The Mass is The Mass – Right?
Below is the article Why All Valid Masses Are Not Equal by Robert J. Siscoe, published on The Remnant website. Some of the real jewels are to be found in the middle and at the end of the article, so don’t read the first paragraph and think you’ve “got it”. Read the entire article and, thereafter, comments invited…
Pictured, Cardinal Schönborn celebrates Youth Mass – click here or on the picture, to see for yourself…
Have you ever wondered how to respond to those who equate the efficacy of the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo by directing the argument to the level of validity? They rightly point out that any valid Mass is a renewal of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary, which was of infinite value, and then conclude that as long as a Mass is valid, it, too, is of infinite worth, and therefore equally efficacious for those who attend. They might concede that a scandalously celebrated Mass will have a negative effect on the subjective disposition of those present, which could perhaps lessen the amount of grace they receive, but they will insist (or at least imply) that neither liturgical abuses, nor an unworthy priest, nor watered down prayers or profane music, per se, will lessen the efficacy of the Mass or the fruit to be derived there from.
The answer to the above question (how is the Traditional Mass more efficacious than the Novus Ordo) is found in the distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Mass. Before delving into this matter, let us recall the four ends of the Mass. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explains them as follows:
The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value
When considering the efficacy of the Mass, we must distinguish between the intrinsic value and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value refers to the efficacious power of the Sacrifice itself. Since the Mass is essentially identical to the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which was of infinite worth, the intrinsic value of any Mass is itself infinite. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, we read:
“The intrinsic value of the Mass, that is, its peculiar dignity and efficacious power of itself (in actu primo), is infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the Sacrificial Gift, and of the Primary Sacrificial Priest”. (1)
With respect to the Mass’s extrinsic value, we must make a distinction between the extrinsic value in relation to God to whom it is offered, and the extrinsic value in relation to man for whom it is offered. Since God is an infinite being, and therefore capable of receiving an infinite act, the adoration (latreutical) and thanksgiving (eucharistical) offered to God by virtue of the Sacrifice is itself infinite. (2) But since man is a finite creature who is incapable of receiving infinite effects, the effects of the Mass in relation to man – which are referred to as “the fruits of the Mass” – are limited.
In his magnificent book, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Fr. Nicholas Gihr wrote: “if we consider the Eucharistic Sacrifice in itself… as well as the inscrutable treasures therein enclosed… we perceive how the Holy Mass possesses a value absolutely infinite” and then a little further on added:
“But the case is different when the Eucharistic Sacrifice is considered in its relation to man. From this point of view it aims at procuring our salvation and sanctification, and is, consequently, a means of grace, or rather a source of grace, bringing us the riches of heavenly blessings. (…) The fruits which the Sacrifice of the Mass obtains for us from God are only finite, that is, restricted to a certain number and determining measure… The Sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, with respect to man can have only a restricted efficacy, and in its fruits is capable of only limited application.” (3)
The same author goes on to explain that the limited efficacy “does not lie in the essence or value of the Sacrifice, since it possesses infinite power for producing every effect”. Rather, “the final and decisive reason for the more or less plentiful application of the sacrificial graces is the will of Christ, in other words, is to be sought in the positive ordinance of God”. (4) He explains that, while the Mass itself is an infinite source of grace, when it comes to “the distribution of His gifts, God requires our cooperation”. (5)
The Fruits of the Mass
The fruit that an individual derives from a particular Mass is not based solely on their personal piety and devotion, which is only one factor that determines the amount of grace they receive. There are other factors as well that have a bearing on the efficacy of a particular Mass, such as the holiness of the priest, the external glory given to God by the ritual, and even the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time. These external factors affect the amount of grace a person receives, in such a way, that a person can derive more fruit from the devout hearing of one Mass, than from an equally devout hearing of a different Mass.
