|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Traditionalism and its Dangers part III
Read Part I: Hermeneutics of Rupture and the Extremes
Read Part II: Coming to terms with Vatican II
Grace is still at work in the Church
Peter Kwasniewski has certainly become one of the most visible and vocal promoters of a full return to the traditional liturgy, while at the same time furnishing trenchant critiques of the new liturgy. Nevertheless, from the autobiographical material he shares in his writings, he did not start that way. He evidently grew up going to ordinary Novus Ordo masses and was even at one point involved in the charismatic movement.
Even though he now is very critical of the charismatic movement and regards it, at best, as being very dangerous, one would suppose that if he were to examine himself (which he probably has done) he would have to admit that to the best of his knowledge, during his time in the charismatic movement he was living in a state of grace, not in a state of mortal sin. Further, he would probably have to admit that, given where he was at that time in his own life, he probably in some way benefited and grew in the faith through his involvement in the charismatic movement.
Even if he were to claim that he received no good through the charismatic movement, he would certainly not deny the benefit of his education at Thomas Aquinas College. With the approval the Archbishop of Los Angeles, then Timothy Manning, the College opened its doors in 1971, shortly after the promulgation of the new Missal. At first they made use of the traditional Missal, until they were informed that it was no longer allowed. Nevertheless, they have had the traditional Mass on campus, at first once a month, ever since the 1984 indult. The sympathy of the founding President, Dr. Ronald McArthur, especially towards the end of his life, was very much towards the traditional Mass. For all that, while the school welcomes “traditionalist” Catholics and has the traditional Mass on campus, the College could not be called a “traditionalist College”. It has lived in harmony with the not very traditionalist Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The College continues to thrive to this day, having expanded to an east coast campus in Massachusetts. Now, the College, while not “traditionalist”, could not be called a good fruit of Vatican II, or of the new Mass. The education is more rooted in the pre-conciliar Church, though perhaps in a style (lay run and non-authoritative) that would not have done well before the Council. Yet, even if the College is not a fruit of the Council, it has thrived in the post-conciliar Church. Any Catholic who knows the College, while recognizing that like any human institution it has its faults, knows also that grace thrives on the campus.
The point: grace is at work within the visible unity of the Catholic Church, as one would expect.[1]
For myself, I have always sought to live in the grace of God and to serve Him. If I have not experienced God’s grace through my life in the unity of the visible Church, whether through the new liturgy or the old, then my faith is nothing but a series of dry propositions and experiential illusions.[2] If I have not experienced God’s grace through my life in the unity of the visible Church, then I have no reason to think I could experience it anywhere else, nor any clue as to how I might even think about or judge such a thing.
Further, if I can even read and give consideration to the arguments of sedevacantists, the SSPX, and other more extreme traditionalists, it is only on the basis of the Catholic faith, which I have received in the unity of the visible Catholic Church, which they deny, or tend to deny, even exists, but which is right there where it should be found.
I make reference to Dr. Kwasniewski and myself, but the argument can be multiplied through so many Catholics I know (even before being ordained to the priesthood) in whom it would seem that grace is working in their lives. Then as a priest, working in the “Novus Ordo Church,” I am in a unique way given the privilege to witness the workings of grace in many souls. How could I deny all this? How can countless Catholics deny their own experience, which is not merely subjective, but is vindicated precisely by the visible unity and Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
I could go on and cite the National Eucharistic Pilgrimage and National Eucharistic Congress recently completed. Certainly, there is much that can be criticized, but first we need to recognize the basic fact for what it is: the Catholic Church in the United States pulled this off and for all its defects it was an occasion of grace for countless souls.
For my part, I might prefer it if grace only worked through Latin Gregorian chant, and not through sappy, sentimental music with lyrics that are often suspect if not outright heterodox. I am also inclined to think that such music is an impediment rather than a help. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the workings of grace in Catholics who happen to like that sort of music at Mass. I can’t choose how God communicates His grace.
The point is that because the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church still exists as a visible reality in this world, through which God gives grace, traditionalism needs to be a part of that Church and be wary of the tendencies in their own thinking and desire that tend to move them away from that visible reality.
