A Tale of Two Liturgies

Rev. Fr. David Sherry, District Superior, September 2023

Shortly after Our Saviour was born in Bethlehem, King Herod was facing death. His last act befitted his cruel life. Foreseeing that his demise would be greeted with much joy, he was determined that tears should nonetheless be shed. He knew well that tears of affection were too much to expect, so he ordered that the Chiefs of the main Jewish families should be rounded up and imprisoned at the Hippodrome of Jericho so that when he died, they too would be killed and Herod, the scourge of Israel in life, would be a cause of mourning in death.

The “conciliar Church” (as the late Cardinal Benelli called it) appears to be dying. Mass attendance, vocations, Catholic families and the passing on of the Catholic Faith from generation to generation are dwindling to nothing. Vatican II and the New Mass — which were brought in with the promise of a new Springtime — have instead heralded a frigid Winter. The average age of a priest being north of seventy and Mass attendance being south of 10% in many countries, it is clear that the New Mass is dying.

And so, the death of the Traditional Mass has also been decreed. The Mass of all Time must be phased out because — in the Pope’s words — the new Mass is the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman rite” (Letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, 16^th July 2021). And, he added (in my paraphrase), “just as St. Pius V abolished all rites that were not of proven antiquity, I declare that the most antique one of all is to be phased out.”

However, the Old Mass, the Mass of All Time will not die. If it be of God, you cannot overthrow it. (Acts 5:39) It is worthwhile for us in this letter to consider again why we must continue, as Cardinal Šeper said of us, to “make the Mass our banner”.

Some people say that the New Mass should be rejected because it’s new. But this cannot be an entirely sufficient reason. Complete novelty is always suspect in the lex orandi — the “law of prayer” — but something new can be good or bad, it should be judged on its merits and not on its newness. 

Others say that it should be rejected because it’s not in Latin. But of course, the new Mass can be in Latin if you want it to. Admittedly, the modernists conveniently forget that the Pope who convoked Vatican II, John XXIII, explained eloquently in an encyclical letter called Veterum Sapientia (The Wisdom of the Ancients) why Latin is the language of the Church and of the Roman liturgy. For the reasons the Pope explained, it would be a terrible mistake to phase out Latin, but it is not impossible.

A third group reject the New Mass because they just don’t like it, they prefer the Old Mass. But that is hardly the virtue of obedience. Obedience means to obey our superior in all matters in which he has authority over us, provided that it not be a sin. I might not like the fact that my boss makes me wear an orange uniform at work, but my likes or dislikes do not come into it.  

So if it is not for its novelty per se, its vernacular versions, or the distaste it whelms up in the emotions and in the soul — why reject the new Mass? The New Mass must be rejected for one decisive and sufficient reason:  it is a protestantized version of the Mass, which undermines and attacks the Faith. 

Let me explain. The Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted in an unbloody manner. Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, instituted the Mass at the Last Supper when He took bread and wine and said over each separately, This is my body and This is my blood. He gave the power to celebrate Mass to the apostles when He said, Ye shall do these things in remembrance of Me. Necessary for a Mass are: bread, wine, the words of consecration and the priest. One more thing needs to be added to these: the intention of the minister, because if the priest were simply to say these words without the intention of consecrating, there would be no consecration. 

These five things then are essential and sufficient: a priest stuck in prison for the crime of preaching the Faith could with these five elements — and it has happened more than once — celebrate Mass in a moment. These five elements came from Christ, where did the rest of the Mass come from? It came from the apostles and churchmen; the apostles first, then their successors. 

The apostles founded the different rites of Mass. What we call the Eastern rites of Mass are just as Catholic as the Roman rite of Mass; the difference is that the Eastern rites were founded by other apostles, the Roman rite by St. Peter. After the apostles, their successors, the bishops, added to these rites. Why? And with what goal? To express the hidden reality of the Mass. The sacraments are signs instituted by Christ to give grace. The hidden reality cannot be seen, but the signs can, and they point to the hidden reality, both causing it and expressing it. This is why all of the rites of Mass — Western and Eastern — are good: they all are the one sacrifice.  Although the ceremonies surrounding the essentials are different, they all express that same reality. 

Why reject the new Mass then? Because unlike any previous rite: it was invented for the precise purpose of not clearly expressing the hidden reality. “To remove”, as its architect Archbishop Annibale Bugnini wrote, “anything that is the shadow of the stumbling block for our separated brethren.” Our “separated brethren” are the heretics, and what is a stumbling block for them is the Real Presence of Our Lord, and the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice. The archbishop succeeded admirably in his goal: there are few Catholics today who know anything about the Real Presence and the sacrifice; most of them — if they go to Mass at all — consider it to be some sort of community celebration and the ‘bread’ to be just bread, whether consecrated or not. The Pope, powerful though he be, has no power to impose such a Mass. That is the real reason for rejecting it.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre summed it up:

It is psychologically, pastorally, and theologically impossible for Catholics to abandon a liturgy which is truly an expression of and a bedrock of the Faith, and adopt a new liturgy, conceived by heretics, without putting their Faith in the greatest peril. You can’t act like a Protestant indefinitely without becoming one.

“You’re being disobedient!” say the Pharisees. Not at all. I obey God because He is God. I obey everyone else insofar as he has authority from God. I must obey Peter because Peter confirms my Faith. But when Peter is obviously undermining my Faith, I must not obey him.  I do obey to build the Faith; I do not obey to destroy it.  

In his Motu proprio, Pope Francis quotes the maxim of Pope Celestine, lex orandi lex credendi — “the law of prayer forms the law of belief”. There is only one Faith, but there could be as many rites of Mass as express that one Faith. But there can’t be room for a Mass which expresses a different faith. The New Mass and the Old Mass are incompatible; the Pope therefore decreed the elimination of one … before the death of the other.

May God bless you,

Fr. David Sherry

View all articles from Ite Missa Est.