that He did not say: "for all men," when instituting the Most Holy Sacrament. St. Matthew (26,28) writes that He said, "for many." And also St. Mark (14,24) records that Our Lord said, "for many." But nowhere in Holy Scripture - neither in St. Paul nor the Evangelists - do we find that Our Lord said, "for all men." Now whom are we to believe? Are we to believe St. Mark and St. Matthew, who was actually there at the Last Supper (and both of whom were divinely inspired to write what they wrote)? Or, are we to believe an "enlightened" clique of mid-twentieth-century Modernists and Innovators?
58. Even in ordinary writing or oratory, careful scholars are diligent in using the exact words of another person whenever attributing to him a quotation. How much more diligence is demanded when attributing a direct quote to Jesus! "It is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
59. Now, the authors of this new Canon boldly claim that Our Lord said something that He clearly and obviously did not say. (In Part 12 it will be shown that Our Lord could not have said what they claim He did.) The text of this new Canon reads precisely: "He . . . gave the cup . . . AND SAID:". The "quotation" immediately following includes the bogus phrase: "for all men so that sins may be forgiven." THIS IS A FORGERY, and those who are responsible for it must be deemed guilty of a deliberate deception, unless they can prove that they are merely completely inept and most culpably negligent.
60. It might be remarked, in passing, that the phrase for you and for all men grammatically is inelegant in that it is redundant. By analogy, a speaker does not single out one person in a group and say, "This is for you and for all in this room," but rather would he say, "This is for you and for all others in this room." For it is obvious that the person who is singled out is automatically included in "all in this room." Thus the Innovators even go so far as to attribute inferior rhetoric to Our Lord.
61. From the foregoing it is clear that, by tampering with the words of Our Lord, our Modernists are endangering the very source of the power of this sacrament.
The Words of the Consecration formula used in the Traditional Mass are taken from Holy Scripture and Tradition, and were, according to the same, the Words used by Our Blessed Lord. Where did the words used in the Consecration form of the Novus Ordo Missae come from? As it is, Shawn is in no position to throw stones.
In other words, why is the use of the words "for all" as opposed to "for many" disputed by many self-styled "traditionalists" with regards to the consecration of the chalice??? DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS ONLY FOR THE ELECT, OR DID HE DIE FOR ALL??? Lets look at what the Council of Trent said on the matter to put this subject into proper context:
In the first place, Traditional Catholics dispute the usage of the words "for all" as opposed to "for many" because Christ did not make use of the words "for all"! He was referring to the FRUITS of His Passion at that time, not His DEATH on the Cross! This is why Christ used the words "for many," and not "for all"! To cite the Catechism of the Council of Trent on the matter:
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many [Heb. 9:28]; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine [Jn. 17:9]. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 227-28 Emphasis ours)
Christ was referring to the FRUITS of His Passion, not His Death on the Cross! Hence, it is most certainly a change in both the WORDS of the Institution, and the MEANING of those words - which according to De Defectibus would render the Sacrament invalid! The "new form" changes the theology behind the Words of Christ, changes the Words of Christ themselves, and then tries to make the blasphemous and sacrilegious claim that this ambiguous phrase - which might conceivably be heretical - was spoken by Christ! The innovators have dared to introduce into the most sacred part of the Mass, a lie! They have attributed words to Christ which He never spoke! They have changed the theology behind the Words of Christ! What is not sacred to these men, when even Our Lord's own Words are not held to be sacred?
Decree on Justification (Trent - Session 6):
CHAPTER II.
On the dispensation and mystery of Christ's advent.
Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fullness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. HIM GOD HATH PROPOSED AS A PROPITIATOR, THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT FOR OUR SINS ONLY, BUT ALSO FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
BUT, THOUGH HE DIED FOR ALL, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death… [5]
Therefore, logically IF JESUS DIED FOR ALL, THEN HIS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR ALL!!! Obviously the Tridentine formula, ("for many" which many self-styled "traditionalists" often insist must be said for validity of the consecration) reflects the results but not the intent. The Pauline Rite formulation ("for all") reflects the intent as opposed to the results. That is, Jesus died for all, but not all accept the benefits of his death. What are the essential words, the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist???
The Words used by Christ Himself - according to both the Sacred Scriptures, as well as Tradition - referred to the fruits of His Passion and not to His Death. Hence, the form of Consecration which is used in the Novus Ordo Missae is a new one, with a new meaning. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa Theologica:
The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (7, ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid.
That the "new form" destroys the essential sense of the words used in the form of Consecration (as set forth by the Council of Florence, the Sacred Scriptures, Tradition, De Defectibus, and so forth) is indisputable.
There are two different aspects to the Death of Our Savior, as Patrick Omlor pointed out in his book "Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new, all-English Canon":
Two Distinct Aspects of Christ's Death62. In order to comprehend clearly that the new "form" being used involves a change of essential sense (basic meaning) from the ancient and proper form, we must consider two distinct aspects of the Passion and Death of Our Divine Lord.
63. The first aspect is that of sufficiency; that is, for what and for whom did Christ's Passion suffice? The second aspect is that of efficacy; that is, for what and for whom was Christ's Passion efficacious (effective)?
The Aspect of Sufficiency64. It is a truth of our Faith that Christ died for all men without exception. "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2,2) Another truth of our Faith is that not all men are saved, but some indeed suffer eternal damnation.
65. Hence we can say that Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of the salvation of all men. In the words of St. Thomas, "Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins causally - that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in the future." (Summa Th., III, Q. 49, Art. 2).
66. And this is the meaning of the truth, "Christ died for all men." His Passion is sufficient for the salvation of all, "from which cause all sins . . . could be forgiven."
The Aspect of Efficacy67. Now we are led to consider another truth of our Faith. Although it is related to the truth discussed just above, this other truth is not the same truth as above, but a distinct truth. Just as the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Perpetual Virginity and Divine Maternity are distinct truths, defined at different times - although they are intimately related insofar as they all derive from the singular role of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in God's Redemptive Plan.
68. This other truth we are led to consider is that the efficacy, or effectiveness, of Christ's Passion is not communicated to all men, but only unto those who are actually saved; that is, to the elect. This truth is closely connected with the doctrine of man's free will, a mystery, and with the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, also a mystery.
69. These two distinct aspects of Christ's Passion and Death (each conveying its own particular truth) - to wit, the standpoints of sufficiency and efficacy - are clearly distinguished in this passage from a decree of the Council of Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." (Session VI, Ch. 3).
That the canonized form of Consecration conveyed the sense of efficacy is easily seen from the words themselves, from the citation given above from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as well as from various passages in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, and is indisputable. While the fact that the new form of consecration conveys the sense of sufficiency is likewise easily seen from the words themselves - if it, too, were referring to efficacy then it is simply a heretical form, in addition to being invalid. Therefore, it is obvious that both Consecrations depict two separate and distinct truths - the first, that Christ died for all men so that sins may be forgiven, the second that the fruits of Christ's Passion are applicable only to the elect, for the remission of sins. As Patrick Henry Omlor stated:
85. The ancient and proper form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist uses Christ's own words and conveys the latter truth; namely, that of efficacy. The new "form" uses men's words and conveys the former truth; namely, that of sufficiency. And thus the Innovators, the authors of this change, have destroyed the essential sense of the proper form. (Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new, all-English canon)
As St. Thomas Aquinas stated:
"For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above, we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
If the different methods of consecration of both the Host and the Chalice are looked at in the history of the Church, there is only one parallel in every instance of record: The words "This is my Body" for the Host, and "This is my Blood" for the Chalice. Therefore, unless the consecrations prior to Trent at some points in history (in divers rites) were defective, these words are the only words of consecration necessary to validly confect the elements of sacrifice into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. So the argument against the validity of the consecrations in the Pauline Rite is obviously erroneous because if it was true than it would disprove not only the Pauline Rite but numerous other rites throughout history. As Matt1618 noted in his essay defending the Pauline Rite Mass:
In the first place, when we deal with the sacraments it is not so much the words as the meaning. Now, in every single instance, without doubt, whenever we have the consecration of the wine, what we are dealing with is the fact that this is efficacious only for Catholics - "for you and for many." Never, ever, ever, does it say "all." Second of all, if "this is my blood" is all that is needed, then let Shawn shows us a single Catholic Rite, which makes use of only these words in its consecration.
As it is, Shawn's attempt here to defend the new form of consecration
will not help him much, after all, all the other forms 
of
Consecration 1) make use of the Words of Christ, 2) use the proper form
of Consecration that is required for their particular rite, 3) mean the
same as the Traditional Form of Consecration - not a single one of them
use the words "for all" in their consecration form. The
Novus Ordo
Missae does none of these. As was shown above, the Novus Ordo
does not use the Words of Christ (it has changed them to something else),
the Novus Ordo does not use the proper form of Consecration which is required
for the Latin Rite (as can be seen by reading De Defectibus and the Council
of Florence), and the consecration form of the Novus Ordo means something
completely different from the meaning which was made use of by Christ,
and the entire Catholic Church, up to the introduction of this new form.