The Holiness of the Church
One factor determining the efficacy of the Mass is the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time, including the bishops and reigning pope. Regarding this point, the old Catholic Encyclopedia says “the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the world, and for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small”. (6)
Regarding this same point, Fr. Gihr wrote: “But since the holiness of the Church consists in the sanctity of her members, it is not always and invariably the same, but greater at one period than another; therefore, the Sacrifice of the Church is also at one time in a greater, at another in a less degree pleasing to God and beneficial to man”. (7)
Since this factor is based on the moral condition of the Church as a whole, it will have an equal effect on all Masses offered at a given time in history. The next several factors, however, are based on specific circumstances which have a direct effect on the efficacy of individual Masses.
The Priest
St. Thomas explained that the fruits to be derived from a particular Mass are based, in part, on the holiness of the priest celebrant who intercedes for the faithful, “and in this respect there is no doubt but that the Mass of the better priest is the more fruitful”. (8)
A Mass celebrated irreverently by an unworthy priest, or worse still, by one who violates the rubrics, will be less efficacious, and therefore produce fewer fruits than one celebrated by a holy priest who says Mass with devotion and follows the rubrics with precision. Hence, as Fr. Gihr observed, “the faithful are thus guided by sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their intentions by an upright and holy priest, rather than by an unworthy one…” (9) St. Bonaventure said “it is more profitable to hear the Mass of a good priest than of an indifferent one”.
Cardinal Bona (d. 1674) explained it this way:
“The more holy and pleasing to God a priest is, the more acceptable are his prayers and oblations; and the greater his devotion, the greater the benefit to be derived from his Mass. For just as other good works performed by a pious man gain merit in proportion to the zeal and devotion with which they are performed, so Holy Mass is more or less profitable both to the priest who says it and to the persons for whom it is said, according as it is celebrated with more or less fervor”.
The Ritual
Another factor determining the efficacy of a Mass is the degree of external glory given to God. In this respect, not all Rites are equal; neither does a low Mass have the same efficacy as a High Mass. On this point, Fr. Gihr wrote:
“The Church not only offers the Sacrifice, but she moreover unites with its offering various prayers and ceremonies. The sacrificial rites are carried out in the name of the Church and, therefore, powerfully move God to impart His favors and extend His bounty to the living and the dead. By reason of the variety of the formulas of the Mass, the impetratory efficacy of the Sacrifice can be increased… also the nature of the prayers of the Mass and even of its whole rite exerts accordingly an influence upon the measure and nature of the fruits of the Sacrifice. From what has been said there follow several interesting consequences. Among others, that, on the part of the Church, a High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass. (…) At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby. (…) This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore – that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.” (10)
Even the decora has an effect on the fruits of the Mass, insofar as it contributes or detracts from the glory of God. As Fr. Ripperger, FSSP explained in his article on this topic: “If we use objects that do not fit the majesty and the exalted nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we can actually detract from the extrinsic merit. Ugly things please God less, and thus merit less”. (11)
The Novus Ordo Missae
If, as Fr. Gihr noted above, “the nature of the prayers of the Mass and even its whole rite” have an effect on the fruits of the Mass, it does not bode well for the Novus Ordo, which, to use the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants”. (12)
When we consider the liturgical shipwreck that is the Novus Ordo Missae, and the scandalous manner in which the Mass is often celebrated, is there any wonder why the Church is in the condition it is today? Let us recall the strange and even ominous words used by Paul VI when he introduced the New Mass to the world in November of 1969. In words that no doubt caused anxiety for many, the Pope said:
“We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of the Mass. This new Rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent… a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. … This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed… We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect. … we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. … We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment”. (13)
Is it any surprise that a Mass described by the Pope who published it as “a many-sided inconvenience” and “nuisance”, which would cause “the feeling of annoyance”, “regret” and “bewilderment”, would have a greatly diminished extrinsic value, and therefore end in disaster for the Church? Almost 30 years later, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (14)
Many clear thinking people foresaw, from the outset, the disaster that would result from the Novus Ordo. In the Critical Study of the New Mass (later known as the Ottaviani Intervention), which was written by twelve Roman theologians and signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, who presented the work to Paul VI, we read:
“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship, and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error”.
