Corpus Christi celebrations by the Dominicans in Oxford in 2010. Image by Lawrence Lew OP, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, here.
In 1969, “Pope Paul VI” issued the “New Mass”, also known as the “Novus Ordo Missae”.
The “New Mass” is explained in a document known as the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”. The most important problem with this document is Article 27 (7 in the original version), which gives a definition of the Mass. It read in the first version:
“The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).” (quoted here, p. 213)
Traditionalist author John S. Daly correctly noted: “The definition as it is given above invites the view that the Mass is a meeting at which Catholics celebrate a commemoration of the Last Supper. No mention is made of transubstantiation, of the unity of the Mass with the Sacrifice of Calvary, of the propitiatory value of the Mass, or of the fact that the Mass, as such, is celebrated by the priest, with the laity merely being present.” (p. 213)
It also leaves out the fact that the Eucharistic sacrifice is valid, regardless of the number of faithful present and can in fact be celebrated by the priest alone.
After some backlash, they modified the General Instruction in the same year and published an updated version. The new text read, in article 27:
“At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice. For this reason Christ’s promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.” (source)
Even this revised version is problematic. The word “presides” is not Catholic terminology. The priest alone is the one who offers the eucharistic sacrifice, and this sacrifice is not in any way dependent on the congregation.
The late traditionalist author Michael Davies observes (his English version is slightly different than the current official from the USCCB):
“The ambiguity of the first paragraph is increased by the second. The first concludes by stating that the people “assemble to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, which is the sacrifice of the Eucharist.” Which “sacrifice of the Eucharist” is referred to here? In the Catholic sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ are offered together with the people. In the Protestant sacrifice the people offer themselves alone in a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. The most obvious interpretation of paragraph 2 is the Protestant one. No mention is made of the Divine Victim made present by consecration-transubstantiation, only to Christ present in virtue of the assembly of the people. Such an interpretation is reinforced by the fact that paragraph 2 begins with “Quare”, i.e., “hence” or “therefore”. Paragraph 1 states that the people “assemble to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord” and hence He is there “in the midst of them”. This interpretation receives added force by the use of the conjunction “enim”, i.e., “for”, in the third paragraph. This paragraph does indeed state that the Sacrifice of the Cross is “perpetuated”, but the use of quare and enim links the three paragraphs and, therefore, a Protestant could conclude that the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated by the act of the people assembling to celebrate the “memorial” of the Lord. Luther wrote: “Christ has been offered only once; what is offered for us each day is less an offering than a memorial of this offering.”
Such an impression is strengthened by yet another reference to the fact that “Christ is really present in the very community which has gathered in His name.” This is followed by another “presence” in the person of “His minister” and then, almost as an afterthought, “substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species”. Even this apparently traditional phrase is somewhat suspect, as it must be interpreted in the light of the first two paragraphs. There would have been no ambiguity had it been stated that Christ was present under the Eucharistic species in virtue of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine effected by the words of consecration, and that this presence was permanent. Luther accepted a substantial presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species (consubstantiation), and a good number of Protestants accept a presence of Christ with the Eucharistic species which is continuous until the conclusion of the Communion. This is a very different form of presence from the permanent presence of Catholic theology in which Our Lord remains physically present under the Eucharistic species after the Mass and remains physically present in the tabernacle even when no one is present.” (p. 225-226)
There is no precedent in the entire history of the Catholic Church for the following sequence of events:
- The pope publishes heresy in an official document.
- There is an outcry among the faithful (not even from the hierarchy!) against this heresy.
- The pope retracts the heretical document and issues a corrected version.
Some people reference the incident with Pope John XXII (pope between 1316-1334). He was a pope of French ethnicity who stayed in Avignon. He delivered a sermon, in which he claimed that people who are saved only go to heaven after the end of the world. This caused a huge uproar and in the end, he retracted his statements. His successor, Benedict XII, published the ex cathedra bull “Benedictus Deus” (1336), which settled the matter definitively. He declared that after the particular judgment each particular soul will either enter hell immediately, or heaven immediately or heaven after the purgation period.
Firstly, Pope John didn’t state his views in an official document, but in a sermon. Secondly, the issue was not yet defined.
In my opinion, this is an event in Church history which has been overlooked way too much. Holy Mass is central to our faith and if priests and laity have a flawed understanding of it, then what effect is that going to have?
There are many disturbing questions that can be raised. What if the modern priests do not believe anymore that they are re-presenting the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner?
All of this is really disturbing.