Hence, asking the reader to keep in mind the fact that the meaning behind
the new consecration form is something completely different from that which
is behind the form used by Christ and the Apostles, and the Catholic Church
for millenia, we shall here cite De Defectibus yet again:
Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin. (De Defectibus)
"St. Paul reports receiving this consecratory formula from the Lord himself (by apostolic tradition: see verse 23). Notice, however, that he did not use the words "for many" or "for all". The same with St. Luke (Lk. 22:14-20). What so-called Traditionalist would have the nerve to say that his consecrations were not valid because Paul does not use the phrase 'for many'!" [6]
Obviously unless we repudiate St. Paul and St. Luke, the party in error has got to be the self-styled "traditionalists" who think they are more Catholic than the Pope, more authoritative than the Magisterium of the Church, and more "Traditional" then St. Paul and St. Luke in deciding these matters.
As it is, the mere absence of the words "for many" is not the sole argument against the validity of the Consecration formula of the Novus Ordo Missae, these words can be ommitted and the Sacrament would still have the same meaning - though it would be a sin on the part of the celebrant to knowingly omit these words from the Mass of the Latin Rite (cf. De Defectibus). The argument is that the consecration formula of the Novus Ordo Missae has introduced a brand new meaning into the consecration form, one which has never before been seen, and one which changes the theology behind the Sacrament. According to De Defectibus, this would invalidate the Sacrament.
It is the replacing of the words "for many" with "for all" that is the problem here, not the mere absence of the words "for many." The words for all change the meaning of the consecration formula to the sufficiency of Christ's Death, not its efficacy. Hence, Matt1618 and Shawn have gone way off into left field - and have shown that they simply do not understand the Traditionalist arguments with regards to the Consecration formula. It is not so much the words that matter, as the meaning which those words convey.
IV. Vatican II Had No Authority to Change the Mass:
The Church has two basic components to her teaching: dogma/doctrine and practice/devotions. The liturgy of the Church is not a doctrine/dogma in and of itself but is instead an ecclesiastical directive or practice which is subject to change by the Magisterium of the Church. It is on these grounds that Vatican II instituted a reform similar to that of Trent.
As it is, the Council of Trent reformed the liturgy, it did not create an entirely new one. As we have seen above, the Missal promulgated and canonized by Pope St. Pius V was not an entirely new Missal, it was a restoration of what had been there before. Whereas, with the Novus Ordo Missae, we cannot say as much. It is completely new.
In the second place, the Second Vatican Council did not intend for an entirely new rite - which the Novus Ordo Missae undoubtedly is - to be instituted, nor did it decree such a thing. To cite Father Paul Leonard's article The Present Legal Status of the Traditional Latin Mass:
Certainly there may be many who will ask: "What about Vatican II? Didn't the Council decree that there should be a new rite of Mass?" The answer to this question is a very emphatic NO. The Second Vatican Council decreed that the liturgy of the Roman Rite be revised. It did not decree a radical reform or an entirely new rite. The Liturgy Constitution, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, reads:
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored according to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers, to the extent that they may seem useful or necessary.
There are some key passages in this text, and elsewhere in this conciliar document that must be examined in order to determine if the creation of a New Order of Mass and the suppression of the traditional rite corresponds to the express wishes of the Second Vatican Council, or if it is rather a rejection of both that Council and the perpetual teaching and tradition of the Church:
1) The rite of the Mass is to be revised... The revision of the ancient Roman Rite is prescribed, there is no mention of a liturgical reform that will sweep away the old rite and replace it with a new one.
2) ...the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts...more clearly manifested... The sacred mystery of the altar must be manifested more clearly, it must not be obscured in ambiguities.
3) ...restored according to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. Restoration means that the ancient structure and form are to be preserved, and not be replaced with novel inventions.
In addition to these there are other passages of this document which express the mind of the Council in those matters concerning the revision of the liturgy:
Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the present_day circumstances and needs.
________
In order that sound tradition be retained...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing. 6
________
In this restoration both text and rites should be ordered so as to express more clearly the holy things they signify.
Here are the key passages:
1) ...in faithful obedience to tradition...
2) ...all lawfully recognized rites...to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way...
3) ...the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition...
4) ...In order that sound tradition be retained...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them...
5) ...any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing...
6) ...In this restoration both text and rites should be ordered so as to express more clearly the holy things they signify.
It is absolutely clear according to the text of SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, that the traditional rite of Mass of the Roman Church is to be preserved and restored, and it must clearly express the dogmatic truths that it had previously expressed. The Council very clearly did not call for the institution of an entirely new rite of Mass, but, not unlike the Council of Trent , it intended to revise and preserve the ancient Roman Rite.
Shawn continues.
I understand if someone prefers the old rite to the new one and wishes to attend Tridentine Masses instead of the Pauline Rite because it has long been accepted that Catholics should have the freedom to worship within whichever rite serves their needs best. Having attended Masses in Society churches for many years, I understand and fully sympathize with those who are attached to the Tridentine Rite of Mass. The problem is when those who favour this rite make unwarranted presumptions that the Tridentine Rite not only is the only rite of the Mass "acceptable to God" (or that it is the "Mass of all time") while other rites promulgated by the Magisterium of the Church are not either not valid rites or are considered to be of "lessor worth." If you wish to say that changing the Mass was a mistake, then so long as in saying this you are not denying that the new Mass is in any way legitimate or that the Pope did not have a right to change the Mass if he chooses to, this I can respect as a valid opinion. However, to say as some do that the new Mass is not licit or valid, that is it "intrinsically evil" or a product of "bastard fruits" even when said according to the rubrics, or that the Pope had no authority to alter the rite: these are the claims of quasi-heretics.
It is also blatant blasphemy since Our Lord promised that "the gates of hell" shall never prevail over His Church (Matt. 16:18). The idea of the very heart of the Spouse of Christ for 2 millennia (the Mass) would ever be allowed to be torn from her chest would be a clear indication that Our Lord lied to us and that the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church.
In the first place, the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed - nor will they prevail -, for there are still many who are holding to the True Mass, such as over 400 Society of Saint Pius X Priests, and many thousands of independents. In the second place, the Mass, even apart from the Traditional Catholics, has not yet been entirely taken from the Catholic Church. Theoretically, the entire Latin Rite could disappear overnight, and yet the Church would still have the Mass in the form of the Eastern Rites, and Shawn seems to have the bad habit of forgetting this other part of the Catholic Church. Should the Latin Rite fail, that would not mean that the Church has failed, for she still has valid Sacraments elsewhere. The elimination of any one of the many rites in the Catholic Church would not, by any means, indicate that the Church has failed and that the gates of Hell have prevailed. In the third place, we all know from the history of the Church - i.e. with Arianism - that God has let the Church widdle down to just a handful, letting the rest go astray. Does this mean that he gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church? Of course not. By using this argument, Shawn shows an extreme lack of knowledge of both Church structure and Church history. But, as it is, this should be nothing new to the reader, for we have already seen both these problems in the above portion of Shawn’s article.
In the last place, Shawn is not the one to talk about blasphemy here. What could be more blasphemous than to introduce a heresy into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? To form an ecumenically-oriented "meal service," and then claim that this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? What could be more blasphemous than to introduce a lie into the very Words of Consecration? No, Shawn is not the one to lecture other people about "blasphemies."
This I cannot accept; therefore I must reject the claims of those who claim that the Pauline Rite Mass is in any way illicit or invalid when properly said. (Our emphasis)
I ask the reader to take note of the emphasized portion of the above statement, and also take note of the fact that in very very very few places is the Novus Ordo Missae said properly, and without mistranslations and other such innovations of liberals who have no respect for the liturgy. For example, the very consecration in the English, Italian, and numerous other languages, are, for the most part, mistranslations, erroneous translations. Secondly, this statement is based upon a mis-understanding of history, the structure of the Church, and Sacred Scripture.
Further, I must recognize and hold as suspicious anyone who would in any way claim that the Revised Missal validly said without innovations is either: a.) Illicit b.) Invalid c.) Scandalous or d.) Damaging to the Faith.
