In the Traditional Mass of Saint Pius V (Extraordinary Rite) the sense and liturgical meaning of its sacrificial value are so evidently superior in comparison to the Mass of Paul VI (Ordinary Rite) that it is beyond any debate: it could be denied only by one who insists on ignoring reality.

            The reality that the sacrificial meaning of the Mass is extremely watered down in the Novus Ordo is also undeniable; this statement is based on proven facts that are certain and unquestionable. We are going to try to present a summarized explanation of this, realizing that this is not the place for a full theological study of the question.

            In the first place, the intention of those who designed the Novus Ordo, and even of Pope Paul VI, as they themselves recognized and confessed, was to get as close to Protestant theology as possible, with ecumenical intentions, of course. The desire to build bridges was based on the well-known fact that Protestant theology rejects the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

            This intention materialized in specific and manifest facts. Almost half of the members of the Commission that elaborated the reform of the Mass were Protestant experts, and nothing was done without their approval and consent. And this fact cannot be denied, especially since it was officially recognized and even made public and broadcast in all the media.

            Still, this is not the most alarming aspect. The second fact to be registered here is the Masonic character of the Archbishop-President of the Commission. Once this situation was demonstrated and became evident to Pope Paul VI, he dismissed this President and sent him on an official mission far from Rome, though, even so, the groundwork was already laid and remained intact exactly as it was.

            We must insist on the fact that we are referring here to concrete and manifest facts and in no way to theories or hypotheses that are more or less well founded. Once again, the facts are there to see.

            It is true that, by themselves, these facts are not enough to prove the heterodox –or rather the less than conforming to correct doctrine— character of the new Mass; for, in addition to the conclusions of the experts or the definitive elaborations of the Commission, the Pope has the ultimate authority to approve or reject what he deems convenient. Nevertheless, everyone will agree that such circumstances are, at least, very alarming for all the faithful; especially because of the significance that this question has for the entire Church.

            It is also true that facts or events often cannot be sufficiently judged by themselves. That is why it is expedient and even necessary to examine also the consequences so that we may arrive at more certain conclusions. Unfortunately, however, in this case, the results of the practice of the new liturgy cannot have been more unsettling. If anyone still has the nerve to deny this, he has only to open his eyes to the reality of today's Church.

            One of these consequences has to do with the language used. The introduction of vernacular languages in the liturgy, substituting the age-old Latin, was a decision undoubtedly made with the best intentions. Its objective was no other than to make it accessible and comprehensible to the faithful, facilitating in this way a growth in fervor and their active participation. Therefore, it was necessary to leave the new versions in the hands of the various Conferences of Bishops, with the condition that the translations would be revised and definitively approved by Rome.

            But the number of languages and dialects used in the world is in the thousands; so to believe that the Vatican could control all of them is a fanciful and angelic notion whose results may be seen by all. Before long, vernacular versions appeared which, to call them mediocre or superficial would be to do them a favor. Too frequently the translations were manipulated, poorly translated, and even distorted. The grandeur and severity of Latin, and –which is far more important— its greater exactness in expressing dogmatic and revealed truths, seemed to disappear forever. The Liturgy was made more accessible to the People; though, at the same time, it was made more vulgar and unrefined. And whatever may be said about it, vulgarity is not the best means of fostering devotion. 

            The manipulation reached levels of veritable audacity – or, one might say, of danger – as does everything that has to do with manipulating dogmatic truths.

            What happened with the words of the consecration of the chalice is well known. For many – which refers to salvation and redemption – was substituted with for all, which supposes nothing less than a sea change in a whole branch of Theology. It is true that, with time, Rome did publish instructions for all the Conferences of Bishops, giving a three-year deadline, to correct the translation and make it more in keeping with the original and proper text. Nevertheless, time has gone by, and even today, long after the deadline has passed, this change has not been corrected anywhere; nor has Rome urged again what was ordered in that instruction. And since it deals with a substantial and intangible part of the Sacrifice of the Mass, this issue is more sensitive than it might seem.

            Good intentions are not enough, as we have seen; and it is even often said that the road to Hell is paved with them. That is why it is fitting to weigh carefully all possible consequences according to the counsel of prudence – and so much the more when the decisions to be made concern a vital problem. In the end, they should have considered all the pros and cons that could occur – and whose consequences, by the way, were very important in this case. And this still is not all.

(To Be Continued)