THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS

Personally I do not think they should have eliminated Psalm 42 from the Introductory but then it is not my decision to make. Neither introduction is wrong but I do personally prefer the recitation of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass.

In the first place, the difference in structure here is obvious. While one is a set thing, the other is optional - there are at least two different "greetings" that can be given, according to the day, and according to the personal preference of the priest/president who is "presiding" over the service. Even the prayers are different. A quick reading of the citations from the Traditional Mass is sufficient to show that it’s emphasis is the Sacrifice which is about to follow, and the "Altar of God." The Priest in the Traditional Mass immediately requests that God separate him from the unjust man and nation, whereas the emphasis has somewhat changed in the "new order of mass." It is no longer emphasizing the Sacrifice which is supposedly about to follow, it doesn’t even mention the "Altar of God." The whole emphasis is on the people. As the "New Order" of greeting states:

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Another interesting point is the fact that, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest/president no longer wants to be separated from the unjust man/nation.  It would seem that the priest/president of the Novus Ordo Missae no longer has any need/desire to be separated from unjust and sinful men/nations - and it would likewise seem that such an absurd thing is not necessary, or even desired, in the Novus Ordo Missae.  

To cite both versions of the "Confiteor" (with rubrics):

Either way is fine as I see it although the Pauline Rite variation cuts down on unnecessary repetition (one Confiteor vs. two being said) while not removing the plea for intercession on the part of the Blessed Virgin and the saints on our behalf before the Lord. On this aspect, I prefer the Pauline Rite version to the Tridentine one. Neither method is any less "valid" than the other.

The validity of the Mass obviously would not be brought into question, based upon the elimination of the Confiteor - the issue of the validity will come up presently.  Though, as it is, Shawn's statement about two confiteors being "unnecessary" shows a lack of understanding of the Traditional Mass. Look at who’s saying the two confiteors... one is said by the Priest, and the other is said by the Altar Boys, who represent the people. It is an important distinction that is being made here between just who is offering the Mass. The Novus Ordo does not only blur this distinction, but it also eliminates the absolution that followed the second Confiteor in the Traditional Mass, and only has a plea for forgiveness. But as far as the two confiteors is concerned, who is Shawn to say that they are unimportant and unnecessary? Who is Shawn to declare that something which has been in the Mass for hundreds of years is unnecessary and unimportant? How dare he show such little regard for this prayer, which has been said for centuries by Popes, Saints, Bishops and Priests? The antiquity of prayers is obviously of little concern for Shawn, as is obviously the wording of such prayers, or the emphasis of them.

Insofar as the Confiteors are concerned, permit me to cite Father Wathen's book The Great Sacrilege:

Now, instead of first the priest, then the people making their confession of sinfulness to God, the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the great St. Michael, the Apostles, and all the other saints in Heaven, the emphasis has deftly shifted. And I assure you this was not done merely for the sake of efficiency. If you know anything about the "theology" of the "New Religion," you perceive how the true nature of sin has been subtly recast. (As I said before, reflect how your children understand these things. Or, what would be better, quiz them a bit.) The brevity serves to diminish the importance of the idea of sin altogether. But it is the repetition of the phrase, "you, my brothers and sisters," which must be noted. For, in the "New Religion" the evil of sin abides in its offensiveness to one’s fellow man. And, to finish the thought, if an act does not hurt him, it is not sinful at all; if it helps him, it is virtue.

As Dr. Coomaraswamy stated in his book "The Problems with the New Mass,:

"After the "priest-president" greets the parishioners, one starts out with a truncated confession. Post-Conciliar Catholics are denied the absolution formula that follows the Traditional Confiteor – the Indulgentiam..., which is capable of giving absolution for those venial sins that even the best of us fall prey to. (Considering the August nature of the true Mass, it is only appropriate that the laity should not only be in the state of grace, i.e., have no mortal sins on their souls, they should also be absolved of their venial sins as well.)."

Next is the Introit, the Kyrie, and the Gloria.

In the first place, the citation given above after the first sentence in the Novus Ordo version of the "Gloria" (Luke 2:14), is a mis-citation. The verse, according to the Douay-Rheims Version, states:

Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

While the Novus Ordo simply has "peace to his people on earth," regardless of their intention or will. In this case, the Traditional Mass is more Scriptural than the Novus Ordo. In the second place, concerning the same words, the Latin Version of the Novus Ordo Missae gives the first words as:

Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. (1)  

The above phrase matches that found in the Gloria of the Traditional Mass, which is translated as follows:

Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace to men of good will.

This matches what Luke 2:14 states, and does not match the mis-translation of the English Version of the Novus Ordo. Shawn is here giving us an inaccurate translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, and Sacred Scripture.  As it is, though, mistranslations are nothing new in the Novus Ordo, after all, ".... in the English version of the New Order of the Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin." (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 79).  As Father Anthony Cekada pointed out:

.... The fraud is not confined to the translations of the new Eucharistic Prayers and the other more or less fixed new parts of the New Mass you hear in English every Sunday. I recently came across a Latin-English Missal produced by a "conservative" organization which promotes celebrating the New Mass in Latin. I compared the 34 sets of Orations for the Sundays in Ordinary Time (Dominicae per Annum) in Pope Paul VI’s Missal to their English translations.

The American liturgical mafia completed the process of de-Catholicizing which Rome began [i.e., first stage in Latin, second in the vernacular]. Phrases and expressions in the "translated" Orations [i.e., the collects, secrets, etc.] which allude to "negative" ideas are suppressed; [such as] pleasing God or appeasing His wrath, Christ’s Passion, our need for worthiness, our wickedness, [our] error, the weakness of human nature, sins which "burden the conscience," and putting aside our own inclinations, as [also] are expressions referring to the human will and our minds and bodies.

The translators also downplayed or omitted ideas non-Catholics consider "offensive." Heretics will be pleased to note that the translations do not speak of the faithful or of the offering of Christ as the victim at Mass, and Jews and Moslems will be delighted to note that phrases referring to the perfection of the sacrifices of the Old Testament in that of the New, and the redemption for "those who believe in Christ" have been excised. And Martin Luther himself would have had no problems reciting those prayers in which the translators have suppressed the notion of performing good works.

But the greatest outrage that the translators perpetrated was consistently leaving out the word "grace" from their translations. It appears in the Latin original of the Orations 11 times, but not once in the official English version. Thus, the word which is fundamental to Catholic teaching on the Fall of man, the Redemption, sin, justification and the entire sacramental system has utterly disappeared without a trace.... (October 25, 1986, as cited in The Problems with the New Mass, p. 80)

This is one of the reasons why the Church, down through the ages, has avoided using the vernacular languages in the Mass of the Latin Rite exclusively, for it opens up the Mass to mis-translations and errors, whether on purpose or by mistake - neither one is acceptable, and both of them do not do much credit for the Bishops, and Priests, who make use of this mis-translation of the Novus Ordo, and have refused to correct it.

While an argument could be made that the elimination of the Introit Prayer preceding the Gloria was not a good idea, it can also be argued that the Entrance Antiphon in essence takes the place of the Introit albeit being recited earlier in the Mass than the Introit was. The Pauline Rite Kyrie and Gloria cut down on some repetition while maintaining the substance of both prayers intact. Not that repetition is bad per se but it can lend itself to a mechanical "going through the motions" tendency and be an unintended source of distraction for those who have shorter attention spans.

As it is, this is the same reason used by protestants against the Rosary, and other Catholic practices. And is also the reason used by protestants for not having a set form of service, for many protestants also consider the Novus Ordo to be nothing but repetition. The reason that there are three invocations for the mercy of God the Father, three invocations of God the Son, and three invocations of God the Holy Ghost, is simply because, in this case, the number three represents the Most Holy Trinity.

If the formulators of the Novus Ordo Missae really wanted to cut down on repetition, they could have just had three invocations for mercy. Or possibly even just one, "God have mercy." This would have cut down repetition, and given the Priest more time for whatever else he has to do - such as playing golf.

Brevity in spots for the sake of maintaining focus on the object (worshipping God) cannot be said to be a bad (or "invalid")

As it is, taking shortcuts with prayers can indeed be "said to be bad," the elimination of prayers and shortening of prayers which give Honor and Glory to God, can indeed be considered non-productive and wrong. As it is, though, we do not consider the "updated" version of the Kyrie to be the reason for the invalidity of the Mass, there are far bigger problems with the Novus Ordo Missae, such as mis-translations - as we have already pointed out further up - and others of even greater importance - such as heresy. Although we do admit that the elimination of these prayers, and the shortening of these prayers, is indeed a bad step in the wrong direction.

feature anymore than repetition of a prayer is necessarily "vain" or an exercise in Pharisaical "external" emphasis with a lack of proper internal intention. Claiming that either method is "wrong" is demonstrating an arbitrary exercise in personal private judgment.