As I pointed out above, the very consecration formula which Shawn attempts to defend is an innovation and mistranslation. In the second place, if the Novus Ordo Missae is not damaging to the faith, then it is up to Shawn to explain why it is that 1) 70% of Catholics in the US don’t believe in the True Presence, 2) why nearly 50% of Catholic Priests left the Church after the introduction of the Novus Ordo, 3) why protestants can say it without any objections, they can reject the Church which Shawn claims to be a member of, but they have no problem with accepting the Novus Ordo Missae, 4) why is the Novus Ordo Missae founded upon heresy, 5) why does the Novus Ordo Missae contain heresy, 6) why is the Novus Ordo Missae so conducive to such heretics as those 70% of Catholics in the US who don't even believe in the True Presence? Is Shawn going to claim that these are not damaging to the faith?
Does this mean that I am whitewashing the abuses of the liturgy which have been documented at times over the past 30 plus years??? Of course not but it is not as if there were not abuses of the liturgy prior to Vatican II or at other times in the Church's history. Those who pretend that everything was all hunky dory until "big bad Vatican II" display a poor understanding of church history.
Understanding of Church history? This is coming from the person who believes that the Traditional Mass was the Novus Ordo Missae of its time, this is coming from the person who believes that if the Latin Rite fails then the entire Church fails, this is coming from the person who believes that the Gregorian Reforms were the equivalent of what Paul VI did, this is coming from the person who believes that Vatican II authorized a whole new rite, rather than a reformed one, this is coming from a person who believes that it is perfectly acceptable to introduce a lie into the form of consecration, this is coming from a person who dares to hold that the heretical, blasphemous, and impious, service - the Novus Ordo Missae - is on par with the Traditional Mass. Need we go on any further? This is like the pot calling the kettle black!
Lastly, we openly admit that there were liturgical abuses before Vatican II, but they were few and far in between, and were not openly encouraged. Today a priest can do a garbage mass, where everybody knows about it, and not be censured. Today a bishop can have a Hula mass in Hawaii, with authorization from the Vatican! The difference is between the terms "rogue priest," and "rogue church."
Also, if they are in a position of authority (such as a priest or a bishop) they are capable of misinforming those who come to them for advice on these matters and if done deliberately these are serious sins of scandal and also of bearing false witness. However, these are not the only rationalizations used by obdurate "traditionalists" to "justify" their rebellion against Rome. There is also the claim that the Pauline Rite has been "Protestantized" which is what I will look at next. However not before pointing out that the first 3 objections of the self-styled "traditionalists" addressed thus far in this section are without any merit whatsoever.
In the first place, I would like to point out to the reader that Shawn is not in any position of authority to dictate to others what is a sin and what is not, where it doesn’t concern him.
In the second place, we have already seen an example of what Shawn means by the first three objections being "without any merit whatsoever." I’m starting to think that the word "merit" doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
V. The "Protestantization" of the Mass — Proposed "Nullifying" Features:
This assertion revolves around a series of external changes that taken together are proclaimed as a "Protestantizing" of the Mass when none of these elements by themselves could be called clearly "Protestant" (which is an ambiguous term to use anyway: I thought "traditionalists" did not like ambiguity):
Taken by themselves, most of these would not make the Mass protestant, this is true. But taken collectively they would certainly make the Mass appear protestant. And the protestants obviously agree, because the Lutherans and the Anglicans prefer it this way.
These external changes include*:
The Removal of the Tabernacle
Elimination of Kneelers
Priest Facing the People
Married Deacons
Simplified Rites
Changes to Vestments
Relaxation of Eucharistic Fast
Elimination of the Final Gospel
Meal or Sacrifice???
Altar or Table???
Communion Under Both Species
Protestants at Vatican II
Altar Girls
Lay Eucharistic Ministers and Readers
Communion in the Hand
The following are either ecclesiastical directives or church/liturgical disciplines of the Church which can be modified at the discretion of the Magisterium and do not fall under the guidelines of either infallibility or of unalterable Tradition; therefore I will not detail them here except to touch on them briefly:
We agree that they don’t fall under the guidelines of either infallibility or unalterable Tradition, but this does not mean that they can be changed arbitrarily, or that they should be changed, for some of these can be traced back to the third century. Their antiquity, at the very least, should be cause enough to generate respect for them.
The Removal of the Tabernacle: Some churches never had a tabernacle on their main altar to begin with so this charge is not one that has merit unless the objector wants to claim that this problem occurred before VC II (which they will not do of course).
Here we see yet another example of faulty logic. There is a big difference between constructing a Church in which the tabernacle is in a place of honor, but not necessarily on the main altar, and ripping the tabernacle off the main altar.
Elimination of Kneelers: Kneeling for the Consecration was not put into place until after the Protestant Revolt; therefore either the Church got it wrong for 15 centuries or kneelers are not a necessary component to the validity of the Mass. Kneeling during the Consecration is still in the rubrics so if there are any churches that removed the kneelers then they are in disobedience to the Church and are not doing anything mandated or sanctioned in any way. The disobedience of a few rebellious churches in no way diminishes the Pauline Rite itself.
Unfortunately, Shawn’s history is again mistaken. To cite the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. The rubric directing that while the celebrant and his ministers recite the Psalm "Judica", and make the Confession, those present who are not prelates should kneel" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company)
Hence we see that kneeling during the Consecration was in place during the Middle Ages, and as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition) pointed out the Middle Ages lasted from the year 476 to 1453. Hence, kneeling during the Consecration was already in place (at the very least) by the year 1453, which puts Shawn off about fifty years, though, as it is, it is safe to assume that it was in place (at least) by the mid Middle Ages, which would put Shawn off by at least five hundred. Quite a large discretion when one is referring to history.
Furthermore, it is of interest to note that kneeling was not only reserved for the Consecration, but also for prayer. To cite the Catholic Encyclopedia yet again:
Coming to the first Christians, of St. Stephen we read: "And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying", etc. (Acts, vii, 59); of the Prince of the Apostles: "Peter kneeling down prayed" (Acts, ix, 40); of St. Paul: "kneeling down, he prayed with them all" (Acts, xx, 36; cf. xxi, 5). It would seem that the kneeling posture for prayer speedily became habitual among the faithful. Of St. James, the brother of the Lord, tradition relates that from his continual kneeling his knees had become callous as those of a camel (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., II, xxiii; Brev. Rom., 1 May). For St. Paul the expressions "to pray" and "to bow the knee" to God are complementary (cf. Phil., ii, 10; Eph., iii, 14, etc.). Tertullian (Ad Scap., iv) treats kneeling and praying as practically synonymous. And when forgiveness of offences has to be besought, Origen (De Orat., 31) goes so far as to maintain that a kneeling posture is necessary. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Volum VI Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company)
As was shown above, kneeling during prayer was in place during the time of the apostles, and had even become so prevalent and respected that Origen held that a kneeling posture was necessary for prayer. As it is, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the greatest prayer in possible by human beings, and the early Christians knew and understood this. Hence, it stands to reason that they would kneel during this, the greatest prayer of the Church, while both uniting their prayers with those of the Priest, praying their private devotions (both before, after, and during Mass), and praying the Mass itself.
Thirdly, the Church is not just a place where the Holy Sacrifice is offered, but it is also a place of prayer. Hence, people would go to the Churches to prayer in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, and in an building where it is easier for them to meditate, as many still do. Hence, it would likewise stand to reason that there would be people who came to the Churches (outside of attending Mass itself) for reasons of private devotions, who would likewise kneel - as kneeling had become a common posture for prayer. Hence, the removal of the kneelers - while not effecting the validity of the Mass, and, of course, kneelers are not absolutely necessary for kneeling for prayer - does discourage private devotions, kneeling during Mass, and the adoration of the Holy Eucharist both before and after Mass, particularly among the elderly, the sick and infirm, and the young.
Lastly, the custom of removing the kneelers from the Churches - in addition to the Altar Rails, and the Tabernacles from the Altar - has become rather common among Novus Ordo churches during renovations. Though, as it is, we are glad to see that even Shawn admits that this is disobedient and rebellious of the Novus Ordo innovators, though it is quite interesting that he still defends the practice.
Married Deacons: Have there never been married deacons in the Church before??? This claim betrays a serious ignorance of church history. There have been married clergy before and in the Eastern Rites there still are some married clergy in ranks below bishop. If married deacons constitute an invalid rite than what about the Apostles and early Church clergy who were at times married (before the discipline of mandatory celibacy in the Western Rite was put into place) and they were often priests and bishops (not merely deacons)???
In the first place, the fact that there were married deacons before in the Early Church, and that the Apostles were married, is also the same argument made by both protestants, and those who wish to introduce married clergy to the Latin Rite. Of these latter Pope Gregory XVI had the following to say:
Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order. They have forgotten their person and office, and have been carried away by the enticements of pleasure. They have even dared to make repeated public demands to the princes for the abolition of that most holy discipline. But it is disgusting to dwell on these evil attempts at length. Rather, We ask that you strive with all your might to justify and to defend the law of clerical celibacy as prescribed by the sacred canons, against which the arrows of the lascivious are directed from every side. (Mirari Vos)
Hence, we see that the Church holds the discipline of the celibacy of the clergy to be highly important. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that deacons are considered clergymen, if not at present at least at that time they were. Pope Gregory furthermore asked that we defend the law of clerical celibacy from the attacks against it which were made by the "lascivious," as it is... I don’t see Shawn defending the celibacy of the clergy here.
