A Reply to Mr. Westfall: A Defense of the Novus Ordo

Recently, Mr. Westfall has published several articles which charitably could be called a defense of the Tridentine Rite - but perhaps more accurately could be called an attack on the Novus Ordo.  In the spirit of discussion, I would like to engage with some of the points he has brought up in his most recent article, found here: https://www.catholic365.com/article/38841/attendance-at-the-new-mass-is-it-obligatory.html 

He opens his article by stating that the third commandment obliges all baptized Catholics to attend Sunday Mass, but I find this to be a mischaracterization of the dictate of the third commandment.  It is true that the third precept of the Roman Church is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation, but to equate this precept with an observance of the third commandment is a very narrow sighted interpretation of Church teaching.  While we as Roman Catholics are certainly bound by the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, our Eastern Catholic brothers in communion with the Church have no such stringent understanding in their observance of the third Commandment.  To the long-lasting chagrin of Rome, who to be fair has always confused her administerial power with teaching power so that she has frequently engaged in overreaches of power throughout the ages, the Eastern Church embodies a much less legalistic school of theological thought than we do, leading them to understand theology in a much more holistic, albeit at times less precise, light than we do.  By this, it is clear that the third commandment cannot be equated with Sunday observance, or else it would be equally binding between Roman and Eastern Churches.  This is not to say that our Eastern brothers are ambivalent to attendance on Sunday or not: but the different schools of thought surrounding this practice is definitely a topic for another paper.  

The differences between the Eastern and Western Churches brings up another complication for Rome, which makes her very uncomfortable - a discomfort shared equally by her members both in the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine.  Rome is not accustomed to being ok with several different rites of the liturgy, especially not within her own fold.  Throughout history, Rome has tried on various occasions to subdue, incorporate, and restrict the licit and valid celebration of the liturgies according to the many Eastern Catholic rites still in communion with the Church (again, overreach of power as a result of human nature).  This as her history, the existence of two valid rites within herself is a point of constant struggle as she tries to take the good, clericalism-cleansing actions of Vatican II and unite them with the long standing tradition and beauty of the Tridentine rite.  It is a struggle made much harder by the overall erroneous assumption that these two are different versions of the same rite.  The Novus Ordo is its own rite, just as the Tridentine is its own rite.  It is important to not conflate the two as if they were ever intended to be the same.

As long as we confine ourselves to discussing the Roman Church and recognize the differences of rites between the NO and Tr, we may continue with adequate assurance that we have agreement in definitions.  And with these as our definitions, Mr. Westfall’s summation of the exceptions to the Roman obligation to attend Mass stand firm.  Likewise, some of the motivation behind what the NO does (like appeal to Protestants) which Mr. Westfall brings up cannot be denied.  However, this is unfortunately as far as we agree.  Beginning with his unfortunate NO experience (a horror story we can all bring our own stories to acknowledge the truth of), an individual liturgical abuse does not constitute inherent nature of scandal in an entire rite any more than an individual priest speaking heretically constitutes proof that the clergy in an entire rite embody heretical teachings.  It was unfortunate, but it in no way lends proof to his following assertions that the NO hides the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or demotes the priest, or turns his back on Christ.  Though I will be the first to denounce the horrible abuses the NO frequently engages in, this in no way shows that there is an inherent evil in presenting theology or the Mass in a way which Protestants can understand, or that Catholicism MUST attack the evils of Protestants with their every breath.  This would be to hold that somehow Catholics hold their existence as dependent on Protestants to attack, as if Protestantism was prior in existence, which of course the opposite is true.  Every Protestant book I have ever read pays lip criticism to those Papists, while the same is NOT true of Catholic literature.  Quite simply, we are able to do other things than merely focus on debunking other faiths - and we are alone in this regard.  This is a hard thing to realize, especially in the faithful who join the ranks of Rome later in life, but is an important realization.  

