SOME THOUGHTS ON MY RECENT VISIT TO ROME AND ON BOTH THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE AND GIVING ALLEGIANCE TO JOHN PAUL II.

“Redempti ab ipso adorabunt Deum verum ex ipsius ritu, doctrina, et institutione, usque ad mundi consummationem - Those redeemed by Jesus Christ will adore the true God according to Christ's own rite, teaching, and institution.”

							Cardinal Bellarmine

While in Rome during a recent visit, I had the dubious pleasure of hearing (though only as a passive observer) the Novus Ordo Missae said with great devotion in both English and Latin. This led me to once again consider my own theological position and my refusal to accept the new “mass,” regardless of the devotion with which it is said.

How can we best understand and describe the differences between the Novus Ordo Missae and the traditional Mass of the Catholic Church without getting bogged down in theological details. I think one of the best ways to describe the difference is to say that in the Tridentine Mass one enters into Eternity while in the New Mass one is tied to time.

Consider what happens in the traditional Mass. The priest, having purified himself with various prayers, is “led to the mountain of God” – Emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, at adduxxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernaculum tuum – Let Thy light and Thy Truth shine forth: it will lead me and draw me to your sacred mountain and your tabernaculum. What is this “mountain” other than Calvary and the cave in which Christ was born. And what is this  “tabernaculum” other than the centre of the world? This prayer along with other purificatory prayers has been eliminated in the New Mass.

The priest in saying Mass is a “nobody” because he is truly another Christ. Or more precisely, this being the case, it is Christ who says the Mass using the (properly ordained) priest who He has dedicated to Himself. The priest in turn unites himself to Christ and offers himself up along with Christ to God the Father. The congregation joins the priest in this offering. It goes without saying that the priest in consecrating the bread and wine, if he has united himself to Christ, will use the very words of Christ in effecting the Consecration. What occurs is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. There is no past or future, but only a here and now. The divine act of Christ is eternal by its very nature and indeed it is called “the Eternal Sacrifice.” The priest and the congregation then enters into this timeless and eternal act.

In the Novus Ordo Missae, when the supposed  words of consecration are said, they are said as part of the “Institution Narrative.” Or as the General Instruction puts it, “the Narrative of the Institution.” The official French Missal explains this by informing us that what is involved “is simply a question of making a memorial of the unique sacrifice already accomplished.” This is of course the Protestant view of things. Now if what occurs in the Novus Ordo is simply the retelling of what happened at the Last Supper (one assumes that the faithful priest-president follows the rubrics as outlined and taught in the General Instruction), then what happens is no different than what happens when one reads the Gospel story of the Last Supper. This is clearly a situation in which no Consecration occurs. And this is further reinforced by the fact that the priest president doesn’t use Christ’s words, but others drawn from the Gospel story and put together by Luther.

This ties the  Novus Ordo Missae to an historical event and hence to historical time. Nothing happens “here and now” and consequently there is no entrance into or participation in Eternity. It matters not how devoutly this rite is said, it is not said in persona Christi. It can be argued that the priest-president is saying the supposed words of Consecration in another than the historical sense. But if so, he is clearly disobeying the intent of the post-Conciliar “popes.”

Gone is the sense of the priest going to Calvary or “the mountain of God.” (The three steps before the altar symbolizes this.) Instead the priest goes down to the transept which is no longer a sacred enclosure, and says the service on a table rather than on an altar. No longer can the words of Revelation apply “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain” (Rev. vi. 9). There is no sacrifice for “the living and the dead” but only one of “praise and thanksgiving”– as Cranmer said, “the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon.” 

A further point:  In the Novus Ordo, when the First Eucharist Prayer is used, (it is falsely claimed that it is the same as in the traditional Mass) what strikes one who is familiar with the traditional Canon, is the addition of the words FOR US – words introduced by Cranmer precisely to deny the Real Presence. It is a prayer that the bread and wine may become FOR US the body of Christ – but not such in and of itself apart from us. 

One should know that it is a constant teaching of the true Church that one must not partake of a dubious sacrament – to do so is considered sacrilegious. (Those who communicate at the new “mass” do not necessarily commit a sacrilege for there is a difference between a subjective and an objective sacrilege. They get the graces of their disposition of soul, but cannot receive sacramental or sanctifying grace.) Now the consecrations in the Novus Ordo Missae are at least dubious on three grounds – 1) because of what has been explained in this short note, and 2) because the ordination of priests by t by “Bishops” consecrated by the new rites which virtually exclude the passing on of the Apostolic Succession. 3) the rite for the ordination of the priests has been radically changed. They are not “Massing Priests” (to use a phrase from the Reformation) and at best no different than Protestant ministers.