In the third place, we see that as early as the year 302 the law of celibacy was in place for the clergy of the Latin Rite. To cite the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The earliest enactment on the subject is that of the Spanish
Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy
upon the three higher orders of the clergy, bishops, priests, and
deacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children
after their ordination they are to be deposed. This would seem to have
been the beginning of the divergence in this matter between East and West.
If we may trust the account of Socrates, just quoted, an attempt was made
at the Council of Nicaea, (perhaps by Bishop Osius who had also sat at
Elvira) to impose a law similar to that passed in the Spanish council.
But Paphnutius, as we have seen, argued against it, and the Fathers of
Nicaea were content with the prohibition expressed in the third canon which
forbade mulieres subintroductas. No bishop, priest, or deacon was to have
any woman living in the house with him, unless it were his mother, sister,
or aunt, or at any rate persons against whom no suspicion could lodge...it
is true that at the close of the fourth century, as we may learn from St.
Ambrose (De Officiis, I, l), some married clergy were still to be found,
especially in the outlying country districts, many laws then enacted were
strong in favour of celibacy. At a Roman council held by Pope Siricius
in 386 an edict was passed forbidding priests and deacons to have conjugal
intercourse with their wives (Jaffe-Lööwenfeld, Regesta, I, 41), and
the pope took steps to have the decree enforced in Spain and in other parts
of Christendom (Migne, P.L., LVI, 558 and 728). Africa and Gaul, as we
learn from the canons of various synods, seem to have been earnest in the
same movement, and though we hear of some mitigation of the severity of
the ordinance of Elvira, was enforced against transgressors than that if
they took back their wives they were declared incapable of promotion to
any higher grade, it may fairly be said that by the time of St. Leo the
Great the law of celibacy was generally recognized in the West. "(The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright ©© 1908 by Robert
Appleton Company)
Hence we see that for more than 1500 years the Church has been against married clergy in the Latin Rite. "Was the Catholic Church wrong for 1500 years"? Did it make a mistake?
Simplified Rites: Again irrelevant. The Pope has the right to make the rites as simplified or complex as he desires as long as the unchangeable elements of the Mass remain unchanged (and "traditionalists" exercising their own private judgments have no competence to decide in these matters whatsoever I might add). I have already shown in the previous two sections that these elements remain the same so this charge is also without foundation.
In the first place, the Pope most certainly does have restrictions in this area. For example, overly simplified rites can imply heretical notions, and lead people into heresy and error, something not even the Pope has the right to do. Hence, the Pope’s power and authority in this matter is limited, and the Pope has various obligations in this regard.
In the second place, an overly simplified rite can eliminate the clear cut references to transubstantiation that are in the Mass, thereby making it acceptable to protestants - a phenomena we see occurring with the Novus Ordo Missae. Could this be considered a protestantization of the Mass? One could certainly argue so.
Relaxation of Eucharistic Fast: Pope Pius XII also liberalized the fast so was he in error also??? There is still a binding period of one hour before receiving Communion under Church law. Early Christians used to take the Eucharist with meals (see 1 Corinthians circa AD 52 and the Epistles of St. Ignatius circa AD 110 for examples of this early practice) and while this is not something done today, if it was erroneous in and of itself (there being little or no fast before Communion) then the Church erred from the very beginning. Again, this is a discipline that is up to the Church to make and not individuals exercising Protestant private judgment. Besides, Pope St. Pius X lowered the age of Communion reception and encouraged frequent Communion; therefore reducing the fast achieves this laudable goal does it not??? With the knowledge we now have about health issues (and how prolonged periods of time without any food at all can result in the body "eating itself" as well as lowered blood sugar, etc) more is known today about health issues than in the past. The Church showed (in making these modifications) that she always recognizes advances in society's knowledge and makes adjustments accordingly without changing her core doctrines and beliefs in the process. This should be commended and not condemned because it shows once again how the faith is equally ancient yet young.
As it is, the shortening of the Eucharistic Fast is really very much a side issue, and is completely irrelevant as it really doesn’t concern the Mass. Hence, we shall pass this point by and move on to the next one.
Elimination of the Final Gospel: This falls under liturgy and as Pope Pius XII noted, only the Church has the competence to decide these matters. Besides, a good argument can be made that the same Gospel at the end of every Mass leads to redundancy. Since the Last Gospel (according to Mr. Michael Davies) was not added until approximately the 14th century, removing it cannot possibly make the Mass in any way defective unless the Masses of the first 13 centuries of Church History were defective for not having the Last Gospel.
The elimination of the Last Gospel does not, of course, make the Mass defective in and of itself, though it can be the cause of a lessening of devotion on the part of the Priest and the people, seeing such a devotion, which has been in place for centuries, suddenly removed. Insofar as Shawn’s argument to the effect that "the same Gospel at the end of every Mass leads to redundancy" goes, we find it hard to believe that Shawn would think that a devotion such as the reading of God’s Holy Word, however many times it is done, which has been in place for over 500 years, can be called "redundant." Furthermore, this is the exact same argument used by protestants in reference to such devotions as the Holy Rosary. "Saying the exact same prayers, over and over again, can lead to redundancy." Does this mean that they should be eliminated? No, of course not! That is faulty logic.
Thirdly, the Last Gospel was very explicit insofar as the Divinity of Christ is concerned, and this would be altogether very offensive for many of our "dear parted brethren," protestants, who deny this doctrine. The same goes for the Jews, our "elder brethren in the faith," and the Muslims. The elimination of this Gospel does nothing more than make the Novus Ordo Missae more acceptable to non-Catholics. Hence, could this be considered a protestantization of the Mass? It could be argued so.
Fourthly, it is worthwhile to point out here that just because something can be eliminated, does not mean that it should be eliminated.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Shawn has given no reason why the Last Gospel was eliminated, or any of the other practices which he has set forth here. It would be very interesting to hear why it is that customs and traditions, centuries-old, are suddenly, and without any explanation, in our age of ecumenism run rampant, deleted.
Communion in the Hand: I do not like this provision at all but it cannot be denied that in the early Church this practice took place at times. I believe it should be suppressed and has been a major contributor to the lessening of reverence by many Catholics of the Host as the Body of Christ (as has standing to receive Our Lord); nevertheless, in no way does this pastoral provision (however ill advised it may be) does not affect the status of the Mass Rite itself.
As it is, Shawn’s above argument is defective. To provide a brief citation from the May/June 1998 issue of "Real Catholicism":
"Proponents of the practice (i.e. communion in the hand) point out that the Apostles received in the hand at the Last Supper, but do not add that they had just been consecrated as bishops." (Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution: Pope Paul’s New Mass (Kansas City, 1980), p.453).
Reception in the hand was prevalent in the very early Church – but in 650 AD the Synod of Rouen condemned the practice as an abuse. Pope Pius XII warned that "the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy" (Mediator Dei). To fully accept first century practice would be, for example, to exclude sculptors, painters, actors and eunuchs from Baptism. Baptized babies would be given Holy Communion under the form of wine, and public penance would again be exacted for certain sins.
Nor is the argument to return to ancient custom consistent. In the early Church, women did not receive the host directly into bare hands – they covered their hands first with a cloth called a dominical. There has been no effort to revive that portion of early practice. (Emphasis mine)
Hence we see that 1) the Early Church did not give Communion in the hand to just anyone, 2) the practice was condemned in the year 650 AD as an abuse, 3) just because it was done in the Early Church is not sufficient reason for it to be brought back into practice, if it were then we would have to "exclude sculptors, painters, actors and eunuchs from Baptism" give baptized babies Communion in the form of wine, and
"public penance would again be exacted for certain sins," and we would, furthermore, cast the Catechumens out of the Church directly after the Creed. 4) Shawn himself really hasn’t read the entirety of Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical "Mediator Dei" which explicitly states that it isn’t wise to return to all the practices of the Early Church, even though Shawn himself has cited this Encyclical numerous times above. To continue citing the above-mentioned article from Real Catholicism:
"The reception of the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue by laymen testifies to their belief in the priesthood and the Real Presence; the reception of their sacrament in the hand by Protestants testifies to their rejection of these beliefs." (Michael Davies, A Privilege of the Ordained (Long Prairie, MN, 1990), pp. 10-11)
Protestants have, therefore, eliminated signs of reverence toward their sacrament – kneeling, receiving on the tongue, and genuflecting. (The Church of England retained the custom of kneeling for reception – but its prayer book rubric hastened to point out that kneeling involved no adoration, and that the bread and wine remained in their own natural substances.)
