Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[PapaBennySix]

Many traditionalists totally resist the Novus Ordo Mass because of its resemblance to Luther’s proposals, which were all condemned absolutely by Pope St. Pius V. So in the 1960’s, when his mass shows up in the form of a project of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Missae, those who were aware of the similarity resisted. Most did not resist, many were confused…um Vatican II did not mandate this…

I’m not sure how long it will take for the Archbishop’s works to get criticized here on CAF, but this is an excellent article for those who would like to know a bit about why Luther should NOT be considered anything less than a Heretic, and the Archbishop, while perhaps disobedient, was absolutely CATHOLIC in his faith. You be the judge.

Ave Maria.

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

"We must, therefore, preserve this Liturgy, this Sacrifice. Our churches were built for this Mass and for no other: for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and not for a supper, a meal, a memorial or a Communion. Our ancestors built magnificent cathedrals and churches, not for a meal or a simple memorial, but for the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ which continues upon our altars. " -Archbishop Lefebrve,1975

 

[John_Higgins]

Pope Paul had the authority to change the Mass. He did.

'Nuff said.

John

 

[Caesar]

Pope Paul had the authority to change the Mass. He did.

'Nuff said.

John

That is actually disputable. Immemorial tradition obliterared by a document that possessed less canonical weight then the document which established it?

And that the Novus Ordo was established by Paul VI has nothing to do with whether it was right or not.

 

[GerardP]

Pope Paul had the authority to change the Mass. He did.

'Nuff said.

John

Pope Benedict has the authority to get rid of Paul VI’s missal. Eventually a Pope will get rid of it if he doesn’t.

 

[Caesar]

Pope Benedict has the authority to get rid of Paul VI’s missal. Eventually a Pope will get rid of it if he doesn’t.

The liberals and modernists might disagree with that one. I am sure they could find some argument.

 

[GerardP]

I’m not sure how long it will take for the Archbishop’s works to get criticized here on CAF, but this is an excellent article for those who would like to know a bit about why Luther should NOT be considered anything less than a Heretic, and the Archbishop, while perhaps disobedient, was absolutely CATHOLIC in his faith. You be the judge.

I don’t know if anyone is actually going to try and refute the archbishop’s words. More likely it will be a pile on LeFebvre.

But, that is a really powerful and concise analysis. It might be too much for some people to face.

 

[GerardP]

The liberals and modernists might disagree with that one. I am sure they could find some argument.

You’re right. To the mods, the Pope only seems to have the authority to promulgate a Liturgy they can tinker with.

 

[PapaBennySix]

Pope Paul had the authority to change the Mass. He did.

'Nuff said.

John

So to stay on the topic, Luther’s mass is similar to the New Mass of Paul VI or not? Is the Archbishop way off?

You’ve just proposed a new thread with that one.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Let’s all just return to the Liturgy of St. James and get over it.

 

[Caesar]

Let’s all just return to the Liturgy of St. James and get over it.

Meh. Lets just go back to immediately before Trent. Anything more would count as archeologism in my view

 

[scylla]

I see no refutation of this, yet I attend the NO since I live in California and the faith is in shambles over here. I must stay and help teach others the faith and preserve faithfulness to Christ.

(this thread is not about validity, I still attend the NO)
I am interested in a defense against the article, anyone?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[stmaria]

This article written by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1975 is , in my opinion, more proof of why he believed that he had to consecrate the bishops. This is more proof of what his mindset was and why he believed the Church was in “grave danger” as sited in Canon law.
And let us not forget that none of the changes that the Archbishop speaks about in his article are in the Constitution on the Liturgy which he voted for**. These were all innovations done outside of the Constitution. Archbishop Lefebvre was in fact open to changes in the mass.
*A Bishop Speaks *by Archbishop Lefebvre
“Some reform and renewal was needed…The first part of the Mass, intended for the instruction of the Faithful and as a means of expressing their faith, clearly stood in need of a means of achieving these ends more plainly and, in some way, more intelligibly. In my humble opinion, two of the reforms proposed for this purpose appeared useful: first the rites of this first part and some vernacular translations.
Let the priest draw near the faithful, communicate with them, pray and sing with them, stand at the lectern to give the readings from the Epistle and Gospel their tongue, sing the credo with the people in the traditional divine melodies. All these are happy reforms restoring to this part of the Mass its true purpose.”