This is an interesting statement coming from Shawn, especially since the point where we began this examination of the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass all we have heard is his private preferences/judgments. I find it hypocritical that he should base all his arguments, so far, in this section, upon private preference/judgment, and then attack Traditional Catholics for supposedly making use of "private judgment."  The verse in Mark 7:6 comes to mind.  

Preference is one thing but the claim that something is "wrong" simply because one has a preference for something different (if no inherent omissions can be shown) is an exercise in judgmentalism and is not an argument (favouring either position) with any substance whatsoever.

It's not a matter of preference, as we have sufficiently shown above, and will go further into it below.  As it is, it is a matter of obligation.  One cannot attend/say a "mass" which is 1) heretical, 2) ambiguous, 3) protestantized, 4) sacrilegious, and 5) displeasing to God - all of which points have been proven over and over again by various Traditional Catholic authors.  In fact, it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to knowingly attend such a service - the same as it would be a mortal sin to attend a black mass.  The point of the matter is that we are not questioning the Novus Ordo because it has a shorter Kyrie, or cuts down quite a few beautiful prayers which are certainly a whole lot clearer than their versions.  It's not because we prefer the longer Kyrie, or the more beautiful prayers, it's because we realize that if we attend the Novus Ordo, we would be grievously offending God, and compromising the Faith by attending this ecumenically oriented meal service.

We shall now move on to the Prayer/Collect, Epistle and Gospel

In essence the Pauline "Opening Prayer" and the Tridentine "Prayer" are synonymous and how can anyone possibly claim otherwise??? There is perhaps a bit more outward reverence in the Tridentine approach but this may be deceiving because of the Latin language which has a certain quality to it that the English language does not have.

As it is, outward reverence is the best that can be expected with regards to regulations, laws, and rubrics. Inward reverence depends upon the Priest offer the Mass. While the rubrics in the Traditional Mass are specially tuned to making the Mass as reverent as possible, the rubrics in the Novus Ordo Missae tend to lead into "irreverence" more often then not. As Father Wathen stated:

Having hands, the priest must do something with them. Now that he is not directed to do anything with them, the "ceremony" and those who must watch him are at the mercy of his mannerisms, his inspirations, his indiscipline, his disinterest, his imagination, or whatever. Whereas, in the True Mass, with his hands, the priest adds, as it were, another dimension to the utterance of the prayer. The rubrics of the Missale Romanum require that the celebrant avoid touching anything except the Sacred Host with "canonical fingers"  (The Great Sacrilege)

As far as the readings, there have been numerous excisions and changes for the sake of ecumenism, and readings which contained "negative theology," were largely changed or eliminated - and many of the readings referring to such concepts as detachment from the world, prayers for the departed, the merits of the saints, and miracles, have likewise been changed/eliminated.  For example, in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo, there are 114 possible funeral orations (prayers). The Latin word anima, "soul," only occurs in two of them, and these are not only "optional," but when translated into the English, this "offensive" word has been eliminated (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 81).  Ecumenism has also played a big part in the elimination/changing of the prayers in the Novus Ordo, take, for example, the Collect for the Propagation of the Faith (now known as the Collect for the Evangelization of Peoples):

O God, who wouldst have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth:

As Father Anthony Cekada points out concerning these passages:

The goal of the missionary's apostolate has been changed; In the old collect, it was to bring nations to know the only and true God and Jesus Christ - the phrase is a quote from Our Lord's discourse in John 17; in the new collect, it appears to be merely "preaching the Gospel."  The means have been turned into an end. (The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass, p. 23)

For those who are interested in learning more about these, and some of the other changes which have been made to the readings, we recommend that they purchase the book The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass, which is available from TAN Books and Publishers for a very small fee.  This booklet is very heavily documented, with over 155 footnotes, and nearly 500 citations from the texts of the Old and New Missals.  

Above is yet another example of a mis-translation. The Latin Version of the Novus Ordo Missae has "Credo" at the beginning of the Creed, which is not "we believe," but "I believe" - in the singular - with the emphasis on a personal profession of Faith. Whereas, the Novus Ordo mis-translation has it in the plural, making it less personal, and more community oriented, at the expense of an accurate translation. The same error appears also in the second sentence, where the words - as translated from the Latin by ICEL - appear as follows: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ..." The Latin does not have "We believe...." but is the same as in the Traditional Mass, which has it "And in one Lord Jesus Christ..." Yet again, in order to make the Novus Ordo more community oriented, they compromised the accuracy of the translation.

Furthermore, the words "Through him all things were made," have been changed from the Latin version. The Latin, yet again, has it the same as in the Traditional Mass "per quem omnia facta sunt," which is translated "by Whom all things were made." Yet again, the accuracy of the translation was compromised.

Yet another mistranslation from the Latin can be found in the words "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary..." These words, as given in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae, are the same as in the Traditional Mass, which has it as follows: "and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary..." Yet again we see the Translators of the Novus Ordo Missae adding and subtracting words. 

The new Credo also eliminates the term "consubstantial," which, as Coomaraswamy pointed out (The Problems with the New Mass, p.32), 

... is of hallowed use since the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), where it was used to distinguish Catholic doctrine from the Arian heresy. The heresiarch Arius, like many liberal Protestants, denied the divinity of Christ, and hence the term "consubstantial" has anti-ecumenical connotations. Pope St. Damasus (366-384) anathematized all who refused to use the term "consubstantial." The post-Conciliar translators justified this error on the grounds that "the son is not made but begotten, he shares the same kind of being as the Father." This is, to say the least, semi-Arianism. Michael Davie discusses this issue in PPNM [Pope Paul's New Mass]., pp. 619-621.

Without even going into the remainder of the Creed, it’s quite obvious that the translators made a hatchet job out of it. This is evidence in favor of the use of Latin exclusively in the Mass, it takes care of the translation problem.  

The Tridentine Creed has the genuflection whereas the Pauline Rite Creed replaces it with an optional reverent bow (arguments about the latter or former being more "proper" are purely subjective).

As Father Michael Mueller says concerning this point in the Creed:

At the words "Et incarnatus est," "and He [the Son of God] was made man," all kneel down to venerate the mysteries of the Incarnation, and to adore God made man, "who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men... for which cause God also hath exalted him and hath given him a name which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, or under the earth." (Phil. 2:6, 7, 9, 10).

By kneeling down in adoring gratitude to the Son of God for having become man for us and rising up again, we endeavor to express that our hopes of a joyful resurrection and of the happiness of eternal life are founded solely on the merits of Jesus crucified. (2)

As it is, the Novus Ordo Missae makes optional the "adoring gratitude to the Son of God for having become man for us and rising up again" that was given in the Traditional Mass. It also makes optional the expression of our hopes of "a joyful resurrection and of the happiness of eternal life" and blurs the fact that these hopes "are founded solely on the merits of Jesus crucified." Basically, the Novus Ordo Missae makes it optional for the person to "venerate the mysteries of the Incarnation, and to adore God made man." If one just so happens to feel like venerating God on some Sunday morning, God can make do with an optional head bow - He really doesn’t deserve anything more in the Novus Ordo Missae. 

The Tridentine Rite has just the priest saying the Nicene Creed while the Pauline Rite version of the Credo is verbally smoother and is said by both the priest and the people simultaneously.

In the Traditional Rite the Nicene Creed is also said by both the people and the Priest simultaneously, except that the Priest is the one who recites it verbally - we follow along in our missals. Secondly, in order to make the "Pauline Rite version" "verbally smoother," accuracy as far as translations go suffered dearly. Not a fair trade by any standard.

I do think this is a good idea because it gets the people more involved in the liturgy. One thing I prefer with the Tridentine High Masses to the Low Masses is that the choir (and by extension the faithful) can sing the responses whereas in the normal Low Mass it is just the priest and the servers. This aspect of the Pauline Rite Mass is a good addition as I see it.

Here we see Shawn expressing his personal agreement with the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae is more communal oriented than the Traditional Mass. It places much more emphasis on the people, and raises them to a level far beyond that of the Traditional Mass - while, at the same time, decreasing the amount of honor and respect shown to God by the introduction of such things as an "optional head bow," and "optional adoration of God," and so forth.  