Protestant reformer Martin Bucer wrote of Catholics that "I have no doubt that the usage of not putting these sacraments into the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition: firstly the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration." (Cited in Liturgical Revolution: Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 464)
The second point is as significant as the first. Protestants believe that their ministers receive, at ordination, only public authorization for ministry. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the ordained priest receives an indelible character. The Catholic priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass as an "alter Christus," another Christ, and his hands are consecrated for the purpose of handling the Host.
Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand noted that "there can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend toward desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular... there is no reason for receiving Communion in the hand; only an immanent spirit of paltry familiarity with our Lord." (The Maryfaithful, March-April, 1985)
As it is, this is enough to show that various practices which might have been practiced in the Early Church - such as Communion in the hand - should not be reintroduced today. If we are going to reintroduce one practice simply because it was practiced in the Early Church, why not introduce all of them? Why not refuse baptism to painters, sculptors, actors, and so forth? Why not reintroduce public penance for certain sins? Why not take the Corpus down from the Cross? Why not eliminate images from the Churches? This entire ideology is completely inconsistent.
"We are going to reintroduce it because the Early Church practiced it," so what if they did? That does not mean that we should practice it, nor does it mean that it is thoroughly orthodox or that it would not give scandal. For, after all, many Protestant sects distribute their "sacrament" in the hand as a protest against the True Presence, could not the same interpretation be given to this awful and blasphemous and sacrilegious practice? And do we not see the effects now, where we live in a generation where 70% of Catholics reject the doctrine of the True Presence? Can this be one of the points that is aiding the Protestantization of the Mass? One could argue so.
VI. The "Protestantization of the Mass Continued - Other "Nullifying" Features Examined:
The following also fall under the same categories but I will address them more in detail since they are perhaps the more "serious" objections that a self-styled "traditionalist" might bring up in that the arguments set forth by the "traditionalists" to the following points are generally more credible than the ones covered above (at least in appearance):
A large portion of the below points are not nullifying factors at all, although are definitely dangerous, and could be cause for avoiding attendance at the Novus Ordo church where the practices are to be found. Some of the below points, such as changes to vestments, are really quite irrelevant and are not worth our time examining, hence we shall skip them.
Priest Facing the People
Changes to Vestments
Meal or Sacrifice???
Altar or Table???
Protestants at Vatican II
Lay Eucharistic Ministers and Readers
Altar Girls
Communion Under Both Species
Priest Facing the People:
This is a matter of liturgical policy and not a doctrine of the faith. Nowhere was this issue addressed at Trent which goes to show that Trent did not view the concept of the priest facing the people (despite being common in Protestant services) to be a doctrine of the faith.
It seems Shawn does not know what is meant by "doctrine." To provide a citation from A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater, on the definition of the term "doctrine":
That which is taught. Christian doctrine ordinarily means that body of revealed and defined truth which a Catholic is bound to hold, but is often extended to include those teachings which are not of faith but are generally held and acted upon. Occasionally the word indicates these last only, "the teachings of theologians," as distinct from "the faith taught by the Church." (p. 154, emphasis mine)
I would like to point out that doctrine is referring to what is taught, not various liturgical practices such as which way the Priest faced. This is not a "revealed and defined truth," hence, anyone who claimed that it was doctrine is operating under an impressive amount of ignorance. Secondly, it would be just as ignorant to claim that Trent addressed all the problems found in protestantism which were existent at that time. Does this mean, according to Shawn’s logic, that we can accept all the ones that Trent didn’t address? Of course not. It merely meant that the Fathers of Trent didn’t feel the need to discuss that certain item, or, possibly, that the Fathers of Trent merely had more important things to do than to categorically list every error of protestantism, including which way the protestant minister faced. Lastly, I would like to thank Shawn for admitting that facing the people was a common Protestant practice, and has been for at least 500 years - now we see it is also a Novus Ordo practice... interesting, isn’t it?
In the first 4 centuries (until possibly the early 5th century), Masses were said in private homes.
As it is, Shawn is here, yet again, mistaken. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they were consecrated by the Church for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and, in the course of time, ownership of these homes passed on to the Church. To cite the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The faithful made voluntary offerings to defray the expenses of Divine worship and to support the clergy and the poor. Though these offerings would naturally be for the most part in money and in kind, yet we find also property set aside for ecclesiastical purposes. Thus the Christian cemeteries or catacombs and the "titles" or houses where Mass was offered seem very early, even in the lifetime of the Apostles, to have become consecrated to church uses. That in the course of time they passed into the possession of the Church, and became church property in the modern sense of the term"( The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright ©© 1908 by Robert Appleton Company)
As can be seen from the above citation, we can see from the earliest times that these houses were consecrated for Church use, and that they were officially passed over to become property of the Church over time. Hence, they were not "private homes" in the sense of the Priest showing up at Joe Shmoe’s house for Mass, and then moving on to Charlies house for Mass the next Sunday. They were set places of worship, they were Consecrated specifically for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and were specifically adapted for the purpose. As the Catholic Encyclopedia said yet again:
"The earliest places of Christian worship may be called chapels, inasmuch as they were informal churches, i. e. a chamber in a house, or the atrium and tablinum of the house adapted for the purpose; "(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright ©© 1908 by Robert Appleton Company)
Hence, while they were informal Churches, they could be considered formal Chapels.
Furthermore, as Monsignor Klaus Gamber stated:
"There never was a celebration versus populum in either the Eastern or Western Church. Instead there was a turning towards the east." (Theology Digest, Vol. 22, no. 2, Summer 1974, p. 154)
That in the East and the West the Priests did not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass facing the people is ".... a fact of history concerning which there is unanimity among serious scholars. In his book Architecture et Liturgie (Paris, 1967), Father Louis Bouyer proves conclusively that there is no evidence from antiquity that the eucharistic liturgy was ever celebrated facing the people. Other important studies on this topic include an article by Professor Cyrille Vogel in L'Orient Syrien in 1964 which is notable for the extent of its documentation; and J. Braun's book Der Christliche Altar (Munich, 1932)." (Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 402). As it is, The Apostolic Constitutions (400 A.D., possibly as far back as the third century) ordered that a Church should be constructed "with its head to the east." (The Apostolic Constitutions, Vol. II).
As Professor Vogel stated:
"Since about the year 200, and possibly from the beginning of the second century, both in the east and in the west, Christians prayed facing the east in the direction of the rising sun." (L'Orient Syrien, vol. IX, p. 3)
As it is, "The Christians of antiquity found a rich and seemingly inexhaustible symbolism in the eastward direction. Our Lord had faced the west while redeeming mankind upon the Cross and by looking towards the east we are actually facing Him because the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present during the Mass. .... St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the eastward direction symbolized both Paradise lost and Paradise regained. 'Paradise was situated in the east according to the Septuagint version of Gen. ii., and so we signify our desire to return to Paradise.'" (Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass).
Hence we see that, regardless of whether or not the Holy Sacrifice was celebrated in a private house or in a Church, the Christians of the early centuries faced the east. Therefore, it is not correct to speak of the celebrant having his back to the people but rather "facing the east together with the people." (L'Orient Syrien, vol. IX, p. 8)
There were no churches during the Roman persecutions and even once the Empire stopped its persecutions there was a period of acclimatization before worship moved by and large from private homes to formal church buildings.
To cite the Catholic Encyclopedia yet again:
"At the end of the second century and even later, during the period of persecution, assemblies for Christian worship were still held in private houses. During this epoch, however, we begin to hear of the domus ecclesiae (the house of the Church), an edifice used for all the services of the Christian community, in which one apartment was specially set apart for Divine worship. At an early date this apartment took on a special importance. During the third century the other parts of the building were detached from it and the domus ecclesiae became the Domus Dei (the house of God) known also as the Dominicum or the kyriakon oikon (Duchesne, Origines du culte chréétien, 399-400, Paris, 1902; Wieland, Mensa und Confessio: Studien uber den Altar der altchristlichen Liturgie, Munich, 1906, I, 27-35, 68-73). All such churches were situated in towns, and the inhabitants of the rural districts came thither on the Lord's Day, in order to assist at the Eucharistic Sacrifice; in large cities, like Rome, Alexandria, and Carthage, there are several churches, but they did not constitute separate parishes (Duchesne, 400; Wieland, 73-76). They depended upon the cathedral church, in which was established the see (sedes), or the chair (cathedra) of the bishop." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company)
As can be seem from the above, the homes that were used had special rooms set apart for the use of the Priest and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Furthermore, they were Consecrated for that purpose. Hence, it can be seen that they were not "private homes" in the sense of the Priest showing up on the doorstep one Sunday afternoon saying "Hi Joe! Let’s have a Mass here today!"