One only need to read the first paragraph of the Constitution, which was written by a group of theologians under the direction of Father Bugnini, to see that in their eyes the mass needed reform to " promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church" vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Ecumenism was at the heart of the changes. However the Mass described in the Constitution would not go far enough to “promote union among all who believe in Christ” so the very men that wrote the Constitution then ignored it when they formed the Consilium to implement it. This I believe is what Archbishop Lefebvre is speaking of in his article on Luther’s Mass.

 

[NetNuncio]

Meh. Lets just go back to immediately before Trent. Anything more would count as archeologism in my view

I actually see the beginnings of this, although perhaps not to the extent as it was before trent.

The Roman Rite now has two official Missals, albeit one is “extraordinary”.

In the Eastern Rite, we have the Missals of the Byzantines. Hopefully, someday soon, we will reach communion with the Orthodox. That could lead to even more Missals. The Pastoral Provision has an Anglican Usage Missal (can we say “Sarum Rite?”). I have also seen a rise in the use of the Dominican Missal (at least here in Portland…that could just be a local thing), so perhaps the orders (or at least the Dominicans) could be using their Missals even more often.

We haven’t reached the point, as it was before Trent, where every region has it’s own Missal, but, due to modern communication, I don’t see that ever happening again. However, we certainly no longer are at the point where only one Missal is acceptable.

Now, back to the topic, Paul VI, indeed had the authority to change the Missal. I don’t agree with the way he did it, but he did it. Now my question: How does the Pauline Mass mirror Luther’s Mass and what about it did Pius V condemn?

 

[NicPais83]

The article is interesting…but has a substantial number of subtle problems. The first thing that is evident in this article is that no where does it have any quotes from the Novus Ordo to compare with Luther’s service. If this article is to make a valid point, then the very least it should do is that. Why not then?

“The logical consequence of this heresy was for Luther to abolish the Offertory of the Mass, which expresses unequivocally the propitiatory and expiatory aims of the Sacrifice. Similarly, he abolished a major part of the Canon, retaining only the essential passages as a narrative of Christ’s Last Supper. In order better to emphasize the latter event, he added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words “quod pro vobis tradetur” (“which will be given up for you”), and deleted both “mysterium fidei” (“the mystery of faith”) and “pro multis” (“for many”). He considered that the passages which both immediately precede and follow the actual Consecration of the bread and Wine were essential. (SSPXAsia article)”

Roman Canon from Novus Ordo:

Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur… [Q]ui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur… [M]ysterimum fidei, (Roman Canon)

Now, taken from the Liturgy of St. Basil;

"Take eat: This is my body which is broken for you… (Byzantine Book of Prayer)

While broke and given up aren’t the same wording, they have the same connotation in this manner of surrendering. **If it is the case that the Novus Ordo is an adaptation of Luther’s ideals, then irrefutable proof is needed to demonstrate this in the form of first-hand accounts that cannot be denied…along the lines of the actual words of Pope Paul VI. **

“It goes without saying that, added to these substantial alterations, the large number of lesser liturgical modifications have contributed further to the inculcation of Protestant attitudes which seriously threaten Catholic doctrine: the suppression of the altar stone, the use of a single altar cloth, the priest facing the people, the Host remaining on the paten rather than on the corporal, the introduction of ordinary bread, sacred vessels of less noble substances, and numerous other details.(SSPXAsia article)”

Common sense and experience denounces much of this paragraph. Justifying suppressing the altar stone needs to be based on the historical reasons for its institution, and if cognates exist in other Ritual Churches. The use of a single altar cloth is a funny issue, since it is not clear if the article is ignoring the corporal, purificator, and pall, which the Novus Ordo retains. The priest facing the people was ALLOWED during the Tridentine Mass, as the priest is only required to face East (see St. Peter’s Basillica for evidence). The Host remaining on the paten rather than the corporal is a matter of discipline, and while it is not clear how this could take away from belief in the True Presence, it does not explain how it does. The recipe for Hosts is highly regulated to the point that there are arguments over gluten content. Ordinary bread makes for an illicit and possibly invalid Eucharist, but one would have to search for a Parish that does this. As for the quality of the sacred vessels, the GIRM states that they must be of a high quality, and while use of lower quality material is illicit, it does not invalidate the Mass. This is not to say that it is justified, however. The real issue with this paragraph is the mention of “numerous other details,” which with the ones mentioned so far are so vague at best, that the numerous details must be so great that they did not merit being mentioned. To make a valid point, it would be worth addressing what these details are so that we could all see the “error of our ways.”