Summary Thus Far:

Thus far, the Tridentine and the Pauline Rite retain much of the same form and features while the Tridentine has more repetition and in spots possibly more reverence (at least externally).

The same form and features?  Where are the prayers at the foot of the Altar?  They've been replaced with several optional greetings.  The emphasis in the first section of the Novus Ordo is easily seen from the very title of this section - "Liturgy of the Word."  In addition to this is the fact that the Traditional Mass had a one year cycle of readings, while the New Mass has a three year cycle - with plenty of options available to the priest/president.

The Pauline Rite is a sleeker liturgy thus far and while in some spots this is arguably better (Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Nicene Creed),

As it is, we have already seen that the "Pauline Rite" has certainly made changes in the above areas - but just as certainly not for the better. We have individually examined the Confiteor, the Gloria, the Kyrie, and the Nicene Creed, and we have seen, in all four cases, the Novus Ordo Missae coming up wanting, and insufficient.

in other areas it is arguably not so good (i.e. Removal of Psalm 42 at the intro, more signs of the cross and genuflections). To some this could signify greater reverence but to others it could signify a Pharisaical "going through the motions" type of redundancy. In my opinion the Tridentine Rite could do away with some of the crosses, genuflections, and bows while the Pauline Rite could add a few more of each.

In the first place, we see above Shawn suggesting that certain acts of reverence towards God, and towards the Saints, and so forth, should be excluded and "done away with." In other words, Shawn wishes to decrease the amount of reverence shown towards God in the liturgy.

In the second place, we see him suggesting that the Novus Ordo needs more crosses, genuflections, and bows. While this is certainly true, it would be very interesting here to take note of the signs of respect and reverence shown towards God were eliminated in the Novus Ordo - which even Shawn admits is lacking in this area. To cite The Great Sacrilege:

Also banned, by my reckoning, are twenty-five Signs of the Cross, twelve genuflections, and many lesser acts of reverence 1) to the tabernacle (which is often gone also), 2) to the crucifix (likewise), 3) to the Sacred Species, and 4)at the pronunciation of the Names of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints. These acts of reverence include bows of the head, elevation of the eyes, kisses of the altar stone and its relics, turnings toward the tabernacle and the crucifix, and the subdued tone of the voice. Abrogated also is the "ritual of the hands" whereby the celebrant by various positionings and gestures signifies the thought of the prayers he is reciting. It would be possible to write an essay on the consequences of such a suppression as this alone.

But then again, I am not in charge of the liturgy and that is a good thing since I am sure there would be people from both camps unhappy with doing the Liturgy Shawn-style.

It certainly is a good thing that Shawn wasn't placed in charge of the liturgy, we are in agreement with Shawn on this point.  But, as it is, let us include a citation from Dr. Coomaraswamy's book "The Problems with the New Mass," (p. 23-25) on the authors of both the Traditional Mass, and the Novus Ordo:

We know that ultimately the Holy Ghost is the author of the Traditional Mass, "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven," as Fr. Frederick Faber called it. According to the Council of Trent, the central part of the Mass, called the Canon, was "composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs." The core of the Canon dates back to at least the middle of the fourth century. Before that time, historical records are sparse, for the Church was under persecution. (The last of the 10 great Roman persecutions ended in 304). However, as the Anglican historian Sir William Palmer states, "There are good reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic Age." The Canon was considered so sacred that early sacramentaries wrote it in gold ink, and mediaeval theologians referred to it as the "Holy of Holies." No wonder that Father Louis Bouyer once said, "To jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the part of the Roman Church to represent the true Catholic Church." As for the prayers and ceremonies surrounding the Canon, these are all drawn from Scripture and/or Tradition.

When we come to the Novus Ordo Missae, we also know its authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by a committee called the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as Conciliar periti ("experts") during Vatican Council II. At its head was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, whose Freemasonic connections are virtually beyond dispute. The Concilium was helped by six Protestant "observers," whom Paul VI publicly thanked for their assistance in "re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts... so that the lex orandi [the law of prayer], conformed better with the lex credendi [the law of belief]." As previously noted, we are forced to assume that either the lex orandi ("law of prayer") prior to this time did not conform very well to the lex credendi ("law of belief") – or else that the lex credendi was changed. And since when did the Church need the assistance of Protestants, heretics – men who by definition reject her teaching – to assist her in formulating her rites? Considering the background of those responsible for the creation of the New Mass and considering its marked divergence in theme and representation from the Traditional Mass (as we shall see more fully below), despite the New Mass’s bland use of Scriptural phrases, one can seriously question whether the Holy Ghost had anything whatever to do with its creation.

Shawn continues.

The main beef of the self-styled "traditionalists" is that they claim that the Mass of the Pauline Rite is "not a sacrifice but instead is a Protestantized meal service." Whether this is true or not will be looked at in the next section in a continued "macro" format and in the section following it in a more "micro" format.

In the first place, it would be a good idea to point out several things before we go further in our refutation.  In the first place, just because the word "sacrifice" is to be found in the Novus Ordo Missae doesn't necessarily mean that what is being offered is a sacrifice of propitiation and of impetration.  As Dr. Coomaraswamy points out in his book The Problems with the Novus Ordo (p. 7),

Because of the infinite magnitude of this immolative Sacrifice of the Mass, Catholic doctrine holds that the Mass is also and at the same time a sacrifice of praise, of thanksgiving, of propitiation (atonement, expiation, conciliation), and of impetration (petition).

The Mass is a sacrifice of praise and adoration because

The celebration of the eucharistic Sacrifice contains an infinitely perfect adoration of God, for it is the Sacrifice which Christ Himself offers to His heavenly Father. Nor is it possible for man to create a rite that is a great Sacrifice of praise and adoration, for it is Christ Himself and the Holy Ghost, acting through the Apostles, who is the Author of the Mass. 14

At the same time and in the same way, the Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. "Inasmuch as in the Holy Mass we adore, praise and magnify God through and with Christ, we fulfill in a perfect manner the first duty, which as creatures we owe to the Creator – the duty of gratitude." 14

Protestants are perfectly willing to grant that a worship service be described as a "sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving." But this is where they stop. To claim that the Mass is more than this is to them a blasphemy. The Church however insists that the true Mass is much more.

As it is, the "Eucharistic Prayers" of the Novus Ordo constantly make use of the phrase "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, without referring to the other aspects of the sacrifice.  Hence the reason why it is that protestants can make use of the Novus Ordo Missae - even though it does contain the word "sacrifice," as we have seen above, there are many different "types" of sacrifice, some of which Protestants will accept very readily. 

Regarding claims that the Canon of the Pauline Rite diminishes the sacrificial nature of the Mass and that it is solely a meal - claims made by the SSPX (and other self-styled "traditionalists") - we shall see in this section if these claims have any merits at all, or if they are more unsubstantiated "traditionalist" canards.

As it is, there is no such thing as the "Canon of the Pauline Rite." What the Novus Ordo Missae has are four Eucharistic Prayers, and it is entirely up to the Priest as to which one he will use. Hence, some priests may use Eucharistic Prayer Form Number One, while others may use Eucharistic Prayer Forms Numbers Two, Three, or Four. By showing that there might be some references to a "sacrifice" in some of the Eucharistic Prayers, Shawn imagines that he has proven that the Novus Ordo is referring to the sacrifice of Calvary - while the Eucharistic Prayers themselves constantly state 1) that it is a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," (i.e. not one of propitiation and impetration), 2) a "sacrifice of bread and wine," the fruit of the vine, and work of human hands.  The point is, the "Eucharistic Prayers" are very ambiguous about 1) the type of sacrifice and 2) what is being sacrificed.

The Mass continues with the Offertory, the Lavabo and the Secret.

A good argument could be made here that the Pauline Rite may have simplified this portion of the Mass too much but that view is irrelevant in examining the Mass differences in terms of looking for characteristics that render the Mass’ licitness as questionable (or even changes that could be termed "invalidating", "illicit", "doubtfully valid", or "sacrilegeously valid").

As it is, the above prayers do not establish the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, this is true.  But, as it is, the above prayers do establish several other things, as we shall show.  