Secondly, it was by the third century the other parts of the house had been separated from the consecrated room, and this room was specifically set apart for the Mass. And even the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to call them Churches.
The priest facing away from the people was a practice that started around the late 4th-early 5th centuries and did not become standard protocol until after the dawning of the second millennium; therefore, either Masses for the first 10 centuries were somehow deficient or this is merely a matter of procedure.
As has been shown above, this information itself is false, and the Priest certainly did have his back to the people, as both the Priest and the people were facing the east during the Holy Sacrifice.
As Michael Davies pointed out in his book Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 405-407:
Professor Vogel has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that from the time Christians were first allowed to build churches they constructed them along an east-west axis. He divides these ancient churches into two categories - Type A with the entrance at the east end and the apse at the west; Type B with the apse at the east end and the entrance at the west. (L'Orient Syrien, vol. IX p. 15-16). He notes that at the beginning of the fourth century the majority of sacred buildings in the west had the apse at the west end and the entrance at the east, whereas in the east the opposite was the case. (ibid., p. 16) By the end of the fourth century almost every church in the east had the apse at the east end and from the start of the fifth century this was the invariable rule. (ibid., p. 23) There was a similar, if less rapid, trend in the west and by the second half of the fifth century most Western churches had the apse at the east end. (Ibid., p. 22) Roman basilicas such as St. Peter's which still have the apse at the west end are a reminder of the first century of church building when this had been a common practice.
The concept of a versus populum celebration is a concept that "would have been totally alien to the ancient Church." (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 405) In fact, the first recorded instance of a reference to such a celebration is by Martin Luther. As Professor Vogel pointed out:
There was never any question of placing the celebrant versus populum with the aim of deepening the participation of the faithful in the celebration. The idea that the congregation must see the liturgical actions in order to play a more effective part is a modern idea (the desire to see the Host, which originated in the Middle Ages, originated from other causes). In the ancient Church (and in the Eastern Churches today), to participate in the liturgy means that each category of person taking part should say the words and carry out the actions allocated to it (the sacred ministers, the choir, and the people), and not follow every action of the liturgy visually. The celebrant neither faced the people nor turned his back to them, but faced the east. (L'Orient Syrien, p. 13-14)
As it is, if the reader wishes to learn more on this subject, then we recommend that he purchase a copy of Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass, and read chp. XIX.
Shawn then continues on to go over the Changes in the Vestments, but as these are really quite irrelevant we shall pass over them to the next section.
Meal or Sacrifice???:
This sounds like a false "either/or" dichotomy in line with the ones made by Protestant apologists. The Tridentine Rite refers to the Eucharist as the 'Bread of Heaven' and also as 'consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ' as does the Pauline Rite.
It has never been denied that the Eucharist is food for the soul, but to bypass this and overlooks this, in favor of the more protestant view that Sacrifice takes the back seat to the meal, is precisely what the Novus Ordo Missae does. In the second place, there is a problem here with Shawn trying to compare the Novus Ordo Missae with the Traditional Mass. It is like comparing the "Black Mass" with the True Mass. If Shawn wants to make a comparison, let him compare the Novus Ordo Missae with Cramner’s Mass, or Luther’s Mass.
THESE TERMS EMPHASIZE BOTH A SACRIFICE AND A MEAL. In no way does the Pauline Rite not emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass although Eucharistic Prayer #2 is not as explicit as the Canon of the Tridentine Rite. However, as I noted in the previous section, Eucharistic Prayer #1 (Tridentine Canon), Eucharistic Prayer #3 (truncated version of the Tridentine Canon), and Eucharistic Prayer #4 are very explicit in emphasizing the sacrificial character of the offering while placing a greater emphasis on the metaphor of community meal also (which got neglected in the Middle Ages but was present in the early Church alongside the sacrificial metaphor).
In the first place, "Eucharistic Prayer Number I" is not the Tridentine Canon. It is not the Canon of the True Mass, they knocked out a large portion of the True Canon. Do a comparative study of the two Canons, between "Eucharistic Prayer Number I" and the True Canon, I take issue with the fact that Shawn tries to make it so - this is nothing but a direct insult to the Traditional Mass.
In the second place, since a large portion of the Canon of the Mass can be traced back to the Apostles, how does Shawn get around that? The Mass itself is not a communal meal, it actually has very little to do with it. That’s like saying Calvary was a communal meal, it’s not. The meal aspect comes from receiving Communion. No one would be so silly as to say that the Sacrifice of Calvary was a meal. And since the Mass is Calvary, you can’t say that it is a meal either. Furthermore, the New Mass emphasizes the material "meal" aspect of Holy Communion and not the Spiritual nourishment which it actually is. This is the ideology that helps to blur the belief in the True Presence, even to the point where Shawn thinks that the Anglicans, for example, and the Lutherans believe in the Real Presence.
Also, when Eucharistic Prayer #2 (based on the canon of St. Hippolytus circa AD 215) was proposed by a Protestant commission revising the prayers for their "Lord’s Supper" service, it was rejected for "implying transubstantiation" which as I noted earlier is hardly a "Protestant" doctrine even among Protestants who actually believe in the Real Presence. This argument about "either" a sacrifice "or" a meal is a false dichotomy for the Mass is both of these.
As was pointed out earlier, the Protestant sects which were named by Shawn do not believe in the "Real Presence," and this does force us to the conclusion that Shawn himself does not know what the term "Real Presence" means, hence, we ask him to define it, since these Protestants openly deny transubstantiation. Secondly, as we have also seen above, various Protestant sects do, indeed, make use of the Novus Ordo Missae in their services, while others applaud the changes and even permit their members to attend the Novus Ordo Missae and receive communion there (something permitted by the new Code of Canon Law). Lastly, it is more than interesting to point out that this particular Protestant sect to which Shawn - and Thurian and Matt1618 - were referring to, actually considered it for use in their own services! If it were truly as explicit as Shawn thinks, then they never would have even brought it up to the table for discussion. Obviously, there were some there who didn’t think that it was all that explicit.
Altar or Table???:
Another charge is that a wooden Communion Table has replaced the stone Altar of Sacrifice. The topic of the substance of the altar is not mentioned anywhere in the decrees or canons from Trent although there was a longstanding custom to make the Altar of stone with the tradition of long standing of placing a Relic in the 'main stone' of the Altar.
As it is, there was a very good reason why stone was used as the material for the Altar. The reason being, simply, because wood eventually rotted, no matter how much care was given to its upkeep, as with most other materials - in other words stone was the most economical, and durable substance available, and the Church made use of it. As the Catholic Encyclopedia pointed out, the Church also associated the stone material of the Altar with Christ. To cite the Encyclopedia:
"Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II, presented an altar of gold to the Basilica of Constantinople; St. Helena gave golden altars ornamented with precious stones to the church which was erected on the site where the Cross had been concealed for three hundred years; the Popes St. Sixtus III (432-440) and St. Hilary (461-468) presented several altars of silver to the churches of Rome. Since wood is subject to decay, the baser metals to corrosion, and the more precious metals were too expensive, stone became in course of time the ordinary material for an altar. Besides, stone is durable and, according to St. Paul (I Cor., x, 4), symbolizes Christ -- "And the rock was Christ". The Roman Breviary (9 November) asserts that St. Sylvester (314-335) was the first to issue a decree that the altar should be of stone. But of such a decree there is no documentary evidence, and no mention is made of it in canon law, in which so many other decrees of this Pope are inserted. Moreover, it is certain that after that date altars of wood and of metal were erected. The earliest decree of a council which prescribed that an altar which is to be consecrated should be of stone is that of the provincial council of Epeaune (Pamiers), France, in 517 (Labbe, Concil. tom. V, col. 771). The present discipline of the Church requires that for the consecration of an altar it must be of stone." (Catholic Encyclopedia 1908)
I would like to point out the portions of the above citation where it states that the Altars were also made - occasionally - of Gold and Silver, out of respect for God. This is enough to show how much respect the Early Christians had for God, and how they used the best materials available for the construction of their Altars, not excluding precious metals. This practice the Church has seen fit to carry on for over a thousand years... and then, all of a sudden, at the blink of an eye, the stone Altar has been discarded, and some plastic or wooden table has replaced it - the Altar has become another victim of the Novus Ordo Missae, alongside kneelers and the Altar Rail. Could one consider this to be a Protestantization, and a new lack of respect for the Eucharist? One could certainly argue so.
The problem here though is that it is not as if an altar and a table are not in some manner synonymous. An Altar is defined in two manners:
A structure on which sacrifices are offered or incense burned in worship.