The Novus Ordo: Validity, Legitimacy, and Authenticity
Dr. Kwasniewski has argued that the new Mass is valid, but more than mere validity is needed. In addition to validity he singles out liceity, fittingness, and authenticity.[3]
The category of liceity is nothing new. Dr. Kwasniewski highlights the celebration of the Mass according to an approved rite of the Church and on that basis questions the liceity of many Novus Ordo Masses on account of the rampant liturgical abuse.[4]
He opposes “fittingness” to “the Mass is the Mass; Jesus is there and that is all that matters” argument. To this he says,
The liturgy has a greater purpose than putting on a meal for us, and even Our Lord’s presence has a greater scope and purpose than sacramental communion. The Mass is the solemn, public, formal act of adoration, thanksgiving, and supplication offered by Christ the High Priest to the Father, and by His entire Mystical Body in union with Him. It is the foremost act of the virtue of religion, by which we offer to God a sacrifice of praise worthy of His glory. It is the chief expression of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. It is the kingdom of heaven breaking into our earthly time and space. It is the nuptial feast of the King of Kings. It is the recapitulation of the entire created universe in its Alpha and Omega.[5]
His argument, then, is that the traditional rite provides a much more fitting expression of the full meaning and glory of the Mass. Beauty and dignity matter; they are not just nice add-ons, but fitting to the reality of the Mass.
Authenticity (or legitimacy) is perhaps the most interesting of the four qualities: it could be summed up as continuous, organic development from apostolic origins. It is the “good birth” and the authenticity derived from the continuous action of the Holy Spirit in the Church through the centuries. Because the Novus Ordo, despite the principle laid down in Sacrosanctum Concilium, is not really an organic development from the pre-existing rite, but truly a new rite, it is therefore, according to Dr. Kwasniewski, completely devoid of the necessary quality of “authenticity”.[6]
Fundamentally, Dr. Kwasniewski is trying to make a case against the Novus Ordo, which accepts its validity, but affirms, “Validity is not enough!” Even more he is finally affirming that the new liturgy is fundamentally illegitimate, like an illegitimate child.
His argument, especially his consideration of “authenticity,” raises interesting questions. First it raises the question of papal authority or power of the liturgy. Does the Pope have the power/authority to create a new liturgical rite? Well, insofar as the modern Roman rite is not a continuation of the traditional rite, then the Pope has in fact done so.[7] He has established not just a new order of Mass, but revised the rites of all the Sacraments, the Divine Office, and the Roman Pontifical and Ritual. Indeed, the revision of the Mass has been perhaps the most moderate element of the whole liturgical reform.
If the reformed Roman liturgy is indeed regarded as a new rite, which is effectively the traditionalist claim, then the Pope has in fact established a new rite. He therefore has the power to do so and, in the measure that this new rite has been accepted by the Church, it seems that he has the authority. That does not mean that it was prudent to do so. Nor does it mean that he has the right to suppress the traditional Roman liturgy.[8]
If the Pope has the authority to establish a new rite, then Dr. Kwasniewski’s criterion of “authenticity” is not absolute. In regard to the new Mass, there is at least a minimal authenticity that comes from papal approval and also conformity to the general standard found in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr.
What is lacking is both continuous development through history, as well as the stability of form established during the past 1,000 years. Concretely, among other things, the cycle of readings and variable prayers (collect, secret, postcommunion) in the traditional Mass have been fixed for about 1,000 years. They have thus been sanctified by millennial usage. When a priest celebrates and when the lay faithful participate in the traditional Mass, they are worshipping as Catholics have been doing since time immemorial and in continuity with what came from the Apostles. That is “right and just”.
There is no way around it: in the celebration of the new Mass, worship is according to what has been constructed by a group of scholars (whose names we know) in the 1960s. The traditional material that remains is what they decided on. Even supposedly ancient material has been refashioned and repurposed. For example, there are collects that derive from ancient prayers, but maybe not from an ancient collect but from an ancient preface, or another prayer that was not even used in the Mass, the text of which has been refashioned to greater or less extent.[9]
Without considering any other aspect of the new Mass, I think we could say it is an impoverishment when a Catholic no longer worships as his ancestors did. Nor can we say that this is somehow a reconstruction of a more ancient form of Mass; we really have no access to how Catholics worshipped in the early centuries.[10] Any claim to reconstruction of an ancient form amounts to projection of modern ideas onto an imagination of what ancient worship was like or employing that imagination of ancient worship as a basis to engraft modern ideas.