The Ottaviani Intervention charges that the offering of the host and the offering of the chalice in the Novus Ordo Missae "alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into 'the spiritual drink.' ... The expressions 'bread of life' and 'spiritual drink,' of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass [in the General Instruction], Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here bread and wine are only spiritually — and not substantially — changed" (3) 

Michael Davies points out in his book Pope Paul’s New Mass the fact that "Obviously, panis vitae and potus spiritualis could be interpreted in an orthodox sense, as can all the prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae. The difference between the old and new Offertory rites is that the former could only be interpreted in an unequivocally Catholic sense and the new is not simply open to a Protestant interpretation but such an interpretation seems by far the more reasonable." (4)

These two prayers are thoroughly ambiguous, as the Ottaviani Intervention and Michael Davies pointed out. They can be interpreted in an orthodox sense, but are also open to a protestant interpretation. Two completely separate interpretations can be applied to these two prayers. Hence, these cannot be used to prove the sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo, for they have proven nothing - it’s all a matter of how you feel like understanding them today.

The new version of the Lavabo does not clearly designate the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as the old one did. It merely makes some obscure reference to some washing away of sin and cleansing from iniquity. This certainly doesn’t state - as the Traditional one did - that what is being offered up is Christ.

The Orate fratres almost didn’t make it into the Novus Ordo Missae, as the theologians in charge of the overhaul had been, for the most part, in favor of its suppression. Though, as it is, it’s references to "sacrifice" does not necessarily imply that Christ is the One being sacrificed. As Michael Davies in the aforementioned book (Pope Paul’s New Mass) very accurately pointed out "in an Offertory rite which contains no reference to the Divine Victim, even the Orate fratres can be interpreted as referring to the self-offering of the congregation, symbolized by the bread and wine. As the Protestant theologian Dr. D. F. Wells has noted, the Mass can now be seen as the occasion when the congregation offer themselves rather than Christ: ‘The old teaching is not denied; it has merely been pushed into the background.’ The new Offertory rite certainly goes a long way towards proving this point."

Furthermore, it will probably be of interest to the reader for us to point the fact that of the twelve Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two have been kept in the Novus Ordo Missae - and the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated (Cf. Michael Davies’ Liturgical Revolution – Cranmer’s Godly Order (Devon, England: Augustine, 1976).  As Coomaraswamy stated in his book The Problems with the New Mass, "And why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, they 'smacked of Sacrifice... the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation.'..... The General Instruction speaks instead of the 'Preparation of the Gifts.' And within this part of the New Rite there is not so much as a word which even hints that it is the Divine Victim which is offered. The bread and wine – 'the work of human hands' – is all that is offered. Michael Davies points out that this concept is fully compatible with the Teilhardian theory that human effort, the work of human hands, becomes in a certain way, the matter of the Sacrament.  (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 340) And further, except for the prayer of the washing of the hands, all the petitions are in the first person plural – 'we' – which is consistent with the false concept enveloped in various parts of the New Mass that it is not the priest-president who offers up the Mass by his own special sacerdotal power, but rather it is the 'assembly' or 'the people of God' who do so." (p. 34 emphasis ours).  

Nothing in the changes made to the Mass in the Revised Missal is structurally altered at all. Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with "tradition" but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity (due to the bread used getting on the fingers of the priest). Eventually it became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to wash fingers was no longer there. The "Secret" is synonymous with the "Prayer Over the Gifts."

If Shawn knew anything about matter, he would know that the need for the washing of the fingers still exists. For example, if one were to brush one’s finger over a table-top, particles of the table will stick to one’s fingers, and vice versa.   Hence, it is an attempt to keep the Host - which will soon become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ - from contact with the profane.  The lack of any such attempt in the Novus Ordo Missae is certainly telling.  As Michael Davies' booklet "A Short History of the Roman Mass" states:

The Lavabo or washing of hands is an evident example. In all rites the celebrant washes his hands before handling the offerings, an obvious precaution and sign of respect. St. Thomas Aquinas remarked: "We are not accustomed to handle any precious things save with clean hands; so it seems indecent that one should approach so great a sacrament with hands soiled." The washing of the hands almost inevitably came to be understood as a symbol of cleansing the soul, as is the case with all ritual washing in any religion. There were originally no particular prayers mandated for the washing of hands, but it was natural that the priests should say prayers for purity at that moment, and that eventually such prayers should find their way into the liturgical books. What prayer could be more appropriate than Psalm 25, Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas? All ritual grew naturally out of these purely practical actions, just as vestments evolved out of ordinary dress. The only really ritual actions we find in the first two centuries are certain postures, kneeling or standing for prayer, and such ceremonies as the kiss of peace, all of which were inherited from the Jews.

As Dr. Coomaraswamy pointed out:

As for the priest-president, he no longer says the Lavabo inter innocentes... ("I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will encompass Thine altar, O Lord") at the Offertory time. Instead, he now recite a single verse from Psalm 50, in which no altar is mentioned and in which he simply asks for God to forgive his sins.

And the "meal" imagery is carried further. The sacred vessels are no longer handled only by those in Holy Orders, or at least only by specially designated sacristans; but now they are handled by laymen, often chosen from the congregation at random. Nor are the vessels any longer necessarily made of precious metals (gold and silver) and covered with a veil, symbolic of their mysterious and sacred character. At the end of the present "meal-type" service, the "cup" need not be purified at once; its purification can be deferred to a later time. In some places (in accord with "optional" rubrics), it is handed, unpurified, to a layman, who places it off on a side table. Signs of the Cross are reduced to only 3, compared to the 33 in the Traditional Mass (and 48 blessings with the Sign of the Cross, all told), but by now, one should hardly be surprised.  (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 60)

Furthermore, the elimination of the prayers at the foot of the Altar is most certainly a structural change, as are the addition of four optional "Eucharistic Prayers" to the Liturgy - not to mention the elimination of ten, out of twelve prayers, in the Offertory.  To claim that the Novus Ordo Missae is "structurally the same" as the Traditional Mass, is very much like saying that the Anglican communion service is "structurally the same" as the Traditional Mass.  

The Mass continues with the preface.

There is no real difference between the two sections and again the structure and basic content is the same. The Pauline Rite version is slimmer but is lacking no noticeable differences from the Tridentine Rite and certainly nothing that would at all render it defective or illicit, etc.

Unfortunately, I think that a difference of 60 different preface prayers is a noticeable difference. And can even make an extremely noticeable difference from one Novus Ordo Mass to another. Look at the one which Shawn uses.

Priest: Father all powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Out of love for sinful man, he humbled himself to be born of the Virgin. By suffering on the cross he freed us from unending death, and by rising from the dead he gave us eternal life. And so with the choirs of angels in heaven we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise:

Compare this to the following fully accepted "preface":

P: Father, all-powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord. Through his cross and resurrection, he freed us from sin and death and called us to the glory that has made us a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart. Everywhere we proclaim your mighty works for you have called us out of darkness into your own wonderful light. And so, with all the choirs of angels in heaven, we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise:

The emphasis in the second preface is put upon man, and how wonderful we are. Yes, Christ died upon the Cross, he freed us from sin and death, but we’re in a great position! We’re a chosen race! A royal priesthood! A holy nation! A people set apart! "We are, we are, we are," in a prayer supposedly directed towards God. We see that maybe in the preface Shawn chose (one out of 60) there may not be any structural difference, or differences in emphasis - though the expurgations are very telling - but we see clearly that there is a major difference between that one Preface, and the others which are permitted in the Novus Ordo. Depending upon the day, the preface might be centered upon God. Or it might be centered upon our fellow man, and how wonderful we are.

As it is, let us also examine one of the other prefaces that was included in the Novus Ordo Missae (until recently, when the preface was modified - February 24, 1985):

Eucharistic Prayer 4, composed by innovator Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini, presents yet another interesting aspect of the "Liturgical Revolution." The Latin itself is innocuous, but the official (and Rome-approved) translation used in the United States was clearly open to an heretical interpretation. Compare the following passages, one from the Preface to Eucharistic 4, and the other from the Preface of the Traditional Mass of the Holy Trinity:

 

NEW MASS Father in Heaven, it is right that we should give You thanks and glory, You alone are God, living and true....

TRADITIONAL MASS It is truly meet and just, profitable unto salvation, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father Almighty, everlasting God, who with Thine only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost are One God, One Lord, not in the oneness of a single person, but in the trinity of one substance.