A table used as a center of ritual.
The point is, a table is also used during family meals - and does not imply a sacrifice at all. This could very well give a "meal" sense to the Novus Ordo Missae, to the exclusion of the Sacrificial Nature that is so "explicitly" stated in it’s numerous "Eucharistic Prayers." Hence, we see that a change of terminology, could very well lead someone to a change in theology - and a lack of respect for the Mass. Could this be considered protestantization of the Mass? One could argue so.
In the first place, it is worthwhile to note that the Altars used in the majority of Churches prior to Vatican II emphasized the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass, while the new "tables" emphasize the "meal" nature of the Novus Ordo Missae. Hence, what we are seeing here is a change in theology. The Traditional Mass emphasized Sacrifice, while the Novus Ordo Missae emphasizes meals.
Communion Under Both Species:
Council of Trent: CANON I.--If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament…let him be anathema. [8]
As it is, there were some very good reasons why Communion under both species was forbidden in the Latin Rite prior to Vatican II. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out:
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone. (Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 80, Art. 12)
As it is, having so many communicants drink out of the same chalice, one after the other, would not only be distasteful, but would also be conducive to the spreading of disease. Furthermore, the distribution of Communion under both kinds was an ecumenical surrender on the part of the Conciliar Church. Prior to Vatican II the cup was refused to the faithful because of the heresies of the Calixtines and the protestant reformers, who held that it was necessary for the Faithful to receive under both kinds in order to receive the Sacrament, and sacrilegious for the cup to be withheld from the faithful. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament.
Therefore, it was a tenet of protestantism that Communion must be distributed under both kinds - and hence one reason why the Church reaffirmed the withholding of the cup from the faithful. Hence, it was an ecumenical surrender on the part of the Conciliar Establishment.
Sonia Diaz, right, carries the water to the altar Oct. 25 during the Brockport parish's sesquicentennial liturgy. Retired Auzilliary Bishop Dennis W. Hickey concelebrated the Mass with Father Roy Kiggins.
Protestants at Vatican II
Altar Girls
Lay Eucharistic Ministers and Readers
I will address these objections in reverse order.
As it is, the practice of having "Lay Readers" is really a side issue, and irrelevant. Hence, we shall skip this portion and move on to the portion on "Lay Eucharistic Ministers." Insofar as whether or not all the arguments listed by Shawn have failed "miserably upon closer examination," we shall leave this up to the reader to decide.
Lay Eucharistic Ministers:
As for Lay Eucharistic Ministers I am less pleased with this policy than lay readers because this involves the handling of the Sacred Species which should be done as minimally as possible. I find it hard to believe that there are not additional Priests or Deacons to administer the Eucharist under either form and that Eucharistic Ministers who are not ordained should need to be employed in most cases. Be that as it may, certainly in situations where there was no additional assistance and there were many communicants, then and only then could such a policy be employed and be considered practical in my view. Of course people used to take Communion with their supper in the early Church (prior to the mid 2nd century) so while this practice of the Lay Eucharistic Minister is undoubtedly abused and not needed in many instances; nevertheless the use of a Lay Minister for distribution of Communion cannot be said to be an invalidating feature of the Mass although I believe personally that it is a poor pastoral policy if only from the standpoint that it is a provision that is open to abuse.
St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out in his Summa Theologica (III, 82, 3):
..... The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
Hence, it is a sign of the gravest disrespect to permit unconsecrated to touch the Eucharist - when it is not necessary for them to do so, regardless of the Priest’s personal comfort.
However, there has to be some rationale behind this provision however abused it may be in some places and this would come back once again to recognizing what was the purpose of the liturgical reform. As I showed in the macro sections, there were a number of places that were arguably too redundant in the Tridentine Rite and these parts were either modified or removed while keeping the essence and structure of the Mass intact.
Redundant? Who is Shawn to come along and say that any part of the Traditional Mass, said by Saints and Pontiffs throughout the centuries, preserved by the blood of Martyrs, and upon which Mass God Himself has shown His favor (as can be seen by the hundreds of Eucharistic Miracles which have taken place at the True Mass), is redundant? How dare he attack the True Mass in such a fashion? And Shawn calls himself a Catholic? How dare he?
Among the greatest concerns facing the liturgical reformers was the amount of time spent in the distribution of Communion. This is what the provision was implemented to address. In the Tridentine Mass at the distribution of Communion the priest recited a long formula in distributing Communion to each. Since there was a single Priest at most Masses, this was the cause of quite a delay at times during which Communion was distributed. In some places additional Priests were utilized to assist with Communion. However, in some places, this was not possible either due to lack of Priests, or other commitments. To that end, the use of Lay Eucharistic ministers was permitted.
So, we’re back now to "due to convenience," rather than "due to respect for the Eucharist," the reformers found that we had an overwhelming need to shorten the Mass, employ the use of the unconsecrated in the handling of the Sacred Species, because they really could not spare a few extra minutes in the Church - the coffee was getting cold, and the doughnuts were getting stale. Hence, we see that the Worship of God is subject to a stopwatch. It is not the quality of worship, but how fast we can get it done. Why not put the host in a big bowl, and let everyone come up and grab one (or, better yet, five or six, and take them back to people in the pews... or use during the next mass) like potato chips? Would this not shorten the Mass? And would it not be justified by the shortage of priests, and the need of reform?
Concerning the "long formula" that was so tiresome for the reformers to recite over each communicant - which formula many saintly Priests have found no problem with, but what do they know? They were only saints of the Church, and certainly not another Annibale Bugnini, and certainly not the wisdom and knowledge which Shawn, and his fellow reformers, possess -, permit me to cite the "long fomula" here:
May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.
My! What a tiresome thing to keep saying time and time again! Surely the office of the Priesthood, which is dedicated to saving souls, is not required to pray for the salvation of souls at this point in the Mass! Why should they be? It is tiresome to them to have to pray for the salvation of each individual soul that comes to them for the Body and Blood of Christ. Is this a valid reason for shortening this formula? For eliminating the extra graces that the person would receive from this blessing? Nowadays, the Priest not only has no time to pray for your salvation, but he also has no time to give you Communion personally - for the coffee and doughnuts are growing cold and stale.
The Church grants this faculty to Acolytes in the exercise of their ministry (who are not ordained) especially if they are destined for ordination. If an Acolyte who is not ordained can administer the Eucharist, than logically other lay people can as well. Obviously as I said earlier the first choice should be other Priests and Deacons, then other non-ordained ministers like Acolytes with Lay Ministers being last in the "pecking order." I should not have to mention that under no circumstances (except the most dire) should women ever be used as Lay Ministers (or girls as altar girls) if there are men and boys to fill these respective roles. The primary legitimate situation where Lay Eucharistic Ministers could be used are cases where there are insufficient ordinary ministers of the Eucharist (Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Acolyte). Other secondary situations of note are where the age or health of the Priest precludes him from distributing Holy Communion or where the time taken to administer the Eucharist will cause an overlong delay in the celebration of the Mass. Of course in these situations all means of using ordinary ministers should be implemented first and only then utilizing the laity. I am in full agreement with the "traditionalists" that women have NO business before the altar in ANY capacity and this includes not only Lay Ministers but also altar girls.
As it is, the length of time of the Mass is irrelevant. It is not a concern. Do we worship God according to the dictation of a stopwatch?
In any situations where the age of health of a Priest prohibits his distributing Communion to the Faithful, one would be perfectly justified in asking why it is that this Priest is saying a public Mass in the first place. Clearly we are seeing the results of the shortage of Priests in the Conciliar Church - and it seems whatever Priests they do have, don’t want to spend more time than is necessary saying even the Novus Ordo Missae.
Altar Girls:
In short, the "traditionalists" fail miserably (yet again) to produce an invalidating feature of the Pauline Rite Mass with this objection. They can argue against extensive usage of extraordinary ministers (as I do), or that women are seemingly used more and more in this role and should not be (as I do), or even that altar girls are a poor pastoral policy (as I do), but that is in no way any "invalidation" of the Mass itself.
I agree with this, it is, indeed, a poor pastoral policy, and not an invalidation of the Novus Ordo Missae. But to turn Shawn’s arguments against him, but doesn’t Rome have the authority to permit women to take an active part in the Mass? Doesn’t Rome have the authority to allow altar girls? For, after all, if Rome can rewrite the entire Mass... come up with four new "canons"..... eliminate seventy percent of the True Canon.... then why can’t they allow women to be acolytes and distribute communion? Are we seeing Shawn denying the authority of Rome? The authority upon which he has based his entire argument so far? This uncompromising ability of Rome to do what it wishes and pleases with the mass? And yet Shawn takes it upon himself to judge Rome on this matter - something he attacks us for doing- ? Hence, we see Shawn really believes that Rome only has the authority when Shawn approves of the Change - such as eliminating redundancy, or making the mass sleeker, or cutting down the communion line, or keeping the coffee fresh, or keeping the mass entertaining.
