What's Wrong with the Novus Ordo?

I'm reading an article on substack titled Deficiencies of the New Mass, describing a talk given in 2014 by Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX at the Angelus Press Conference titled, “What is Our Objection to the New Mass.” It raised numerous points that are still relevant today. 

The first point is this:

The New Mass – Novus Ordo Missae – is ecumenical in its construction and Protestant in its orientation. It is the most tangible expression of the Vatican II revolution, affecting every Catholic directly and deleteriously. 

By 2014, the liturgical abuses were legion: clown Masses, polka Masses, home Masses, Masses without liturgical vestments, Masses with butterfly vestments, Giving Tree banners, Puppet Masses, Barney Masses, Masses with hordes of LEMs (Lay Eucharistic Ministers), etc. Fr. Themann was on to something and anyone paying attention had plenty of evidence to demonstrate what he said was true. I could post lots of photos if I could find them. How about the crepe paper rainbow in the sanctuary for Easter? The holy water fonts filled with sand? The cracked pot and the torn garment during Lent. I shudder at the memories.

John Vennari, writing for Catholic Family News summarized the talk this way:

Father Themann delivered an objective, structured, well-reasoned critique of the Novus Ordo, primarily based on the General Instruction of the Roman Liturgy. This was the document that was used to unleash the New Mass onto the Catholic world.

The article then went on to discuss briefly the Ottaviani Intervention.  From 1959 until 1969 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was the head of the Holy Office responsible for protecting the doctrine of the faith (now the DDF, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith). Shortly after the promulgation of the new Mass in 1969 he published the intervention along with Cardinal Antonio Bacci and several other theologians including Archbishop Lefebvre. Described as a "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass," the intervention was highly critical of the changes in the liturgy. The intervention was sent to Pope Paul VI along with a cover letter. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre translated the document into French and the group sought signatures of other bishops before sending it to the pope. Only a handful signed. 

The intervention, which is shorter than many modern encyclicals (only about 25 pages long) caused quite a stir and Pope Paul VI sent it to the new head of the CDF, Franjo Seper, with a request to know whether the critique was warranted. Who prepared the response which described the critique is unclear from my research. Was the head of the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy, Annibale Bugnini, architect of the new Mass, involved? It seems likely. At any rate the response by the CDF was that the critique was "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false." I would like to read the text of the response but haven't been able to find it. I urge readers to study the intervention published with a well-footnoted preface on the background of the intervention by Fr. Anthony Cekada who separated from the SSPX in 1983 to embrace sedevacantism. 

Fr. Themann's talk covered four points:

1) How the New Mass came about;

2) The New Rite itself (its words, liturgical gestures, or lack thereof, etc.)

3) The General Instruction of 1969 that forms the Preface of the New Missal, which gives the “theological basis” of the New Mass;

4) The motives and explanations of those responsible for the New Rite.

The emphasis of his talk was that the new Mass diluted the signs and gestures of the liturgy to the point, not of explicitly refuting doctrine, but muddying the waters so to speak. It obscures and confuses: 

“This is crucial to keep in mind...because we do not criticize the New Mass because it explicitly denies a point of doctrine. We criticize it because the New Mass has so altered the ensemble of signs which constitute a liturgical rite that it could just as easily express non-Catholic doctrine – and not because of a haphazard sloppiness on the part of its creators but by a very deliberate intent and a skillfully devised execution which corresponds to an un-Catholic but consistent system of thought...For a rite of Mass to be considered good, it is not enough that it have the minimum elements necessary for validity. For a rite of Mass to be considered good, it must express the Catholic Faith.”

And here are the issues that were undermined by the Novus Ordo, the fact that the Mass is:

1) A real sacrifice,
2) In which Christ is truly present as a Victim of the sacrifice,
3) Who is offered for the glory of God and in propitiation for our sins,
4) By an ordained priest who alone, as the instrument of Christ the High Priest, has the power to consecrate the bread and wine.

Think about the Novus Ordo and the way it is presented. The priest is often called a "presider." The sacrifice for sin is hidden behind all the images of a banquet with the priest as host. The bloody sacrifice as atonement for sin is minimized. And the fact that the priest has been consecrated for the sacrifice is almost lost in the horde of "ministers" and the casual way so many receive Communion.

The second part of the article goes into the General Instructions that define how the Mass is to be prayed. That deserves its own post which I'll offer on another day. 

Viva Cristo Rey!