They further observed that “it has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law”. Unfortunately, the “law” was never abrogated and the Church has paid the price, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself noted in 1997.
Conclusion
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explained the difference between the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Sacrifice of the Mass as follows: “On the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion and death.” But as we have seen, the fruits of the Mass (the merits applied to us at Mass) are finite in their application, and contingent on many factors: the holiness of the priest, and the manner in which he says the Mass, will have an effect on the fruits of the Mass; the ritual and even the decora will have an effect on the amount of grace one receives, since the greater the solemnity, beauty and grandeur of the celebration, the greater will be the glory given to God, and consequently greater will be the graces He pours out on those who assist.
For this reason, it is worth the extra effort to attend the Traditional Mass, which Fr. Faber called “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven”, and to avoid, at all costs, the Novus Ordo Missae, which Cardinal Ratzinger himself referred to as “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”. (15) Source
Footnotes:
1) Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ott, TAN, pg 414
2) Ibid
3) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), pg 137-138
4) Ibid. p. 138-139
5) Ibid. p. 139
6) Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X (1913) p. 19
7) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), p. 144
8) Summa, St. Thomas, Pt III, Q 82, A.6
9) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), p. 147
10) Ibid p. 144-145
11) The Merits of a Mass, Fr. Ripperger, Latin Mass Magazine,
12) Ottaviani Intervention
13) Paul VI, General Audience, November 26, 1969
14) Milestones, Ratzinger, 1997
15) The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, by (Msgr Gamber, Introduction to the French edition)
Comments (36)
That’s a very informative article. I also watched the video where Cardinal Schonborn said what is bound to be an invalid Mass as he did not use the correct matter. What a shocking thing to do.
I notice that he is approved of by Mgr Loftus,, mentioned in his articles quite often. Cardinals and Monsignors who don’t believe the basics. It’s shocking. I should make it clear that I don’t read his articles that much but when I do he nearly always has a positive mention of Cardinal Schonborn, as in “we need more like him”, sort of thing.
Margaret Mary,
That video is a disgrace. I couldn’t believe my eyes, that a cardinal of the Church would even be present at such a debacle let alone main celebrant, and it is obvious that the chunky bread he used was not valid matter. That was definitely not a valid Mass and the whole thing was a sacrilege to boot.
What has always amazed me is that the Novus Ordo didn’t do away with vestments, when it did away with so much else. I always cringe at the sight of a vested priest playing a guitar or, as in this case, messing around with balloons. Or watching a tango danced in front of the altar, as Archbishop Bergoglio did.
Unlike most bloggers here, I’m not agin the Novus Ordo – I think it and the traditional rite should be equally allowed, and Pope Benedict did well to make this possible. But the Novus Ordo definitely needs a bit of sorting out …
That is because they want to hold onto the power but don’t want the responsibility that goes along with it.
So they keep the uniform but won’t talk the hard talk to their parishioners wish they are morally and supernaturally obliged to do. Instead everything goes and can be forgiven by ‘Mercy’.
What has always amazed me is that the Novus Ordo didn’t do away with vestments, when it did away with so much else. I always cringe at the sight of a vested priest playing a guitar or, as in this case, messing around with balloons. Or watching a tango danced in front of the altar, as Archbishop Bergoglio did.
Unlike most bloggers here, I’m not agin the Novus Ordo – I think it and the traditional rite should be equally allowed, and Pope Benedict did well to make this possible. But the Novus Ordo definitely needs a bit of sorting out …
Oops, sorry. Didn’t mean to comment twice. Not nagging, honestly!
Pew Catholic, I was just about to delete the repeated comment when I saw your comical one to follow, so will leave it as it’s great fun (I need to get out more). You can’t say you don’t get allowed your say on this blog, when you’re even allowed to repeat yourself!
That’s an interesting point about the vestments/guitar playing etc.