Another area where the article draws contention is in that Luther abolished the Offertory. While stating this, it never once quotes the Novus Ordo, which visibly HAS an Offertory, albeit newly composed. As for the Tridentine Offertory, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/11217a.htm, talks about how, with the exception of the Secret, or in the Novus Ordo, the Prayer Over the Gifts, the Offertory prayers were added in the 14th century, and the Order of the Mass did not officially include them till AFTER Trent. Finally, the article mentions the phrases: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist, which would need to be confirmed that they are from Lutheran origin, since they also appear in my Byzantine Book of Prayer.

 

[Caesar]

I actually see the beginnings of this, although perhaps not to the extent as it was before trent.

The Roman Rite now has two official Missals, albeit one is “extraordinary”.

In the Eastern Rite, we have the Missals of the Byzantines. Hopefully, someday soon, we will reach communion with the Orthodox. That could lead to even more Missals. The Pastoral Provision has an Anglican Usage Missal (can we say “Sarum Rite?”). I have also seen a rise in the use of the Dominican Missal (at least here in Portland…that could just be a local thing), so perhaps the orders (or at least the Dominicans) could be using their Missals even more often.

We haven’t reached the point, as it was before Trent, where every region has it’s own Missal, but, due to modern communication, I don’t see that ever happening again. However, we certainly no longer are at the point where only one Missal is acceptable.

Now, back to the topic, Paul VI, indeed had the authority to change the Missal. I don’t agree with the way he did it, but he did it. Now my question: How does the Pauline Mass mirror Luther’s Mass and what about it did Pius V condemn?

I actually prefer the idea of some amount of liturgical plurality, where each region or diocese, along with religious orders, had their own liturgical rites, but with some universal aspects (in the west that was the Latin language and the use of the Roman Canon).

No, the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite cannot be called the Sarum Rite. The Anglican Use is based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, whereas the Sarum Use (though commonly, incorrectly, called a Rite) was a medieval liturgy (originally used in the Diocese of Sarum/Salisbury, but finally spread throughout southern England) based on the Roman Rite. The Book of Common Prayer, though with some similarities to both the Sarum and Roman Missals, was greatly reformed and simplified from the Roman Missal.

Some videos of Solemn High Mass in the Sarum Rite are available on the blog of the (Catholic) celebrant, Fr. Raymond Blake: Valle Adurni

 

[marymonde]

Here is some commentary from Luther on the German mass he created. No text of the actual mass but a description of what it was to be like.

reformationhappens.com/works/mass/

 

[marymonde]

The article is interesting…but has a substantial number of subtle problems. The first thing that is evident in this article is that no where does it have any quotes from the Novus Ordo to compare with Luther’s service. If this article is to make a valid point, then the very least it should do is that. Why not then?
.

I would like to see a comparison myself, but cannot seem to find one searching. However, his points on the effects the German Mass had on the clergy and faithful compared to today’s NO’s effects, are similar, so much so it’s kind of scary. I think he is spot on with his assessment, so personally, I believe hsi points are valid and should be taken seriously.

 

[AJV]

I wanted to make it more detailed but I didn’t have mujch time. Maybe in a few days I’ll follow it up, and also some of the other thing like intention, given in the article

There is a bit of a question about WHICH service order of Luther’s, he is referring to, but in any case, I think some of the points could generally apply. I both agree and disagree with some propositions of the Archbishop.

The abolition of the minor orders and the sub-diaconate, and the creation of a married diaconate, have also contributed to the purely administrative conception of the priest, to the detriment of his essentially priestly character, Thus one is ordained primarily to serve the community and no longer for the purpose of offering Christ’s Sacrifice which alone is the justification for the Catholic concept of the Priesthood.

To be honest I don’t see how this necessarily follows and I would disagree.