Nevertheless, if the discontinuity and scholarly production indicates an impoverishment, we are faced with the fact that this new rite has been used throughout the Church now for 50 years. Thirty years is sufficient to establish a custom praeter legem as law.[11] Two generations have now grown up knowing no other liturgy than the reformed liturgy. Can it simply be cast off as an illegitimate child? Does it serve no legitimate purpose?[12]
Here I want to return to Dr. Kwasniewski’s four criteria and rejection of reducing the Mass to mere validity. On the one hand he has a point in observing that a sort of decadent neo-Thomism, with a laser-focus on the “essential” needed for validity, allowed for a mentality open to changing the non-essential elements.[13] To some extent there was a mentality of everything that is not essential is up for grabs.[14]
On the other hand, Dr. Kwasniewski runs into the danger of overemphasizing the externals of the rite.
One of the chief criticisms of the new rite is that the sacrificial nature of the Mass has been obscured. I have come across traditionalists making the following claim: because the consecration is now presented as an “Institution Narrative,” priests who are ignorant of the nature of the Mass and do not intend to consecrate the host and chalice, may fail to confect the Eucharist and offer a valid Mass. They seem to forget that the minister of the Sacrament need only intend to do as the Church does, which he presumably intends by performing the rite of the Church,[15] even if he is in error about the reality, even if he is a heretic.
The whole substance of the Mass, both Sacrament and sacrifice is contained in the words of consecration. The sacrifice itself is realized through the transubstantiation which places the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar.[16]
The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church (Pius XII, Mediator Dei,92).
And, “The liturgy of the Church is the context in which are inserted the very words of Christ. They alone are efficacious with regards to transubstantiation and the perpetuation of the redemptive sacrifice.”[17]
It is necessary, then, to stop before this fact that the whole essence of the Mass is contained in the consecration. That leads to the question: why not reduce the Mass to the initial epiclesis, consecration, and anamnesis, with the oblation, followed by communion?[18]
St. Thomas Aquinas speaking in answer to an objection that only the words of Christ should be used in the rite of the sacrament replies: “The consecration is accomplished by Christ’s words only; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it” (ST IIIa, Q.83, a. 4, ad. 1).
The whole of the rite, then, disposes the people for receiving the Sacrament, and participating in the sacrifice, by way of instruction and inciting of reverence. It is precisely here that the traditionalist will argue that the new rite is defective.[19]
The expression of the sacrificial nature of the Mass has undoubtedly been diminished by the removal of the traditional offertory prayers, the addition of new Eucharistic prayers, which are not so emphatic as the Roman Canon, and the dropping of the “Placeat” at the end of Mass. That constitutes a diminishment of instruction and with it a lessening of an incitement to specifically sacrificial reverence.[20]
Further, insofar as what is not asked for is not received, there are many things that are no longer asked for, or at least not insistently, that pertain to the disposition of the people, like humility, repentance, and contrition. So also, insofar as the petition for the intercession of the saints is diminished, their intercessory help is lessened.
This all has to do with the disposition of the people, but Dr. Kwasniewski would add that insofar as the whole expression of the faith is diminished, so also the rite as a whole no longer gives the same degree of objective glory to God. That makes it less fitting for its purpose.
That being said, traditionalists run the danger of attributing an almost sacramental efficacy to every word and gesture of the traditional rite. Yes, the Mass is about more than validity; yes, the Mass does call for a full and faithful rite, rooted in the continuity of the apostolic tradition; nevertheless, the full and objective power of the Mass is contained in the consecration.
I have come across the claim that many celebrations of the Novus Ordo are more offensive to God on account of the lack of reverence and even objective sacrilege of priest and people than pleasing to God on account of the mere validity.[21] Wait a minute! That would actually diminish the objective value of Christ’s own sacrifice. It is analogous to claiming that the blasphemies of the high priests at Calvary outweighed the love of Christ on the Cross before God.