Faced with the fact that the entire teaching of the Church is contained in the liturgy, this is a most instructive piece of skulduggery. In the Latin version of the New Mass the words unus Deus ("one God") are to be found, and no explicit heresy is taught. However, even in the Latin, apart from the Creed, there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity. When we come to the vernacular version of Eucharistic Prayer 4, the mistranslation of unus Deus by "You alone are God" clearly departs from the traditional norm. In the absence of any other reference in this prayer to the Son or the Holy Ghost, the use of the word "alone" appears to be an explicit denial of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity – but definitely an implicit denial, at the very least. It is for this reason that some have referred to this Eucharistic Prayer as the "Arian Canon." (The heretic Arius denied the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.) Here we have yet another example of "a return to primitive practice!" Because of repeated complaints, this mistranslation has been recently corrected. That an explicit heretical formula could have been used for 18 years in the post-Conciliar Church speaks volumes about the liturgical innovators’ contempt for the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church.  (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 42-43)

There is a greater variety of Preface prayers which I believe is a good thing because it keep the liturgy more "vibrant" to some extent which is a necessary quality much as the diversity of Eucharistic Prayers (which we will get to shortly) accomplishes the same purpose.

Catholics do not attend Mass in order to be entertained. We attend Mass to worship God, hence whether or not it is "exciting" or "entertaining" (as one of the definitions for the word "vibrant" states) should not be one of our considerations. We’re not Pentecostals. Our Mass is not built upon emotion, or upon personal feelings. Our Mass is built solely on the worship of God, and not on how it makes us feel to be there. Granted, as Catholics, that does not mean that we shouldn’t enjoy worshiping God - but our primary end should be the worship of God, not the enjoyment of personal experiences which might take place while trying to worship God. As stated above, we do not go to Mass to be entertained, we go there to worship God. Hence, whether or not the Divine Liturgy is "vibrant" or not is irrelevant and is not, as stated above, a consideration.

As the well-known Catholic Apologist (and convert from protestantism) Gerry Matatics pointed out:

I go to the Old Mass: Because it's more "boring" than the New Mass. I mean that seriously, because I'm a sinner and I know I don't deserve to be "entertained" when I go to worship God in that Holy Hour of the Mass. The New Mass is a lot more "entertaining," a lot more "fun." It's a lot of face to face, up and down, and more like a combination of a talk show, an exercise program, and a home-shopping program all rolled into one. If there were no theological or spiritual considerations, just looking at things from a human point of view, I would prefer to be entertained. I would prefer to recieve something in a manner that is easier to understand, less transcendent, less majestic, that isn't so humbling, so humiliating. It's humiliating to go to the Old Mass. For many of you, it is a sacrifice of great time, depending on how far you have to travel. It is a sacrifice, perhaps, of intellect if you don't understand everything in the way that you understand a Mass that is said completely in your own language, where everything is explained for you by a commentator who leaves nothing to chance or to your intelligence. In every way it is easier to go to the New Mass."(When and Why I returned to the Old Mass )

Shawn then continues to provide the Canon of the Traditional Mass, and attempts to compare it to "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number 2" which immediately follows it.   

As a side note, I would like to point out the change in structure here. In the Traditional Mass, there was only one set Canon. In the Novus Ordo, the Priest has the option of choosing one out of four completely different "canons." Which, indeed, changes the structure, and destroys unity.

In the second place, in "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two" 70% of the Canon has been deleted and changed. As Father Wathen stated in his book "The Great Sacrilege":

Counting conservatively and conceding for the sake of the argument that "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is the "Roman Canon," when it is replaced by one of the other "Eucharistic Prayers," a grand total of thirty-five prayers, or seventy per cent, are thereby discarded from the Ordinary of the Traditional Mass. Seven-tenths of the prayers of the Mass are gone! Nor is this to mention the many brief versicles and responses with which the True Mass abounds – summarily dropped in the "New Mass." (5)

To further cite Father Wathen further states:

Can you believe it? Some thirty-five prayers, all of which have been repeated tirelessly and lovingly by countless priests, great and ordinary, throughout the whole world, for well over a thousand years – whose origins, indeed, even the sophisticated science of this century has not discovered – whose exquisiteness of expression inspired the world’s greatest artists, Catholic and Non-Catholic, and whose mystical profundity were the meditations of the saints, and whose doctrinal phrasing served to catechize the faithful as well as to perfect their praise – these and the countless reverences, symbols, and gestures which accompanied and interpreted them are about to be stricken from a ceremony which ordinarily lasts hardly more than thirty minutes. (6)

This is the Canon of the Mass that the Church has guarded and left untouched for over a thousand years. This is the Canon that has been revered and respected by Catholics for centuries. This is the Canon that Dr. Nicholas Gihr said the following of:

"The Canon is, through its origin, antiquity and use, venerable and inviolable and sacred. If ever a prayer of the Church came into existence under the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it is assuredly the prayer of the Canon." (7)

Michael Davies said the following concerning the Canon of the Mass:

"There is not the least doubt that, apart from the Gospels, the Roman Canon is the most precious treasure in the heritage of the Latin Church. When considering the Roman Canon every Catholic who is imbued with a true sensus supernaturalis will share the sentiments of Cardinal Wiseman: ‘Here we must pause; because the subject becomes too sacred for our pen; the ground upon which we are about to tread is holy, and the shoes must be loosed from the feet of him who will venture upon it.’" (8)

Hence, we see that the Novus Ordoite Reformers have sacrificed "the most precious treasure in the heritage of the Latin Church," apart from the Gospels. While the subject may have been too sacred for the pen of Cardinal Wiseman, while the ground upon which he tread was holy, even to the point where the shoes must be taken off the feet of him who will venture thereon, it was obviously quite the contrary to the Novus Ordoite Reformers. Father Louis Bouyer had the following to say:

"The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can boast of such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church." (9)

And yet the Roman Canon has been thrown overboard, and changed, and it’s antiquity did not matter in the eyes of those who have brought about this liturgical revolution. And these horrid changes are openly accepted and praised by those such as Shawn - who believes the Mass must be more "entertaining" -, and Roger Mehl, a protestant theologian, who said the following concerning the Novus Ordo:

If one takes into account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving Communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches’ forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. (10)

Even the thought of a Protestant accepting our Mass, and considering it no longer a threat to either his religion or his beliefs, should be enough to scare any Catholic - better yet, to horrify any Catholic - into realizing the atrocity that was committed by the "Reformers." Shawn certainly keeps interesting company. The Council of Trent infallibly declared that:

".... the Canon, so free of every error [Canon 6] that it contains nothing which is not redolent of greatest holiness and piety and which does not lift the minds of its offerers to God. For it is made up both of the words of the Lord Himself, and of the traditions of the Apostles, as well as the pious institutions of saintly Pontiffs." (11)

And yet Shawn didn’t feel that it was "vibrant enough." And the "Reformers," obviously thought the same thing - hence, the "Words of the Lord Himself," "the traditions of the apostles," and "the pious institutions of saint Pontiffs," which are contained in the Canon which is "so free of every error that it contains nothing which is not redolent of greatest holiness and piety and which does not lift the minds of its offerers to God," must be discarded in whole or in part, in order to preserve the "vibrantness" of the Mass.

The following is a very good example of the reverence with which the Holy Canon of the Mass was held in the Church during the 1800's:

"So careful is the Church to prevent innovations from entering into this part of the Mass (the Canon) that she forbids any one to meddle with it under pain of incurring her most sever censures. She will not even permit a correction to be made to it for fear of destroying its antiquity. We shall mention a few cases in point. It is a well-known fact that the Canon terminates at the ‘Pater Noster’; yet we find the word Canon printed in every missal form the first prayer, or ‘Te igitur,’ to the end of the Gospel of St. John. This is evidently a printer’s blunder; but because it is of a very ancient date the Church has allowed it to stand, and printers to the Holy See are strictly forbidden to change it in printing new missals. A still more striking instance is the following: As far back as the year 1815, when devotion to St. Joseph, spouse of the Blessed Virgin and foster-father of our Divine Lord, was making rapid headway, the Sacred Congregation of Rites was earnestly besought to grant permission to add the name of this venerable patriarch to this part of the Mass, one of the reasons assigned for making the request being that many persons had a particular devotion to him. The request was not granted, the reply to the petition being negative; and this was dominated a response urbis et orbis – that is, one binding in Rome and everywhere else." (12)

After reading the above citations it’s obvious that Catholics for centuries have held the Canon of the Mass in awe and respect... that is, until the middle of the 20^th century when the Canon was not only changed but, for the most part, completely eradicated - the tradition of nearly 1500 years meant nothing to the reformers or their comrades. It was a sign of the greatest disrespect when they changed the Canon - even to the extent of eliminating 35 of it’s prayers, or 70%, of the Canon - and a major departure from the stance which the Church has taken with regards to the Canon of the Mass for centuries.