The logical consequence of this heresy was for Luther to abolish the Offertory of the Mass, which expresses unequivocally the propitiatory and expiatory aims of the Sacrifice. Similarly, he abolished a major part of the Canon, retaining only the essential passages as a narrative of Christ’s Last Supper. In order better to emphasize the latter event, he added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words “quod pro vobis tradetur” (“which will be given up for you”), and deleted both “mysterium fidei” (“the mystery of faith”) and “pro multis” (“for many”). He considered that the passages which both immediately precede and follow the actual Consecration of the bread and Wine were essential.

It’s splitting hairs, I know, but actually the formula of Luther was “quod pro vobis DATUR”. (Tradetur is based on the Vulgate Corinthians). This was also because Luther, in looking through the Gospels, settled on the Gospel of Luke, and thus BOTH formulae are based on that. This is also why there is the change in the syntax of the consecration of the wine to “Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo”. “Pro multis” in found in the 1523 ordo- in the 1526 one he switched to a more exact rendering of the Lucan text.

When coming to the reasons why “quod pro vobis tradetur” was chosen, I in fact see that one of the reasons is sacrificial. The reasons were proposed by Fr. Vaggaggini, who had a great influence in the drafting of the new Eucharistic Prayers (particularly III, and even IV). The reasons he advocates for such a wording are:

1. Lacks a parallel with the consecration of the wine (quod pro vobis effundetur)
2. The omission “weakens the first part of the consecration in a point of capital importance namely it’s sacrificial character” The argument here is that “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” only indicates that the body is present. He continues “the actual sign is that….broken bread signifies his Body broken for us, and the wine poured out means his Blood shed for us”
3. It is the custom in “all Eastern liturgies”, “Paleo-Hispanic rite”, and “De Sacramentis of the Milanese tradition”

 

[AJV]

Going on to the issue of the Offertory, the reason that was abolished was not the same as Luther’s. The revisers were indeed quite happy to have sacrificial language, but in keeping with their own theories, only in a particular part of the liturgy. You’ll note that’s why we have statements like “we offer you his Body and Blood” in EP IV, which several liturgists have pointed out as even stronger than the Canon. (cf. Chupuncgo’s Handbook for Liturgical Studies, or Mazzas Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman liturgy where, clearly unfavourable, he calls it “less traditional”, and “excessive in theological grandeur”)

The reason the Offertory was abolished was:

1. It was proleptic. It anticipated the Consecration by calling the bread “the saving host”, the wine “the chalice of salvation”, and offering them for sins, etc. Several of the revisers felt it shouldn’t.
   This was not the first time, since this was even brought up at the Council of Trent together with some of the other thornier prayers like the Offertory for the Masses of the Dead or the Commingling. But largely, it was always defended as anticipatory, types, etc. As Gueranger put it, the Church “prayed God to vouchsafe to look beyond that which she is actually offering to Him at this moment”. At the same time, in the 18th-20th centuries, certain Oriental liturgies, which also contain a certain amount of prolepsis to a higher degree, were altered. All references to “Body” and “Blood” before the consecration were changed to “holy bread”, “precious chalice”, or “bread” and “wine”. In some ways, it’s perhaps hardly surprising that the same logic was finally applied to our own liturgy.
2. It was felt to be duplicatory.

The idea here was that the Offertory duplicated expressions that were proper to the Canon. (In the Middle Ages it was called the “Canon Minor”)The reason was due to the fusion of the Gallican-Hispanic forms with those of the fixed Roman liturgy when the Roman liturgy displaced the liturgy in Gaul. This hybrid eventually made its way back to Rome.

If one paraphrased the structure:

• Accept this spotless host for my sins
• Receive the chalice of salvation for the world
• Bless this oblation
• Receive the oblation
• Prayer for acceptance of the oblation (secreta)
• Accept and bless these gifts, offerings, holy and unblemished sacrifices
• Accept the oblation of our service
• Bless this oblation
• We offer you the pure, holy, unspotted Victim, the holy bread of eternal life and chalice of everlasting salvation

It was felt that it was too repetitious and thus the Offertory should go since the proper “Offertory” came after the Consecration when the Victim is offered.
Additional impetus was provided by those who wished to return to some sort of a “pure” liturgy of Rome, unencumbered by all these mediaevel “accretions”.

I wish to point out also that the NO differs from the Luther’s not only in its fixed parts like a Eucharistic Prayer, but also in regard to its variable parts. The “Prayer over the Gifts” as it’s now titled, very frequently contains language about the sacrifice.