However, I am surprised that you (or anyone) could read that article right through (you better had, lady!) and still not be “agin” the Novus Ordo.
You serious? You really being serious? You can’t be serious!
Nagging you say? Me? Nag? Moi?
I’ve read it, but as I said in another connection on another thread, the NO is with us until it is banned, and many of us have no option but to attend it. I am very lucky. In my parish it is celebrated with great dignity, with no guitars or balloons or ‘Good morning, everyone’, ‘Good morning, Father’ rubbish. The music is carefully chosen, suitable for the occasion and well executed. All this is due to an excellent priest.
When I first heard about balloon Masses I always thought it meant those wee inflated rubbers at the end of a piece of string.
I didn’t realise that it meant the participants.
Frankier,
I knew you would say that! 😀
Aye balloons are apt enough.
Full of hot air like Kasper.
Not much substance to them like the Novus Ordo.
Easy to burst like arguments for ecumenism.
Frankier, LOL!
It’s just a pity that Cardinal Schönborn didn’t have at least another 4000 balloons on the end of his string, that would have solved a few problems for the dying Church in Germany. Let’s face it, the German Catholic church is in schism with Rome in all but formal declaration.
Athanasius,
The Church in Germany and Austria is absolutely in de facto schism with Rome. No question about it. All the more telling then as Margaret Mary says above, that Cardinal Schonborn is one of Mgr Loftus’s heroes. And he had the cheek to threaten to sue a priest in England for calling him a heretic. What a life!
Thanks to the Remnant newspaper for this informative article. And Margaret Mary, I agree with you that it is bound to be an invalid Mass, that Cardinal Schonborn said. To be honest it seemed more like a combination of a carnival and a pop concert. Heaven help those present at this Church with the strobe lighting.
I was just bowled over by the quote from Pope Paul VI about the new Mass. Then this comment which followed it, expressed my own feelings exactly:
“Is it any surprise that a Mass described by the Pope who published it as “a many-sided inconvenience” and “nuisance”, which would cause “the feeling of annoyance”, “regret” and “bewilderment”, would have a greatly diminished extrinsic value, and therefore end in disaster for the Church? Almost 30 years later, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (14)
I used to wonder if Catholic education was the main thing to sort out, not the Mass, but I’ve come round to agreeing with Cardinal Ratzinger that the “disintegration of the liturgy” is really at the root of the crisis. The Mass has to be restored before everything else comes right IMHO.
A sacrilege indeed. Then the hierarchy have the nerve to condemn the SSPX priests who are, by comparison, other Cures D’Ars!
As far as I recall Archishop Bugnini was the chief architect of the Novus ordo Mass with the collaboration of six Protestant ministers.
In the March 19th 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Bugnini apparently stated that:-
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is the Protestants”.
Sad to say that I could not find the link to that edtion of L’Osservatore Romano.
aka : ‘we must become Protestant to join with our Protestant brethren’
Funny how the water doesn’t flow the other way.
Pew Catholic, you say:
” But the Novus Ordo definitely needs a bit of sorting out …” Are you having a laugh? How on earth can a flawed liturgy, even when said according to the rubrics, be sorted out? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and that’s it! I have to say that having followed (and hopefully been educated by) this blog, your attitude is very strange indeed. But we still luv you bruv or is it sis?
In the introduction to the thread on Satanic black masses, editor says:
And in case it passes you by, take note of the mischievous photo used by Catholic News Agency – a young girl receiving Holy Communion, on the tongue, wearing a mantilla. Yip. Just like you see at any parish novus ordo Mass today … NOT.
Exactly the same criticism could be made of her choice of the photo to accompany this thread.
You’ve lost me.
The photo on this thread links to a video of Cardinal Schonborn celebrating a youth Mass with invalid matter and all sorts of other sacrilegious goings on. If it doesn’t horrify you that a prince of the church would do such a thing, and if you cannot discern the difference between the use of that photo and video to highlight the dangers of the new Mass, then we cannot help you.