While it is true that the NO was a result of some backhanded nefarious actors within VII, the fact of the matter is that it has been sanctioned as the ordinary for the Roman Church, and has been embraced by her, through a declaration of Peter, who spoke in union with the Congress of Bishops with the assent of the faithful.  This is the exact formula in which papal infallibility resides, when speaking on Faith and Morals.  The proper mode of worship is most definitely a matter of Faith.  Even if it is not the best it could possibly be, the declaration from the chair makes it so that Mr. Westfall’s claim that attending the NO inherently endangers your faith is, in fact, heretical in itself.  This is something else hard to reconcile, for cradle-Catholics and converts alike: that Rome can be correct even if not the best in her presentation of the truth.  I think specifically in recent memory of Paul VI with Humanae Vitae.  This is a fantastic document with important truths, but he really worded it poorly and left himself and Rome open to criticism and manipulation.  That does not mean the document can be discarded: poor execution unfortunately comes with the territory.  For better or worse, Rome is Home.  We have assurance that she will not err, not that she will do things the best way all the time and be free from power grabs.

Of particular interest I found Mr. Westfall’s claim that the NO is illicit.  It is, quite by definition, licit.  In fact, I would counter that the normal celebration typically attended by so many Tridentine faithful is illicit: there is only one approved version of the Tridentine Mass by the Vatican, and it was the original revision before the inception of the NO.  The licit version does not have the confiteor right before Communion, since we have already confessed our sins before entering into the mysteries of the Liturgy.  Licit is a very precise word, denoting permissibility from those with authority.  The authority for the Roman Church is Rome, and she has widely publicized what is licit and what is not.  The NO is licit; there are many Tridentine celebrations of the Liturgy which do not enjoy this blessing.

Mr. Westfall was - rightly - scandalized by an abuse from the NO.  However, is scandal not in the immediate sense subjective?  If I am scandalized by the rigidity and legality of the priest celebrating the Tridentine Mass to such an extent that the beauty of the Sacrament is eclipsed by his technicalities surrounding the Mass, am I then obliged to avoid the Tridentine Mass?  This is why our subjective scandal must be married to the objective teachings of the Church, at the very least when the Church speaks infallibly from the chair.  I do tend towards avoidance of the Tridentine Mass for the very reasons I just mentioned, even though I agree that it is typically more beautiful than the NO.  But the people involved in the celebration cause me such distress and occasional anger at their own subtle abuse of the Sacrament that in Christian charity and to safeguard my own soul I avoid it.  But I am not obliged to do so as if some dogma dictated it: this is my specific discretion.  Mr. Westfall continues to suppose that one might even engage in a sinful act by attending the NO, again based on subjective and individual scandal that he has incurred but applied to all universally.  There is no sin in attending a licit and ordinary Mass: far from it.  

I have not addressed every point specifically that Mr. Westfall brings up, but would welcome the opportunity to dialogue on the other specifics in his argument.  The other specifics do not truly matter to the subject at hand, however, and further line-by-line discussion of his article in my own would be extraneous and unnecessary to refute his dismissal of the Liturgy.  Unfortunately, the hard thing to accept is that if we profess Rome to be the true Church, then we must accept what she speaks from the chair.  The permissibility and sanctity of the Novus Ordo is settled Church teaching, just as the creation of the Tridentine Mass is settled Church teaching.  We would be wise to remember that the creation of a new rite is not a new conversation within the Church, and many were scandalized by the Tridentine Mass when it evolved into nearly the only rite the Roman Church celebrated - but never the only one.  I would be interested in hearing Mr. Westfall’s opinions on the Augustinian Rite, a licit celebration of the Mass which is still under the Roman Church, but is most definitely NOT Tridentine.  Being an American Catholic is one of the hardest trials, because we embody such an individualistic attitude towards our own reason and ability to discern right from wrong.  Unfortunately, if we are to be Catholic, and not simply an evolved version of Protestant, we must affirm what Peter proclaims, or at the very least piously assent to it when it is spoken from the chair.  This is especially true when we find ourselves seeking as authorities semi-schismatic groups or excommunicated clergy like Mr. Westfall does: doing so is a good sign you may be off the mark.  I would be further interested in Mr. Westfall’s opinion on how we as the faithful might be able to determine when Rome actually is right when she speaks from the chair - as opposed to when she speaks from the chair but is wrong, like he supposed she is here.  Where else shall we go?  Christ has given the keys to Peter, and Peter reigns, even if subject to human flaws.  There is much Rome has done throughout history that we can criticize and try to better - settled Church doctrine, like the validity and sanctity of the Novus Ordo, is not one of them.