Take this week’s prayer which (in ICELese) reads:

Almighty God, may the sacrifice we offer take away the sins of those whom you enlighten with the Christian faith. We ask this….

Or even the Postcommunion

Almighty Father, by this sacrifice may we always remain one with your Son, Jesus Christ, whose Body and Blood we share, for he is Lord for ever and ever.

There is a whole host of ex adiunctis factors from the missal that show the idea of sacrifice. Some examples would be

• the priest’s preparatory prayers before Mass. I also wish to point out that the formula of intention “Ego volo” recited by the priest remains the same.
• the idea of Masses for the dead – the Propers are quite explicit.
• the idea of Votive Masses, or Masses for particular needs
• the idea of Masses in honour of the saints, and in honour of the BVM

These are only 4 of the things that separate the Mass from Luther’s Ordo. Does anyone think that Luther would have endorsed these things, or the Roman Missal, or even the GIRM alone in its totality? And if not, why?

 

[AJV]

Article VII of the instruction which introduced the new Liturgy reflected a clearly Protestant orientation. A corrected version which followed in the wake of the outraged protests of the faithful remains sadly deficient.

But taking Article 7 (the original) with the whole GIRM, may we also note several instances of things displeasing to Protestants in relation to sacrifice? Starting with Article 2.

It goes without saying that, added to these substantial alterations, the large number of lesser liturgical modifications have contributed further to the inculcation of Protestant attitudes which seriously threaten Catholic doctrine: (1) the suppression of the altar stone, (2) the use of a single altar cloth, (3) the priest facing the people, (4) the Host remaining on the paten rather than on the corporal, (5) the introduction of ordinary bread, (6) sacred vessels of less noble substances, and numerous other details.

(1) yes, suppressed for Masses outside the church- and yes, this does contribute to a loss of sacrality.
(2) It perhaps depends on the viewpoint? Maybe it would be better if 3 had been retained for those who could afford it. Nonetheless, the point seems slightly vague.
(3) Based on inaccurate liturgical knowledge on what was felt to be ideal and a return to early practise
(4) To be honest, the connection is a bit forced. The reason the Host lies on the altar is because the ceremonies of the Sancta were still retained and the paten is removed at the Offertory. The revisers felt that there was no need to retain an archaic ritual and so simplified it.
(5) Which in some places at the time was an abuse- the 1970 does specify unleavened bread
(6) I think it does depend. The GIRM called for materials which are noble in the estimation of each region. No doubt some would have used it as a pretext to introduce some dubious vessels. But I do think that on it’s own it is not a diminution. It does say about plating with gold if it is less precious or rusts.

LUTHER DENIES TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE AS TAUGHT BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For Luther the substance of bread remains. Consequently, in the words of his disciple Melanchton, who strongly opposed the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, “Christ instituted the Eucharist as a memorial of His Passion. To adore It is therefore idolatry”.
It follows that Communion is to be taken in the hand and under both species, which reinforces the denial of the presence of Our Lord’s Body and Blood; it is thus normal to consider the Eucharist as incomplete under a single species.

Surely we can agree that, as far as the texts go, and the explanation of the GIRM, the documents from the Popes. etc., transubstantiation has not be repudiated.
Now Communion under both species does not by and off itself constitute a denial of the totality of the Real Presence. Even Trent permitted for it. And the NO has not denied this. It fact, this is proved by the fact that the laity are still not required to commune under both species. The GIRM and all the documents emphasize the dogmatic teaching. If indeed people do consider under one species incomplete (which is something I see no reason to doubt given those times) then surely they are setting themselves up in opposition to the teaching of the NO itself?
CITH of course, is the thornier matter that sees frequent occurrence in the boards

As regards the Archbishop’s other comments vis penance, confirmation, etc. I see not a repudiation of the NO but of the aberrations and abuses of the period. Certainly the CDW legislated against the drop-of-the-hat general absolution. (I am a bit surprised though that the revised formula for Confirmation was not being used).

I do see one thing though in which the NO can be said to be accountable for this. It is that changes were too many and too fast. Was it so hard when so many timeless things held nigh unchangeable were being replaced in so short a period, almost in a vacuum, with explanations supplied by those who wished to see something else, for people to think that they could overturn other things as well? Methinks not.