After the alleged "consecration" in Eucharistic Prayer II, there appears the "memento" of the dead, which begins thus:

"Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence."

Now, what’s so heretical about that? Admittedly, at first glance it seems orthodox, as it clearly prays for those in purgatory. However, that’s not all it prays for. It prays for the salvation of the damned as well, thus denying the Catholic Dogma of the eternity of hell, as well as the nature of hell, the nature of sin, the nature of God’s justice, the nature of Grace, etc., to name but a few. But how does this pray for the damned souls, you may ask. We have a situation here where the "presider" clearly prays that God will bring "our brothers and sisters... and ALL the departed" into heaven. Note the key word: ALL. Hitler is departed. Judas is departed. Stalin is departed. Luther is departed. Nestorius is departed. Arius is departed. Jesus clearly states in the Gospels that most people go to hell. All of those in hell are "departed." Therefore, the New Mass clearly contains heresy as it prays that ALL the departed, including those in hell (as it never excluded them, but used the omni-inclusive "all"), will be saved.

Insofar as the sacrificial nature of the above "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number II" goes, permit me to take a few moments and examine the prayers which Shawn has emphasized as if they were clear-cut examples of the "sacrificial nature" of the Novus Ordo Missae.

The first prayer emphasized above by Shawn is the "Quam Oblationem," which is as follows (with Shawn’s emphasis retained completely intact):

Priest: Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. (2 Macc. 14:36) LET YOUR SPIRIT COME UPON THESE GIFTS (bread and wine mixed with water) TO MAKE THEM HOLY, SO THAT THEY MAY BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

This is rather interesting, because the 1973 & 75 Sacramentaries gives this prayer as follows:

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body (+) and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Emphasis ours)

The official Latin text of the Novus Ordo Missae also includes the "for us" as the following citation shows:

ut nobis Corpus et (+) Sanguis fiant Domini nostri Iesu Christi.

Hence, we see that this particular prayers has been modified (officially?). And this further evidence of the fact the prayers in the Novus Ordo Missae can change from day to day, and, it seems, from diocese to diocese. The online version at the "Catholic Liturgical Library" agrees with the above citation from the 1973 Sacramentary. Indeed, now we see the confusion that is present in the Novus Ordo church with regards to this Canon.

The official text (according to the 1973 Sacramentary, and the Latin version) includes the words "for us," which, in turn, implies that it’s only the "Body and Blood of Christ" "for us," it’s not in actuality the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ.

The next prayer emphasized by Shawn is the Consecration of the host. To provide the prayer (yet again with Shawn’s emphasizations completely intact):

THE CONSECRATION OF THE HOST

Priest: Before he was given up to death, (Phil 2:8) a death he freely accepted, (John 10:17-18) he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. (Luke 22:19)

This does not state (unambiguously) the sacrificial nature of the Mass. As Father Wathen pointed out in The Great Sacrilege, the Consecration in the Novus Ordo Missae is a narration of the events that took place! Period. Hence, since it is a narration, it is nothing more than the recounting of the Words of Christ. Not a statement of what the Priest intends to do, or what the purpose of the Mass is. It is merely a recital of the Sacred Words of Christ.  As Dr. Coomarasamy stated:

In the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration – the very heart of the Traditional Rite – are now part of what is called the "Institution Narrative," an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church.

Merely placing the words of Consecration under such a heading is bound to induce the "priest-president" at the New Mass to say these words as if he were merely retelling the story of the Last Supper, some 2,000 years ago, instead of actually consecration the bread and wine in the here and now. Retelling the story of the Last Supper alone does not change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ – the priest must act in persona Christi, that is, he must say these critical words "in the person of Christ," for it is Christ who, by His infinite power, through the words of the priest, effects the Consecration. The "revised" version of the General Instruction, seeking to mollify critics of the New Mass, does speak of the priest acting in persona Christi, but not with regard to the manner in which he says the words of Consecration. Even if the use of the phrase "Institution Narrative" were the only defect in the New Rite, it would be sufficient to raise grave doubts as to whether or not the elements of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the New Mass.

The Church has always taught that, for the Sacred Species to be confected at Mass, that is, for Consecration to occur the priest must 1) be properly ordained, 2) intend to do what the Church intends to do at Mass, 3) use the proper matter, and 4) use the proper form (or words). He must also say the Words of Consecration as an act which he personally, by his own priestly power, performs in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ," who is the Principal Priest at every Mass), and not as part of a mere historical narrative, he turns what is supposed to occur at Mass (namely Consecration) into just a simple memorial of an historical event that happened two thousand years ago, and nothing sacred takes place, i.e., there is no Consecration. As St. Thomas Aquinas says:

The Consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is CHRIST’S words that perfect the Sacrament.... The form of this Sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this Sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ. (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

To say the words of Consecration merely as part of a narrative would render the Mass invalid; that is, the bread and wine would remain just bread and wine afterwards and would not become the Body and Blood of Christ. According to the eminent liturgist, Father O’Connell:

The Words of Consecration have to be said, not merely as a[n] historical narrative of words used once by Our Lord – as the celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts of the Last Supper, which are read in the Mass in Holy Week, or on the Feast of Corpus Christi – but as a present affirmation by the priest speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something, here and now, by the pronouncing of these words. 34 [Emphasis added]

Older priests may say the words of Consecration in persona Christi from habit. Younger priests, basing their practice on the General Instruction and on the Modernist theories of Sacramental theology, which they imbibe in the post-Conciliar seminaries, almost certainly will not. Thus, it is hardly surprising to find Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci’s Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass noting that

The Words of Consecration, as they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo [in Latin] may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for the yare so no longer ex vi verborum ("by the force of the words used"), or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi ("the way of signifying") which they have had till now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo to do what the Church does, make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it....

These words of the Critical Study, having been published already in September, 1967, are incredibly perspicacious, if not indeed prophetic. (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 43-45)

The next prayer given by Shawn is the Consecration for the wine. To cite it:

Priest: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IS MEMORY OF ME. (Matt. 26:27-28)

In the first place, the Scripture citation given above by Shawn is taken out of context and cannot be used to refer to the Novus Ordo consecration. To provide the portion cited:

Matthew 26:27 [DR] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

Matthew 26:28 [DR] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

In the first place, I ask the reader to note that the above citation states quite explicitly that Christ’s Blood "shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." As it is, this statement does not refer - as Shawn and the creators of the Novus Ordo Missae would have us believe - to the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice, but to the efficacy. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent unambiguously states:

"The additional words 'for you and for many', are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God… When He (Christ) added, 'and for many', He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of, and to the elect only did this Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (13)

The above citation also makes it quite clear why the words "for all" cannot be used in the Consecration formula. Hence, the Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae can have two meanings. In the first place, universal salvation - that the fruits of the Passion are applicable to everyone, a heresy. In the second place, the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice - that Christ died for all. Either way, we see a change in theology in the very core and center of the Holy Sacrifice - even at the expense of the Words of Our Lord Himself -, the Consecration itself.  The innovators have trampled even their own Second Vatican Council in order to bring this change about.  To cite the Second Vatican Council:

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. (14)

In the second place, I would like to point out to the reader yet another change in the theology behind the Consecration formula. The Traditional Consecration states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "remission of sins," while the Consecration formula give above states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "forgiveness of sins."

In the third place, the Consecration formula for the wine in the Novus Ordo Missae contains a lie. Yes, you heard correctly. A lie. The reader may well ask "What lie is that?" and I have no problem with answering this question. The Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae attributes the following words to Christ Himself:

"Take this all of you, and drink form it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

Christ never said those words! When He instituted the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, He did not say that His Blood was going to be shed "for all men," so that sins "may be forgiven"! The Words of Christ are as follows:

Matthew 26:27-28 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

The theology behind them is the exact same as that in the Traditional Mass. Whereas, in the Novus Ordo Missae, they have changed both the theology behind the Words of Christ, and the Words of Christ Himself, contrary to the wishes and directions of Pope Paul VI in the very Apostolic Constitution from which they derive their legitimacy - as we shall see further on. Are these the actions of people who are 1) faithful to the Traditions of the Church, 2) faithful to the Teachings and Words of Christ, and 3) obedient to the Pope? Obviously not.