Eileenanne
The photo accompanying this thread shows what the thread is all about and what
could become normal in the offering up of the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.
The one with the girl wearing a mantilla shows a picture from the distant past and
makes it more difficult for some people to understand how a consecrated host could be stolen.
And it was mischievous.
Eileenanne
How so?
Cardinal Schonborn celebrating his youth Mass with baseless novelties. In the end Catholics often end up walking away from it. It does not and cannot compare with the Traditional Latin Mass.
Theresa Rose,
What a beautiful video of the old Mass. “Old” Mass it may be but I’ve never seen an old priest offering it, they are all young!
It also came to my mind that those beautiful vestments are what Mgr Loftus calls “pantomime costumes” in his Catholic Times and Scottish Catholic Observer columns. It is just incredible, too hard to believe for words.
Theresa Rose,
I’ve not had time to watch all of that video, just a bit at the beginning – up to the Confiteor – and it is just beautiful. Thank you for posting it.
I wonder how much the actors playing the priest and altar boy were paid for their performance in the video. ……….. Nicely done but an act for the camera! When I served the LTM back in the day it certainly wasn’t that much of a performance to attend or serve. Done and dusted in 30 mins start to finish. Congregation slept for most of it!
Ed: odd that you didn’t say that about Cardinal Schonborn’s performance for the cameras at the balloon Mass, or the Pope’s “performance(s)” for the cameras at World Youth Day Masses and at public Vatican Masses etc etc etc… Odd that. And for someone who, ten minutes ago, castigated a blogger for allegedly reading your mind (not the most difficult exercise in the world 😀 ) how do YOU know that the “congregation slept for most of it” – why not “all of it” or “some of it” – how do YOU know what the congregation were doing especially if, as you claim, you were serving and, therefore, had your back to the people throughout? Gerragrip. Remember the old rule: if you are going to lie, you need to have a good memory and pay close attention to details, such as “I can’t claim to see what everyone was doing when I had my back to them the majority of the time” Duh…
Domchas,
There is an old adage that says “The parish that has a saintly priest will have a saintly congregation; the parish with an indifferent priest will have a cold congregation, and the parish with a bad priest will have a congregation of demons.” Such is the power of the priest.
What one of these categories does that old parish priest you speak of fall into, and how has it affected your devotion to the Mass of the saints and martyrs?
Athanasius, a few weeks one of our Priests mentioned that saying in his sermon. Something like saintly priest and good parish, good priest and average parish, average priest and poor parish, bad priest and no parish.
Summa,
I think your priest probably translated the saying more accurately. Still, the consequences of a lax, indifferent or bad priest are enormous.
Comment deleted. A particularly nasty piece of work.
Indeed Margaret Mary, what a beautiful video about the traditional Mass. I had a weird emotional reaction to it in that I actually remember it when, as an eight year old, I attended that Mass every morning during Lent. It’s hard to believe what has happened since. A mystery. May the Lord deliver us from it soon.
Crofterlady,
If by “weird emotional reaction to it” you mean tears, that’s normal. Almost everyone I know has had the same reaction on attending the TLM for the first time, including those who had known nothing but the novus ordo previously.
That’s a fantastically informative article. I thought these two paragraphs explained perfectly why Our Lady pre-warned us about this crisis in the Church, and why She asked for a victim soul back in the 17th century:
“One factor determining the efficacy of the Mass is the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time, including the bishops and reigning pope. Regarding this point, the old Catholic Encyclopedia says “the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the world, and for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small”. (6)
Regarding this same point, Fr. Gihr wrote: “But since the holiness of the Church consists in the sanctity of her members, it is not always and invariably the same, but greater at one period than another; therefore, the Sacrifice of the Church is also at one time in a greater, at another in a less degree pleasing to God and beneficial to man”. (7)
As usual, you find that common sense tells us what the Church already teaches. Everything in that article stands to reason.
Comments are closed.