The chief value of the Mass before God is that it is the offering of Christ by Christ. As Cardinal Journet argues, it is the operative presence of the sacrifice of the Cross. The traditionalist runs the danger of putting more value on the Church’s contribution, the ritual elaboration of the Mass, than on Christ’s own sacrifice that is offered in the Mass.[22]
The point is not to justify the sort of liturgical abuses and casual irreverence that are all too common in the Novus Ordo, but to caution against the overvaluation of the liturgical rite in comparison to the actual sacrifice of Christ. In the words of Cardinal Journet,
Christ’s sacrifice transcends all liturgical settings of East and West. It is at the same time and eminently, infinite adoration and infinite thanksgiving, infinite offering and infinite supplication, infinite praise and infinite propitiation, and act of infinite worship and an act of infinite love. All the prayers of invocation, of offering, of thanksgiving, which the liturgies distinguish and multiply before and after the very sacrifice of Christ, will never be but feeble reflections of the theandric Liturgy of the Savior in the broken mirrors of our hearts.[23]
If I look at monstrances in a church goods catalog I can find beautiful ornate monstrances, sterling silver, plated in gold. That is most fitting for the greatness of the Sacrament. I can also find monstrances that are no more than a circle on a stand, though still gold plated. I can also find a “contemporary” monstrance. I will not try to imagine what a “Rupnik” monstrance might look like. Some monstrances are fitting, some minimal, some offensive, but when the host is placed in the monstrance, it is Jesus. It might require more effort to adore him in a “Rupnik” monstrance, but if he is found in such a place, he should be adored there. The minimal can be tolerated, the offensive should not be allowed, but alas it is. The traditional Mass is like the beautiful ornate monstrance, a fitting setting for the consecration. The Novus Ordo depending on who is involved can range anywhere from the “Rupnik” monstrance to lesser version of the beautiful ornate monstrance.
A devout couple once passed through my parish. After Mass I asked where they were from. They named the parish and the name rang a bell. I asked if that was where x, y, and z happened. They said, “Yes.” It is not for everyone, but they had for years endured the worst, kept their faith, and rendered homage to the Lord. Why? I didn’t have time to ask, but I would guess it was because it was their home. Finally, they had welcomed and given support to a new and faithful pastor.
Despite the poverty of the rite there are Catholics who can and do enter deeply into the sacrificial offering of Christ through the Novus Ordo. That is also part of the reason for some of the reactive hostility of Catholics, not Neo-Modernists, to traditionalism. They hold to the Catholic faith; they enter into the sacrifice through the new rite, and so they receive the traditionalist criticism of the rite as a criticism of their person (they hear an accusation that they must be deficient for liking the rite) and an attempt to invalidate their experience.
Finally, the criticism of the rite, and the people and process that led to its fashioning, the climate of suspicion that this produces easily leads to an unravelling that has no end. The addition of the name of St. Joseph to the Canon, the Pius XII reform of Holy Week, the simplification of the rubrics of the traditional breviary (e.g. classification of feasts, dropping of octaves and vigils), even St. Pius X’s reform of the breviary, all come in for criticism, and not without reason. All come to be seen as stages on the path of liturgical corruption (at the very least because they were excessive displays of papal power over the liturgy) that led ultimately to the Novus Ordo. Where does it stop? Where is the perfect liturgy to be found?
Conclusion
The traditionalist movement has valid concerns and criticisms. The Novus Ordo, together with the whole fabric of the reformed liturgy, presents an objective problem insofar as it constitutes a new modern rite, not received as an inheritance of tradition, but fabricated on the drawing boards of scholars, a fabrication which was nevertheless approved and promulgated by a Pope. Further, it is evident that this fabricated rite has readily lent itself to heterodox purposes.
Nevertheless, for better or for worse, the new liturgy must now be recognized, de facto, as part of the Church. Further, lest they fall into the dangers of sedevacantist tendencies or ritualism while denying the presence and activity of divine grace in the whole Church, it is important that traditionalists recognize that they are only part of the Church, only part of the Roman rite (ritual Church), that they need not just bishops, but the hierarchy under the Pope, that the Magisterium has not altogether stopped functioning since Vatican II; this requires not an abandonment of criticism, but a moderation of criticism, together with the willingness to work with those, at least, who share the Catholic faith, but are not at all traditionalists.