Lastly, I would like to point out the fact that the Consecration formula for the wine - as given by Shawn - is a mistranslation from the Latin. According to the 1973 "Sacramentary," the Latin of the Consecration is as follows:

hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins." The fact that this is still the official position, is verified by the following citation from the Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum" of Pope Paul VI, which is used by the Reformers - and their comrades - to justify this hatchet job of the Traditional Mass:

For pastoral reasons, however, and to facilitate concelebration, we have directed that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus, in each eucharistic prayer, we wish that the words be as follows: .... over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. (15)

Therefore, any attack on the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae is not an attack upon the Papacy, for Pope Paul VI himself officially "directed" that the Consecration formula for the wine remain the same - with the exception of the words "mysterium fidei" - as is found in the Traditional Mass. Hence, the English translation of the Novus Ordo - as given above and defended by Shawn - is in direct contradiction to the "directions" and "wishes" of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI. This, in turn, means that the Consecration formula cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered to be covered by any form of papal infallibility, and an attack upon the new form is not, in and of itself, an attack upon any direction or order of the Pope - whereas the English version is in direct disobedience to the directions and wishes of Pope Paul VI.

Directly after the consecration for the wine, the Novus Ordo Missae contains several "memorial acclamations" directly following the words "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."  To cite the Ottaviani Intervention on this:

The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body."  Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O Lord...until you come"--introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just at the moment when He is *substantially present* on the altar--as if Christ's real coming will occur only at the end of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more strongly:

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory."

The juxtaposition of entirely different realities--immolation and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming--brings ambiguity to a new height.

The next section which Shawn emphasized is as follows:

Priest: IN MEMORY OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION, WE OFFER YOU, FATHER, THIS LIFE-GIVING BREAD, THIS SAVING CUP. (John 6:51) We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

In the first place, should the Priest choose to use "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number 2," instead of one, three, or four, we would have a one out of four chance that the Priest would use the above response - should he choose to use "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number 2." It becomes very clear that Shawn is padding the books here, attempting to add more examples of "sacrifice" to the second "Eucharistic Prayer," as "evidence" in favor of his argument. As it is, though, we’ll play along and assume that the Priest does choose this particular prayer, with this particular version of the Novus Ordo Missae. Let us examine the "sacrificial nature" of it.

As was stated above, the terms "bread of life" and "spiritual drink" were very ambiguous. The same goes with these terms. The term "life-giving bread" does not have to refer to the Body and Blood of Christ, and the same goes with the term "saving cup." They could be taken 1) in a symbolic sense, 2) in a material sense, and 3) in a Catholic sense. And there’s a one in three chance that someone will get it right. But even if they chose this particular prayer, it’s still quite obvious that it’s not a clear-cut statement to the effect that the Sacrifice of the Mass is both a propitiatory, as well as a petition, in addition to being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  

Priest: MAY ALL OF US WHO SHARE IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST BE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN UNITY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. (1 Cor.10:17) Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love together with N. our Pope N. our bishop, and all the clergy.

As was pointed out earlier, in one of the other prayers emphasized by Shawn, the Novus Ordo Mass makes it quite clear that the bread and wine is the "Body and Blood of Christ" for us!  Which is the same concept that Cranmer used to negate the True Presence.  Hence, we see that it is not explicit - nor can any other references after the inclusion of that term "for us" be considered explicit, for the "Body and Blood" could very well be interpreted as being the "Body and Blood" of Christ "for us" - hence, it isn't really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ.  As Cranmer pointed out :

"We do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made into the body and blood of Christ, but that UNTO US in that holy mystery they may be made so; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers in Christ’s body and blood and that therefore in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished."

The above statement is saying that the expression "for us" meant that Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ) did not objectively occur, but rather that the personal disposition of those present allowed them to be spiritually nourished. In other words, the phrase in effect denied the Catholic doctrine as it would after be solemnly defined in Session XXII of the Council of Trent

Hence we see that the statements brought forth by Shawn as clearly stating the "sacrificial nature" of the Novus Ordo Missae are not, in fact, as clear-cut as he would have us believe.

Furthermore, if this is an "explicit reference" to the sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, then we must hold that the Anglican Liturgy also contains "explicit references" to the sacrifice.  For example, in the 1552 "Book of Common Prayer" the following prayer is to be found:

O God our heavenly father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only son Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by his oblation once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again: Hear us (O merciful father) we beseech thee; and grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood: 

Another example would be the following:

Dear beloved, forasmuch as our duty is to render to Almighty God our heavenly father most hearty thanks, for that he hath given his sone our savior Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance, as it is declared unto us, as well by God's word as by the holy Sacraments of his blessed body and blood, the which being so comfortable to them which receive it worthily, and so dangerous to them that will presume to receive it unworthily: ......

References to the Body and Blood of Our Lord are not explicit references to the True Presence, or the Sacrificial Nature of the Holy Mass.  The Anglicans themselves make frequent use of the words "body" and "blood" in reference to their "sacraments," but they do not believe in the True Presence, nor do they believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass.  Hence we see that a mere reference to the "Body and Blood of Christ" is not proof of anything, but is a very ambiguous phrase.

Shawn continues.

I see nothing illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even invalid about this canon whatsoever. We can talk matter and form of Consecration of course (and I will discuss that in the next section) but I see no way that the canon does not emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass except perhaps that it is not as explicit as the Tridentine Rite Canon (or indeed the other 3 Eucharistic Prayers of the Pauline Rite Mass).

We’re happy to see that Shawn admits that the Traditional Canon is far more explicit insofar as the Sacrificial nature of the Mass goes, than the Novus Ordoite "Eucharistic Prayers." But insofar as illicit, doubtfully valid, or sacrilegiously valid, is concerned, this can certainly be implied in the above "Eucharistic Prayer." As we have seen with the "consecration," it doesn’t even have the same meaning as the Words spoken by Christ, nor is it in accordance with the wishes and directions of Pope Paul VI. It doesn’t even match the official Latin version of the Novus Ordo. It is a truncated "consecration."

It would not hurt to mention here that the Tridentine Canon is still used in substantial form as Eucharistic Prayer #1 of the Pauline Rite. In this prayer, the offering made is referred to as a sacrifice 4 times explicitly and arguably 2 more times implicitly (will "traditionalists" claim that the Tridentine Canon is not "sacrificial" in nature???).

As it is, the Traditional Canon and "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number One" are not "substantially the same."  For those who wish to see a comparison of the two, there is an online version available at the Catholic Liturgical Library.  As Coomaraswamy pointed out:

The first Eucharistic Prayer (even in Latin) is not, as is often claimed, the ancient Roman Canon we were all familiar with in the Tridentine Mass. It is merely modeled on the traditional Canon, but contains several significant differences. The claim that the ancient Canon of the Mass was retained allowed the New Rite to be accepted with a minimum of protest from priests and laity alike. Those priests using the First Eucharistic Prayer were assured that they were in effect saying the old Mass. However, with the destruction of the traditional Offertory, with its prayers that state precisely what occurs during the Canon, and with the modern mistranslations, Eucharistic Prayer Number One is totally capable of being given an entirely Modernist and Protestant interpretation. (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 37)

In the "Liturgy of the Eucharist", just before the "Eucharistic Prayer" (and this part is common to all N.O. "Masses"), the prayer "Blessed are you Lord God of all Creation...." begins. Here is the text of the prayer, with the appropriate sections in bold print:

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become for us our spiritual drink."

Aside from the fact that this prayer is based upon the Jewish Grace before meals, there is another important observation to be made. It clearly states that we have bread and wine to offer. Now, without any references to the body and blood of Christ whatsoever between this prayer and the following prayer, or the eternal sacrifice of Calvary, or anything which could lead one to believe this is a Catholic Mass, the "Roman Canon" launches into the following prayer:

"We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts (i.e., the bread and wine) we offer you in sacrifice."

By it’s own admission Eucharistic Prayer I clearly intends to offer God "bread and wine" in sacrifice, and NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, Canon I adopts the protestant heresy of offering to God "bread and wine", and not the Body and Blood of Christ.

Eucharistic prayer I attempts to offer to God vegetables, not a living sacrifice. We remind the reader of Cain’s "sacrifice" to God in Genesis: Abel offered to God a lamb, and it was acceptable. Cain tried to offer to God vegetables as well; he tried to give Him "fruit of the earth... fruit of the vine", and God rejected his sacrifice as unworthy.