Shawn’s next "point" is really just as irrelevant as the changes to the vestments. There were reporters at Vatican II, does that mean that it is invalid on that point? Of course not. As it is, the validity/invalidity of Vatican II has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Missae, and is therefore irrelevant.
VII. Conclusion:
In short, it should be obvious that the arguments posted by the SSPX (and other "traditionalists") as to the lack of validity to the Pauline Mass are superficial and arbitrary. Nothing of the changes made in any way infringes upon unalterable Tradition; therefore their only arguments can be for ones of personal preference and not for the invalidity of the Pauline Rite or about the superiority of the Tridentine Rite. The merits of the Mass are infinite regardless of the rite used. Those who claim otherwise are opposing themselves to the judgement of the Church. I seem to recall the words of Our Lord as to whom has the last word on these types of issues:
In the first place, we openly admit that most - if not all - of the complaints listed above by Shawn are, indeed, superficial and arbitrary - if taken by themselves. But there also legitimate ones such as the false form of Consecration used in the Novus Ordo Misae, which was not even promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
In the second place, concerning "unalterable Tradition," what about the complete eliminate of the Mass, and it’s substitution with an ecumenical truncated (mistranslated) heretical version, which is widely appreciated (and used) among the protestants? As Cardinal Bugnini said:
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Prostestants " __ Anibale Bugnini, co_author of the "New Mass" (L'Osservatore Romano 19 March 1965),
In the third place, if the merits of the Mass are infinite (which is true), regardless of the rite used , then one could attend a Black Mass, couldn’t one? And still get these merits and graces? If the Novus Ordo Missae is a danger to our faith on even one point, then that is more than enough to justify the Traditional Catholic position. As can be seen from the above, the Novus Ordo Missae is loaded with heresy, with error, with lies, and with mistranslations. Hence we see that our arguments are not merely ones of preference, but are also ones which concern the very core of our Faith, the lifeblood of Catholicism, the Catholic Mass.
Matthew:
18:18 Amen I say to you, WHATSOEVER YOU SHALL BIND UPON EARTH, SHALL BE BOUND ALSO IN HEAVEN: AND WHATSOEVER YOU SHALL LOOSE UPON EARTH, SHALL BE LOOSED ALSO IN HEAVEN. [11]
I agree with this. But the question now is why it is that Shawn will attack us for refusing to hear the Church, while the very liturgy which he attends refuses to listen even to its own originator - Pope Paul VI? Furthermore, does this mean that we are bound to follow various churchMEN regardless of what they introduce? Can the Church bind error and heresy? Obviously not. The reason? Because the Church has no authority to bind error and heresy. Secondly, we know that even Pope Pius XII stated that there are limitations to what they can do to the Mass, there are limitations to what they can do to the divinely instituted elements of the Mass. Hence, it’s not a "coverall" "the Vatican may do what it wishes to the Mass," type deal. Thirdly, - as we show in appendix I - Papal Infallibility is not involved in the Liturgy. The Pope was not infallible when he created the Novus Ordo Missae, hence it does not fall under the infallible binding and loosing.
I do not see the words "whatsoever you shalt bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven until the 1970's when you will lose this power to various movements which are offshoots of a group founded by Archbishop Lefebvre who will become the true Church in your stead."
As Traditional Catholics we haven’t claimed that those words are in there, or that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. So of course you’re not going to find them. We still acknowledge the legitimacy of the Papacy of Pope John Paul II, we look to him as the Holy Father, and visible head of the Church on earth. But, unlike Shawn here, we realize that there are limits to obedience - and blind obedience is detrimental (rather than beneficial) to the Church.
Therefore, the claims of the SSPX and other self-styled "traditionalists" must be overwhelmingly rejected as without merit.
This would be a legitimate statement if you had proven that our objections were without merit, something you have failed to do thus far. Unfortunately Shawn, it looks like it’s back to the drawing board for you.
Every example submitted to demonstrate illicity, invalidity, or that the Pauline Rite was a sacrilege fail miserably under scrutiny.
As we have seen above, Shawn has failed to demonstrate that "every example" which demonstrates the "illicity, invalidity, or that the Pauline Rite was a sacrilege" are false, and Shawn has even failed to examine all the arguments against the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI. Therefore it is illogical and ridiculous for Shawn to claim to have disproven "every" argument of the Traditional Catholics. And the ones that Shawn did examine, you failed to disprove - provided, of course, they were relevant to the topic at all... it is not a great feat to disprove an argument that is entirely irrelevant.
If the reader is interested in reading a book on the subject - which is online, and free - then we recommend that the reader read The Great Sacrilege, which proves - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Sacrilege.
Many of these claims (if they were legitimate ones) would condemn the Tridentine Rite also. While I will stand with self-styled "traditionalists" in decrying some of the poor pastoral policies implemented since Vatican II, it must be pointed out that none of them are actually taught in the Council documents nor are they to be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
In the first place, I find it interesting that he’s going to stand with "schismatics" "heretics" and "blasphemers" (as Shawn has termed the Traditional Movement in various places in his "thesis") on various points. In the second place, the majority of the arguments which Shawn examined did not touch the validity/invalidity legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae. In fact, after reading the above, I am very tempted to accuse Shawn of misrepresenting our position - the vast majority of his arguments touch externals only, and make it look like those are our only arguments. How far he is from the truth!
To sum up the previous 2 sections and this one in a sentence or two: the Pauline Rite is neither illicit nor is it a sacrilege. Instead, it is a valid rite of Mass determined by the only authority competent to make this determination: the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
As it is, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never come forth and stated - unequivocally - that the new order of Consecration is a valid Consecration. As Shawn himself stated, only the Magisterium has the authority to make this judgment - hence, for Shawn to come forward and claim that it is certainly valid is more than even the Magisterium is willing to do. We could say here that nowhere does Matthew 18 say "Shawn has the authority to bind and to loose," but this argument would be redundant. Thirdly, the Magisterium willingly places upon itself limitations as to what it can do with the liturgy, as we have shown over and over and over with Pope Pius XII.
The Society and their allies in the "traditionalist" movement who say differently (as the evidence presented in the last 3 sections amply shows) are woefully in error on every conceivable point they sought to make.
Unfortunately, Shawn has not examined "every conceivable point" that the Traditional Movement has to make. He has only examined those which suit his purposes in this article, and the ones that he thinks he can answer. Although we believe that we have clearly shown that the pertinent examples he was unable to answer.
As the next section (and subsequent ones) will show, this is a recurring pattern not only among those in the SSPX but also others in the "traditionalist" movement who make similar objections and arguments from a doctrinal standpoint rather than taking a personal view that some of the non-doctrinal policies may not be prudent ones.
If what we saw above is a recurring thing in Shawn’s article, then this certainly does not say much with regards to the remainder of the article. Shawn has - or, at the very least, made use of - fabricated citations, false history, with a liberal dash of dishonesty.
If the latter position was the extent of their criticism than I would not object but the criticism goes much deeper than just that as the subsequent sections of this treatise will reveal in detail.
We see that Shawn is now admitting that he did not examine all the objections that Traditional Catholics have, but in essence is saying "Even if you could answer this part, you still have to answer the rest of this article," which is not necessarily true.
In conclusion, I would not, myself, state that the dishonesty shown in the above thesis by Shawn, the lack of knowledge of history, the lack of knowledge of the Mass, the lack of knowledge of the magisterium, the lack of knowledge of papal infallibility, and the lack of "powerful documentation," are prevalent among those who attend the Novus Ordo Missae. For, after all, this would be presumptuous on my part to judge all of, or the vast majority of, them based on the statement of one person, or a few of them. Although, as it is, I can most certainly judge Shawn’s statements, which give us quite an insight into Shawn’s honesty, integrity, intellect, and knowledge. Unfortunately for Shawn, as we have shown above, he lacking in all four areas.
In a vain attempt to prove the Novus Ordo Missae to be legitimate, Shawn has sacrificed his honesty and been forced to resort to falsification of statements, history, misrepresentations of the Traditional Movement, abusing the statements of the Most Holy Council of Trent, abusing the statements of Pope Pius XII, direct attacks upon the Traditional Mass that has been said by Popes and Saints and defended by the blood of thousands of martyrs, and upon which Mass God Himself has seen fit to bestow His favor, willful support of faulty translations, and willful support of the heresies within the Novus Ordo Missae.
This refutation of Shawn, as poorly done as it is, is dedicated to Our Lady of Victory, destroyer of all heresies, and Her Divine Son!