They might chafe at the language of Summorum Pontificum which referred to the “extraordinary form”; they might scoff at the “Reform of the reform” as a dead letter; they might think that “mutual enrichment” goes only one way; nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI did really chart the way forward for the whole Church, recognizing truly that the Church needs the traditional liturgy as a point of reference.
In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place (Benedict XVI, “Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007).
Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2)
Photo by Ágatha Depiné on Unsplash
[1] Mention should also be made of some obvious things like the Missionaries of Charity (though traditionalists will criticize them because they evangelize chiefly through their charitable work, without putting a priority on the open proclamation of the Gospel), and the work of the Sisters of Mary in their “World Villages for Children”, which very literally rescues children from the most desperate situations. (cf. https://www.worldvillages.org; https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-priest-in-the-valley-of-lazaruses)
[2] I use the word “experience” which seems the best word that to capture not just a single incident, a feeling, a thought, a light, but a whole complex of life, on all levels of the soul, as well as many events and personal interactions, that has involved a thoroughgoing change in thinking, feeling, and acting.
[3] https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/11/the-four-qualities-of-liturgy-validity.html
[4] One might wonder how much bad custom, tacitly approved by the bishops, gives a quasi-legitimization to many practices. E.g. Promotion of the use of extraordinary ministers, extensive practice of chalice communion (originally foreseen by Vatican II as a possibility only on rare occasions), near universal neglect of Latin and Gregorian chant with the standardization of the “Four Hymn Mass”.
[5] Ibid.
[6] SC 23 – Dr. Kwasniewski’s argument actually takes this norm laid down to govern the reform of the liturgy as the one most intrinsic to the nature of the liturgy.
[7] Klaus Gamber, a noted liturgical scholar, whose work was recommended by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, argued that the Novus Ordo was not in continuity with the traditional rite, and should rather be called “the Modern Roman Rite”. Some have tried to claim that the Missal of Paul VI is just a continuation of the Missal of John XXIII, which is a continuation of the Missal of Pius V, which is a continuation of previous Roman Missals. Nevertheless, the changes from 1962 to 1970 were so comprehensive that the argument for continuity would require a very minimal definition of the “essence” of the rite. For example, if the Roman Canon were taken as the constitutive and defining element of the Roman Rite, then it might be affirmed that the Missal of Paul VI is a continuation of the Missal of John XXIII because it still contains the Roman Canon. Pope Francis, in his letter to the bishops accompanying Traditionis Custodes makes such a suggestion. Yet, that very argument highlights the extent of discontinuity. For the entire discernible history of the Roman Rite, the Roman Canon had been the unique anaphora. Now there are various anaphoras and, in practice, the Roman Canon is rarely used.
[8] Pope Benedict XVI thought that the actual reform did not conform to the intention of Vatican II, but that does not mean he thought that it was per se illegitimate. At the same time, he also thought that Pope Paul VI was wrong to have attempted to suppress the traditional rite; it seems also that he may have thought that the suppression of the traditional rite is not in the power or authority of the Pope.
[9] Cf. Lauren Pristas, Collects of the Roman Missal (T & T Clark, 2013).
[10] Historical and archeological evidence is too fragmentary and accidental. By way of comparison, Exodus and Leviticus contain detailed prescriptions regarding the sacrificial worship of the old covenant, but for all the detail it would be nearly impossible to reconstruct that worship from the pages of the books. One would need to see the living practice. Well, for the Roman Rite, the living practice was what had been received in 1960.
[11] CIC 26. Of course a 50 year old custom can be suppressed as Pope Pius V suppressed all missals that lacked a 200 year custom. Yet, even if it is a deficient custom, given its pervasiveness, would it be right simply to suppress it?
