Knowing that Cranmer might have been pleased with the Church's post-Vatican II liturgical revolution has made me ask the question: "Should I stay, or should I go now?"

Liturgical Revolution Vol III:
Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies
The Angelus Press, 1980

A combination of events has left me shattered -- doubting the Church so much that it actually feels as if walking away from her would be a blessed relief. It’s not an easy place to be. It’s painful. It can feel lonely, terrifying, and depressing. What should I do, where would I go to if I did leave, how would I survive without the one thing I love more than anything else?

Recently, I read the late Michael Davies’ amazing book, Pope Paul’s New Mass. It really opened my eyes to the problems associated with the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. This book also made me question the reasons behind the liturgical revolution of the post-Vatican II era. Why did the Catholic Church, or the Latin Rite at least, adopt a liturgy that Cranmer or Luther would have been proud of? Why did western Catholicism turn against itself with such venom? Why did the Church nearly throw away one of her most beautiful treasures, a most precious and ancient liturgy? What good came from the wholesale hacking away of ancient prayers and beautiful traditions – such as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or the Leonine Prayers?

Then, even more recently, I was exposed to three different scandals involving the Eucharist and the Church's Liturgy. Two are of a personal nature, so I will not reveal them in a public forum. The third is one that will have to be addressed to the proper authorities – first the priest involved, and then, if nothing comes of that, to his bishop. But, for now, I will relate in a general way this third event -- the liturgical abuses which I witnessed at a certain Mass only a few days ago.

Last week, I went to Mass in a church that I had never been to before. A friend of mine, who happens to be an agnostic, came with me. We arrived late. The Gospel was just being read as we walked in, and the homily started just as we sat down. The preacher instantly struck me as being odd. He spent several minutes talking about Jesus “doing cartwheels” after “phoning his dad” to tell him all about his wonderful “fishing trip”. None of it made any sense to me – it was, at best, childish gibberish. There was one child present at the Mass, so I can safely say that, as far as I know, the preacher wasn’t addressing a bunch of school children. Even my agnostic friend turned to me and asked: “What is that man going on about?”

The same priest, who was in choir dress and green stole, then went on to lead the bidding prayers. They all seemed sickeningly ‘hippyish’ – ‘rainbow people’ and 'diversity and equality' type stuff. Seeing it was a weekday, I had no idea why this man was either preaching or offering these rather dated, socially left-wing, ‘prayers’ – which sounded more like political sound-bites than genuine intercessions.

Then came the Offertory, during which the celebrant (another priest, in chasuble, etc) interrupted the flow of things to start shouting at the congregation, asking us all to put our hands up if we needed ‘gluten-free hosts’. No-one moved, so the priest raised his voice once more: “Who needs gluten-free hosts?” Again, no-one responded. So the priest mumbled something and seemed to carry on regardless. I have a feeling that wheat-free hosts, which probably would have been invalid matter for consecration, were used.

During the Eucharist Prayer the celebrant started play-acting, showing the host to everyone present and elevating it (high -- before the consecration) whilst saying in the most deliberate and over-the-top way: "Take … this … all … of … you … and … eat … it...". It all seemed very hammy – a performance, as my agnostic friend referred to it. This was, it seemed to me, a community putting on a play – a "community closed in on itself" as the then Cardinal Ratzinger put it in The Spirit of the Liturgy. 

Before Communion, a load of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist rushed forward – even though it was just a quiet weekday Mass. The priest seemed to give me an extremely dirty look when I genuflected before Communion and stuck my tongue out, and even on the way out, whilst singing some inane hymn, he stopped to glare at me! After receiving Communion, which may or may not have been valid, I returned to my seat to pray, but an organ was being played so loudly that there was no possibility of silent prayer. The organ came to a sudden halt as the priest got up for the post-Communion prayer. Mass ended with a blessing that did not seem to follow the right formula: "May Almighty God bless us..." as opposed to “May Almighty God bless you…”.

If a Catholic from another century had somehow been able to travel through time and walk in on this liturgy, I fear they would probably have thought that they had stumbled upon an Anglican or Lutheran service.

After Mass, I discovered, to my horror, that a substantial number of the congregation – all of whom seemed to have received Communion – were Anglicans; whilst the preacher was himself a Church of England clergyman! There were many Catholics present, too, and the celebrant was an ordained priest. As we left, even my friend turned to me and asked: “Was that a Catholic or Protestant service?” He went on to add: “It reminded me of the kind of thing we had in my CoE primary school.”

Sadly, this type of Mass now seems commonplace throughout the Roman Rite. Priests feel free to make things up as they go along, and the Holy Sacrifice has become more like a feel-good community get-together than a profound Sacred Mystery. Holy Communion appears so devalued that it has become a ‘right’ instead of a ‘rite’ – open to all, regardless of the fact that some communicants don't even realise that this is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Banal hymns have replaced beautiful chants, whilst so much clutter and chatter goes on that it has become impossible to effectively participate in the prayer of the Mass. There is no 'active participation' when all present are encouraged to keep so actively busy that pure, simple and holy prayer gets relegated to second place.  