We ask the reader to, if he doesn’t already believe us concerning Eucharistic Prayer I and it’s offering to God bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ, to obtain a Novus Ordo missalette and read it for himself. Eucharistic Prayer I undoubtedly contains heresy.

Eucharistic Prayer #3 is a truncated version of Prayer #1 (the Tridentine Canon) and mentions the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering explicitly twice, implicitly as a "perfect offering" twice, and Our Lord as the "victim" being offered once: how is this not "sacrificial" in nature???).

So what? Even if it does supposedly refer to a "sacrificial offering" twice, how often does it undermine that teaching?  Furthermore, what sort of a "sacrifice"?  One of praise and thanksgiving (completely acceptable to protestants and modernists)?  Or one of propitiation (atonement, expiation, conciliation), and of impetration (petition)?  

Furthemore, as Dr. Coomaraswamy pointed out concerning "Eucharistic Prayer #3":

In Eucharistic Prayer 3 the following words are addressed to the Lord: "From age to age You gather a people to Yourself, in order that from east and west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of Your name." This phrase once again makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration. (See comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, The Mass: An Historical, Theological and Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201) Even Michael Davies notes that "in not one [his emphasis] of the new Eucharistic Prayers is it made clear that the Consecration is effected by the priest alone, and that he is not acting as a spokesman or president for a concelebrating congregation." (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 343). (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 41)

Getting back to Eucharistic Prayer #2 (the one detailed above) there are still 4 implicit references to the Real Presence and the sacrificial overtones are hardly lacking even if they are not as explicit as in the Tridentine Rite or indeed the other 3 Eucharistic Prayers of the Pauline Rite (this will be touched on in a bit later on).

Implicit?  This is very interesting, especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the Second Vatican Council wished the New Mass to "express more clearly the holy things which they signify." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)  Yet again, we see that the Novus Ordo does not follow the directions of the Second Vatican Council, and furthermore that it is not what the Council Fathers expected.  As it is, the fact that the Second Eucharistic Prayer is not as explicit as the Traditional Canon (contrary to what the Council Fathers directed), speaks volumes concerning the intentions of the authors of the New Mass - they obviously did not intend to clarify things by the introduction of this new "Eucharistic Prayer," their introduction of this new "Eucharistic Prayer" did quite the opposite, it muddied the waters making it much more acceptable to protestants/modernists, who have no problem with "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number 2."  

As it is, though, this might very well explain two things. In the first place, why "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two" is the most commonly used "Eucharistic Prayer" here in the United States. In the second place, if the True Presence was as explicit in the Novus Ordo Missae as Shawn seems to think, then why is it that 70% of "catholics" (1992 Gallup Poll) in the United States today – who attend the Novus Ordo Missae (hopefully) at least once a month – don’t believe in it?

Some rubrics are switched in order but if that is an illicit or invalidating feature then we have been without a licit or valid Mass since at least the 3rd century if not earlier (Eucharistic Prayer #2 being based on a 3^rd century canon I might add).

In the first place, we agree, the "switching" of rubrics does not invalidate the Mass, but it can become an implicit denial of the True Presence - as well as irreverent. The number of rubrics and practices expressing Faith in the Real Presence which have been suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae is really quite telling. To cite the Ottaviani Intervention:

…. it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:

Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one for the faithful at the moment of the Consecration.

Purification of the priest’s fingers over the chalice.

Preserving the priest’s fingers from all profane contact after the Consecration.

Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal.

Protecting the contents of the chalice with a pall.

Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels.

Solemn consecration for movable altars.

Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic dinners" in private homes.)

Three cloths on the altar – reduced to one.

Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving – a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.

All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently."

All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated. (16)

These suppressions could also go a long way in answering any questions one might have as to why 70% of Catholics no longer believe in the True Presence.

Neither rubrics switched in order nor a sleeker liturgy are valid arguments against the postulated illicity/invalidity ) of the Pauline canon as long as the essentials remain and there is no evidence that they have been removed in this section nor any that have preceded it.

As to whether or not the essentials remain, we shall investigate this further on with regards to the Consecration. Insofar as rubrics are concerned, Shawn doesn’t seem to appreciate the importance of respectful rubrics, and the devotion that respectful rubrics – carefully implemented by the Priest – inspire in the Faithful. The number of suppressed rubrics which were put in place specifically to protect the Sacred Species are very telling, and can most certainly lead people to forsaking the Faith – as we have already pointed out. This is but one of the consequences of making a "sleeker liturgy" out of the Traditional Mass.

Much more could be said on Eucharistic Prayer #2 (the least "sacrificial" of the 4 Prayers of the Pauline Rite) and more will be said later on in this section. However, first we need to finish looking at the contrast between the Tridentine and Pauline Rite Liturgies.

Concerning the "Rite of Peace" in the Novus Ordo Missae, permit us to provide a lengthy citation from the May/June 1998 issue of RealCatholicism on the matter:

What is the Peace of Christ?
According to Fr. James Wathen, O.S.J., "His peace resides in the heart of the man who adheres to Him through the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.  Peace is the fruit of such a relationship.  Peace among men... is the unity and harmony which exists among those who share this relationship with Christ." (17) The Eucharist is what he terms "both the cause and the perfect symbol" of union in Christ.

The Rite of Peace in the Mass
There is an indication by Justin Martyr of a liturgical greeting used in the 2nd century Church.  (A vestige of the kiss of peace remains in the Tridentine Solemn High Mass.)  Arguing from ancient practice, the rite has been introduced in the New Mass, wherein, shortly after the Our Father, all present are instructed to "offer one another a sign of Christ's peace."  Generally this means that the people turn from the newly consecrated Christ on the altar and greet as many fellow participants as possible; usually the priest himself turns his back on the altar and shakes hands with those in the immediate vicinity.

Restoration of ancient practice?
Although the argument advanced by liturgical reformers is  that the Rite of Peace represents a restoration of ancient practice, it is a partial and selective restoration.  In the early Church, the Mass proper was attended only by believers; Catechumens had already been dismissed before the Kiss of Peace was given.  While the Kiss of Peace was shared by all present, all present could be presumed to be believers in a state of grace.

Should everyone participate?
Fr. James Wathen also maintains that "It is plainly contrary to all reason for anyone and everyone to be permitted, even encouraged, to take part in such a ceremony.  The peace of Christ cannot exist between His friends and those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept His total sovereignty over them."  It is therefore highly improper for the rite, in the New Mass, to include all present without regard for their condition of soul and their relationship to the Church.  If the Eucharist is both the "cause and the perfect symbol" of union in Christ, what is said symbolically by the inclusion in the rite of the 70% of Roman Catholics who reject the doctrine of transubstantiation?  Of those who dissent from Church teaching on matters of sexual morality, and consequently persist in a state of mortal sin?

According to Canon Law, in fact, those who are not in good standing in the Church may not participate in her liturgical functions -- they are to attend only. Fr. Wathen continues, "For the Rite of Peace, this injunction should also cover those who, though not excommunicated, are known to be living in sin.  Since they are obviously rejecting the peace of Christ by their way of life, this should go without saying... It was for just such reasons... that the kiss of peace ceased to be given among the lay people in the traditional liturgy.  Rather than violate the truth and the spirit of the ceremony on the one hand, and rather than be forced to exclude particular individuals on the other, it was found necessary so to abbreviate it." (18)

The Cult of Man
Fr. Wathen states that "this rite does not unite one with his neighbor in the Eucharistic Christ; it pits his neighbor against Christ.  It says in effect that those present are failing in love if, during the most precious and solemn moments when Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, they do not turn away from Him and fuss over their brothers and sisters.  This rite makes it an obligation, a strict duty of charity, to turn away from Christ and devote oneself to the greeting and salutation of his fellows." (19)  Fr. Wathen also considers the universal nature of the rite a form of sensitivity training, wherein we are "seduced into saying and doing things which implicitly, sometimes very explicitly, go counter to [our] own personal beliefs, clear knowledge and natural inclinations." (20)

Fr. Frederick Miller wrote that "for some the Mass is now understood as an opportunity in which one may experience community, fraternization and vague feelings of togetherness to the exclusion of transcendental values." (Frederick L. Miller, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 1977)  Michael Davies has characterized much of what transpires at contemporary liturgies as "the cult of man" -- behavior based upon a humanistic theology that exalts humanity and neglects its Creator.  It is man whom the priest now faces, and often man's glory that is extolled in the newer hymns. (Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution: Pope Paul's New Mass, Kansas City, 1980, Chapter VII.)

The Mass continues.