To summarize, what distinguishes the New “mass” from the “Mass of All Times” (which is incidentally forbidden) is that the priest and congregation participate in the memorial of an historical event rather than entering into the “Here and Now” of Eternity. The priest retains his personality and no longer functions as an alter Christus. It is he who repeats the historical memorial of the Last Supper and not Christ who says the Mass hinc et nunc – here and now - in the person of the priest. All this is reinforced by the various actions of the priest-president such as using words for a supposed Consecration which are not those used by Christ, of going down to the transept rather than going up to the alter of God. By the constant use of such words as “supper” and “cup”; By the priest-president frequently shaking hands with people in the middle of the service (i.e. no ablution after supposedly handling Our Lord’s Body); By accepting changes introduced by the Protestant Cranmer which were inserted into the Canon to deny the Real Presence, by encouraging the faithful to take the “Eucharist” in the hand and more recently by such new rubrics as forbidding kneeling. While older Catholics who go to the New Mass may see and understand it as no different from the traditional Mass, anyone who persists in attending the new “mass” will eventually be turned into a Protestant; and certainly our children who have no knowledge of the Traditional rite will inevitably accept the new as “normative.”

WHY I CANNOT ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE POST-CONCILIAR POPES.

“O God, the heathen have come into thy inheritance, they have defiled thy holy temple; they have made Jerusalem as a place to keep fruit.” 

						Psalm 78.

“The great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt.” 

						Apoc. 11, 8

It is a teaching of the True Church that the Pope is one hierarchical person with our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence when the Pope speaks as pope or from the Chair of Peter, it is Christ who teaches, governs, and sanctifies. The triple crown once worn by true popes and clearly seen on their statues in St. Peter’s, signifies their authority in these three realms. That triple crown, along with the “fisherman’s ring” was sold by Paul VI (who John Paul II considers his spiritual master and teacher) to a Jewish gentleman who in turn gave it to the United Nations.

If one recognizes John Paul II as a genuine pope, one is obliged to obey him in the three realms of his authority – his teachings, his governing or what is called “jurisdiction,” and in his sanctifying role which includes the administration of the Sacraments. Now John Paul II uses his pseudo-authority to teach falsely – for example that all men are saved and that the Crucifixion is a witness to the dignity of man. One could list dozens of other heresies, but suffice it to say that he holds the documents of Vatican II to be the highest form of the ordinary Magisterium, and as such we are bound to give them our intellectual assent and hold them to be true. Many will argue that one can pick and choose just what one accepts in these documents, but such is not a Catholic way of thinking or acting. Many will claim they do not believe in all the tommyrot in Vatican II while at the same time giving honour and recognition to John Paul II. To do so is both schizophrenic and irrational and as such a sin against Truth and the Holy Ghost. A Catholic who departs from unity of faith with the pope and the bishops in union with him can no longer consider himself as a Catholic – unless of course the pope and the bishops in union with him have themselves abandoned the faith. Then to quote St. Catherine of Sienna in a similar situation, the pope and those who follow him in obedience can go to Hell. Similarly, one has to accept the validity of all the new sacraments. (This is one of the conditions for attending the “indult” Mass of John XXIII, and members of the Society of St. Peter sigh a paper stating their acceptance of the documents of Vatican II and the validity of the new sacraments.)  One must for example not only accept Vatican II and the new “mass,” but also the destruction of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction which has been reduced to a “blessing of the sick.” (The fact that some priests in the new Church, in disobedience still may give the old Sacrament is beside the point – indeed they sin by disobedience when they do so.) 

Now if I accept all that is in Vatican II; if I accept that Socialism is a good thing and that evolution is true; if I accept that all religions are equally good and that there is no need for the Jews to convert, then in a simple word, I apostatize from the Catholic faith as it has existed throughout the centuries, and join what is in essence a new religion with its new code, creed and cult. This I refuse to do and hence I refuse to give any allegiance to John Paul II or his representatives. There may be some good people in the new or post-Conciliar Church (as they themselves call it), and even individuals devoted to prayer, but it is clear that they are in the Novus Ordo Church, they are in no way Catholic. As for myself, I hope and pray that I may both live and die as a faithful Catholic.

Truly, “they have the Churches but we have the faith” 

							St. Athanasius

© 2003 Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.