The whole experience at Mass the other day left me disturbed. I could not but think that the Roman Rite has been effectively expunged in some way – that something really horrendous has happened to the Catholic Church, the likes of which has never been seen before, not even during the Arian crisis. It even made me wonder why the Pope has remained so silent in the face of such a mangling of the liturgy. Yes, I know that when done well, the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be quite beautiful and can also remain true to the sacrificial and timeless qualities that belong to authentic Christian liturgy -- and I accept its validity, of course. But, it also appears to me that the new rite is far, far, more prone to abuse than the older form of the Mass.

Whilst reading Pope Paul’s New Mass, I came across this excellent table (below) by Michael Davies, which shows how radically ‘Protestant’ the new Mass is. It is frightening to note how the father of Anglicanism, Thomas Cranmer, would have rejoiced at the innovations that followed the Second Vatican Council -- innovations spurred on not by the will of the Council Fathers but by the spirit of the age, which so many now confuse with the so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II.’

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

THE ORDINARY OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS

AND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

The Tridentine Mass 1. Entitled "The Mass"		The Novus Ordo Missae Cranmer entitled his 1549 service: "The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass". The Novus Ordo Missae was entitled "The Lord's Supper or Mass" in the original Article 7. The term "Lord's Supper" is still included in the revised Article 7.
2. Celebrated in Latin.		Cranmer's Lord's Supper celebrated in the vernacular. The Novus Ordo Missae celebrated in the vernacular.
3. Much of the Mass said inaudibly.		Cranmer's service one of public praise and thanksgiving and therefore said audibly. Novus Ordo Missae said audibly throughout.
4. Celebrated on an eastward-facing altar.		Cranmer's service celebrated on a table facing the people. Novus Ordo Missae celebrated on what is clearly intended to be a table facing the people.
5. The Psalm Judica me, unacceptable to Protestants in virtue of its reference to the "altar of God".		Suppressed by Cranmer (Cranmer's Godly Order, p. 101). Suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae.
6. Double Confiteor distinguishes between priest and people, which is unacceptable to Protestants as is the invocation of saints.		Cranmer abolished the Confiteor (Cranmer's Godly Order p. 101). The double Confiteor has been suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae thus blurring the distinction between priest and people. A truncated Confiteor invoking the angels and saints is included as an option but other penitential rites containing no such invocation and thus completely acceptable to Protestants are provided.
7. The prayer Aufer a nobis evokes Old Testament sacrifice with its reference to the Holy of Holies which the High Priest entered to offer the blood of the sacrificial victim.		Suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae.
8. The prayer Oramus te, Domine refers to the relics in the altar stone.		The use of an altar stone is no longer obligatory for movable altars or when Mass is celebrated outside a consecrated building. An altar stone is only "commended" for permanent altars (Institutio Generalis 265-6). The prayer has been suppressed in theNovus Ordo Missae.
9. Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel, Creed.		Retained by Cranmer. Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.
10. The Offertory Prayers: Suscipe, sante Pater Deus, qui humanae Offerimus tibi, Domine In spiritu humilitatis Veni, sanctificator omnipotens; Suscipe, sancta Trinitas.		Comparable prayers in the Sarum rite suppressed by Cranmer (Cranmer's Godly Order, pp. 101-2). All these prayers suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae but for an extract from theDeus, qui humanae and the In spiritu humilitatis (see p. 322).
11. Orate fratres.		Suppressed by Cranmer and suppressed by the Consilium in the draft for the Missae Normativa. Restored as a result of pressure at the 1967 Synod in Rome (see p. 324).
12. Secret Prayers (Proper of the Mass).		These prayers often contain specifically sacrificial terminology. They were abolished by Cranmer but have been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae though frequently emasculated in the ICEL translations. As these prayers do not form part of the Ordinary they do not provide an obstacle to achieving an ecumenical Ordinary.
13. Sursum corda dialogue Preface, Sanctus.		Retained by Cranmer. Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.
14. Roman Canon.		Abolished by Cranmer. Retained as an option in the Novus Ordo Missae, which also contains a Canon (Eucharistic Prayer II) which some Protestants consider acceptable. It makes no distinction between priest and people and does not include the word "Hostia" (victim).
15. The Consecration Formula.		This was considerably modified by Cranmer and the Novus Ordo Missae has incorporated his most important modifications. This was demonstrated in Chapter XV which examines Canon II in detail.
16. The prayer Libera nos after the Pater noster.		Luther and Cranmer abolished this prayer, owing to the invocation of saints at its conclusion. A modified version has been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae with no invocation of saints.
17. Haec commixtio.		A version of this prayer in the Sarum Missal was abolished by Cranmer. A modified version of the prayer has been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae but with the significant omission of the word "consecratio."
18. Domine Jesu Christe, qui dixisti.		This prayer did not occur in the Sarum rite but contains nothing to which a Protestant could object beyond the words "ne respicias peccata mea" in which the priest asks forgiveness for his personal sins. This is another prayer distinguishing between the priest and layman, and in the Novus Ordo Missae "peccata mea" has been changed to "peccata nostra" - "our sins."
19. Domine Jesu Christi, Fili Dei and Perceptio Corporis tui.		Modified versions of these prayers are included in the Novus Ordo Missae, one of which the priest says in his personal capacity before Communion. It is a matter for some satisfaction that such a prayer is included. Too much significance should not be attached to to use of realistic language regarding the Real Presence in these prayers. It was primarily sacrificial language which the Reformers wished to eliminate. They were able to reconcile the use of language apparently expressing belief in the Real Presence with their own theories e.g. Cranmer's prayer cited in Cranmer's Godly Order, p. 108.
20. The Communion Rite (a) Communion given to the laity under one kind.		(a) Communion given under both kinds in Cranmer's service. The occasions when this is done in the Novus Ordo Missae are multiplying. It is already permitted at all Sunday Masses in the U.S.A. (see Chapter XXI).
(b) Traditional style altar breads.		(b) the relevant rubric in Cranmer's 1549 rite states that altar breads should be: "unleavened, and round, as it was before, but without all manner of print, and something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in two pieces, at the least, or more by the discretion of the minister." Article 283 of the General Instruction reads: "Bread used for the Eucharist even though unleavened and of the traditional shape, ought to be made in such a way that the priest, when celebrating with a congregation, can break it into pieces and distribute these to at least some of the faithful."
(c) The Host is placed on the tongue of the kneeling communicant by a priest.		(c) Cranmer retained all three traditional practices in his 1549 rite but in the 1552 rite Communion was given in the hand to signify that the bread was ordinary bread and the priest did not differ in essence from a layman (see p. 464). Communion is now given in the hand in almost every Western country (though not Poland or Italy) but the Novus Ordo Missae has outcranmered Cranmer by allowing communicants to stand and receive from a lay minister.
21. Quod ore sumpsimus and Corpus tuum.		The explicit references to the Real Presence included in these prayers would not commend them to Protestants, although Luther felt able to retain them owing to his theory of consubstantiation. The Quod ore was not in the Sarum Rite, but the corpus tuum was, and Cranmer suppressed it. Both were suppressed in the New Mass, but the Quod ore was subsequently restored.
22. Placeat tibi.		The Placeat tibi was a bete noire for Protestants (see Cranmer's Godly Order, p. 109). This prayer alone would have rendered the Novus Ordo Missae unacceptable to them had it been retained. Following the example of Luther, Cranmer, and other Reformers, theConsilium suppressed this prayer.
23. Last Gospel		There is nothing in the Last Gospel incompatible with Protestantism but its retention in theNovus Ordo Missae would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant Communion services which conclude with a blessing. The Consilium suppressed it.
24. Leonine Prayers		The prayers after Mass do not form part of the Ordinary itself but in practice appeared as an integral part of the liturgy. Five prayers less compatible with Protestantism would hardly be imagined. They have been suppressed by the Consilium.