[12] Does the new liturgy serve a legitimate purpose? The answer to this question must address the radically changed circumstances of the contemporary world, not a new human nature, but certainly unprecedented circumstances (e.g. urban industrial/technological society and even industrialized farming). St. Pius X reform of the breviary was already grappling with adapting a breviary that developed in a world shaped by the natural rhythms of agricultural to a new world shaped by the frenetic pace of the man-made machine. Pope Francis in Desiderio Desideravi observes: “Therefore, the fundamental question is this: how do we recover the capacity to live completely the liturgical action? This was the objective of the Council’s reform. The challenge is extremely demanding because modern people — not in all cultures to the same degree — have lost the capacity to engage with symbolic action, which is an essential trait of the liturgical act” (27). This seems to be a consequence of the loss of the sense of transcendence that has gone alongside the development of the machine world. In this context, yes, granted that many young people especially have developed a hunger for the transcendent that leads them to the traditional liturgy, nevertheless, the new liturgy is clearly more accessible for many people. There is an ambiguity in this accessibility, just as there is an ambiguity in the liturgy itself. Which way will it lead? Towards Neo-Modernism? Or into a true Catholic life? That depends very much on the people involved.
[13] Cf. Council of Trent, Session XXI, ch 2; CCC 1205
[14] Though this mentality goes against the belated affirmation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” (CCC 1125).
[15] Cf. Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, “When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does.” Apparently, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano involved a priest doubting the real presence as he said the words of consecration.
[16] Yes, some sort of Eucharistic prayer is needed to express what is realized in the consecration and to express the offering of the sacrifice. All the new Eucharistic prayers of the Roman Rite do this in at least a minimal fashion. If I am not mistaken the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (apart from the problem of Anglican orders) expresses a contrary intention, while the Lutheran liturgy of the Lord’s Supper has a bare institution narrative. For myself, through all my years of participation in the new Mass, despite the criticisms of traditionalists, I have always been able to recognize the words of consecration, now pronounced aloud, as a powerful manifestation of the sacrifice.
[17] Charles Cardinal Journet, The Mass: The Presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross, trans. Victor Szcurek (St. Augustine Press, 2019), 230. The English translation contains no mention of the original date of publication, but it was clearly written before Vatican II as there is absolutely no mention of the Council in the book.
[18] I am taking it that these parts immediately surrounding the consecration constitute the minimum of context needed to establish the intention of the words of consecration.
[19] Those who are drawn to the traditional Mass very often are drawn precisely because they experience the rite as better fostering dispositions of reverence and self-offering. Even more, parents often find it better disposes their children for the whole life of faith, while children once formed in the reverence characteristic of the traditional rite, often have a hard time taking the new rite seriously (actually children formed in the new rite often have a hard time taking it seriously).
[20] Ironically, one of the great principles of the reform (and arguments for the vernacular) was highlighting the pedagogical value of the Mass. Yet, the pedagogical value has actually been lessened by prayers that are less explicit, more generic, and more vague. For example: there are many prayers in the new Missal that ask only in a rather vague manner of “justice and peace” or “fraternal love”, but without reference to the order of grace and eternal life. Cf. Mass “For the Sanctification of Human Labor” – the second collect is, apart from the conclusion, through Christ, wholly natural in its content; the first option only hints at the order of grace and eternal life insofar as these are contained in advancing “the spread of the Kingdom of Christ.” The new Good Friday prayers drop the explicit petition for conversion of those outside the unity of the Catholic Church, whether non-Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims, or non-believers. The collect for St. Nicholas (Dec. 6) drops the petition for deliverance from the fires of hell. The inseparable Preface of Eucharistic prayer IV contains no mention of Christ or his mediation, could be prayed by a Jew and if the title “Father” were dropped, by a Muslim. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam.
[21] While liturgical abuse, especially of a “horizontal” nature, seems more characteristic of the new rite, let us not forget all the semi-literate priests through history who have blundered their way through the Roman Mass, or the priest to whom St. Philip Neri whispered, “I hear he is of a good family,” meaning that the priest would never treat a well-born Italian the way he treated Christ on the altar, or the priests who said Mass though they were announcing a horse race, twirling their albs as they spun quickly around at the Orate Fratres, or the priests perfunctorily fulfilling their office for the sake of the stipend. The traditional rite receives more care now than in the past, because the self-selected group of those involved tends to exclude the casual, the ignorant, and the perfunctory.
[22] The Council of Trent is explicit on this matter: “This is that clean offering that cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or evil of those who offer it, which the Lord predicted through Malachi would be offered as a clean sacrifice to his name, which would be great among the Gentiles” (Session XXII, Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 1).
[23] Ibid.