---

The fact that the Roman Rite has been demolished in such a way, the fact that Popes seem to have remained silent in the face of dissent and liturgical abuses the like of which have transformed the Church beyond recognition, and the fact that those who cling onto traditional Catholicism are despised and rejected by the hierarchy, whilst these same bishops appear to promote and support dissent and open rebellion – liturgical or otherwise – have all conspired to make me doubt my place in the Church. It is a profound doubt. But I guess we all go through periods of questioning? 

I have a great love for the Holy Father and would never abandon Rome on a whim. In fact, I never want to be out of communion with the Holy See. But, I do think that the time has now come for the Successor of St Peter to confirm the faith of his flock in a special and decisive way, especially following the liturgical and doctrinal distortions and confusions that overtook the Church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Trying to be all things to all men is what has led the Church into this present crisis -- it does not always work. Now is the time, I think, to enforce discipline – both in the sacramental as well as the moral and doctrinal life of the Church. The People of God need strong leadership.

Knowing that the horrendous Liturgy (ie the Roman Rite one) portrayed in this video (above) is nothing compared to the liturgical abuses that are committed by Catholic priests and ‘lay ministers’ throughout the world on a daily basis, and recognising the profound beauty and eternal and organic quality of the Eastern Rite (Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental), is it any wonder that so many members of the Latin Church find themselves drawn towards the New Rome, in some way or another? Thankfully, I am fortunate enough to be able to attend good liturgies at the present time: the Ordinary Form done well (which is a rare sight, indeed), as well as the traditional Latin Mass, and the Divine Liturgy in a Byzantine Catholic church. If I was ever deprived of these graces, though, there might be no other option left open for me but to join Mario Lanza, who famously sang: “Arrivederci, Roma!”