What do you think?
Rate this book
Work Of Human Hands: A Theological Critique Of The Mass Of Paul VI
Interest in the traditional Latin Mass has begun to spread among a younger generation of clergy and laity, especially since the appearance of Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Many now speak enthusiastically of encountering in the old rite a beauty, a reverence, and a sense of continuity with tradition that they have not experienced with the Mass of Paul VI.
Inevitably, however, questions deeper than aesthetics, nostalgia, and the hunger for mystery in religion arise. To address them, Fr. Cekada has produced this thorough and methodical study of the Mass of Paul VI. Fr. Cedada's erudition, clarity of expression, and facile wit will attract and delight readers, even some who might be quite opposed to his doctrinal positions and to his startling conclusions in this scholarly work.
Inevitably, however, questions deeper than aesthetics, nostalgia, and the hunger for mystery in religion arise. To address them, Fr. Cekada has produced this thorough and methodical study of the Mass of Paul VI. Fr. Cedada's erudition, clarity of expression, and facile wit will attract and delight readers, even some who might be quite opposed to his doctrinal positions and to his startling conclusions in this scholarly work.
445 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 2010
12 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Cekada
6 books9 followersAnthony J. Cekada was an American sedevacantist Catholic priest and author. Originally a member of the Society of St. Pius X, in 1989 he helped found the Society of Saint Pius V and later joined the St. Gertrude the Great Traditional Roman Catholic Church in Ohio.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 1, 2014
Anthony Cekada's tremendous research is a great resource for the liturgical enthusiast, but his agenda makes this book unsuitable as an introduction to the subject because someone unfamiliar with the source material would be left with an incomplete and misleading impression of the post-Vatican II reforms. For example, take Cekada's portrayal of Paul VI as an active participant in Annibale Bugnini's program of reform (as opposed to someone who simply 'had the wool pulled over his eyes', as is sometime said). Every chance he gets Cekada will point out the immediate involvement of Paul VI in the liturgical reforms, but when he discusses the attempted abolition of Ash Wednesday Cekada makes no reference to the intervention of the Pope, but instead gives only a vague quotation from Carlo Braga noting the difficulties of changing the practice (p. 231). This is just one example of Cekada's approach: when the evidence doesn't fit his argument, he omits the evidence. Similarly, when discussing which Collects were changed or modified, if a single "et" is changed to a "que" that's enough for him to put it in the "modified" column. This makes his assertion that "only 17% of the orations from the old Missal made it untouched into the new" (p. 223) technically accurate but left in a context that falsely suggests that in each and every modified Collect there was a significant shift in theology. While he concludes that the New Mass is invalid, "No Body, no Blood, no Mass", (p. 348) yet he also says that "the reform of the Mass cleared the way for an unending series of unworthy communions—the worst sacrilege, perhaps, of them all." (p.381) These two claims are mutually exclusive (and I obviously disagree with the former). But Cekada does not feel the need to be logically consistent if it means he can take another swipe against his adversaries. Thus, while the evidence he presents is sometimes significant, it must be understood that his book is meant to be persuasive rather than objective. Caveat lector.
That having been said, Cekada's argument has some very strong points. I found quite convincing his demonstration that the new Missal's orations have systematically eliminated or down-played the ideas of sin, merit, divine wrath, the fragility of the human condition, and the soul. On this latter point, a quotation will demonstrate the author's sarcastic (and it must be admitted, enjoyable) tone: "In the nine orations used in the new Mass on All Souls' Day [...] 'soul' does not appear even once, while the traditional Missal uses it in all nine orations. Perhaps November 2 should have been renamed 'No Souls Day.'" (p. 235) He presents a similar analysis of the way in which the new lectionary chooses passages or omits verses so as to bring about a different emphasis on the subjects of divine wrath, sin, Hell, the world, ecumenism, women, and the Eucharist. This section may prove very troubling to biblically-minded Catholics who otherwise have no qualms about the 'style' of liturgy.
Someone with an interest in the subject of the liturgical reform would do well to start with a more fair-minded treatment of these topics, like Lauren Pristas' "The Collects of the Roman Missals", or even with the source material like Bugnini's "Reform of the Liturgy". But those who know where they can look to fact-check Cekada's sometimes misleading statements will benefit from having so many resources cited and organized in one relatively short volume. The case is won or lost on the evidence, and Cekada at his best will show you in his footnotes where to look so as to be convinced, or not, by what's printed for all to see in black and red.
That having been said, Cekada's argument has some very strong points. I found quite convincing his demonstration that the new Missal's orations have systematically eliminated or down-played the ideas of sin, merit, divine wrath, the fragility of the human condition, and the soul. On this latter point, a quotation will demonstrate the author's sarcastic (and it must be admitted, enjoyable) tone: "In the nine orations used in the new Mass on All Souls' Day [...] 'soul' does not appear even once, while the traditional Missal uses it in all nine orations. Perhaps November 2 should have been renamed 'No Souls Day.'" (p. 235) He presents a similar analysis of the way in which the new lectionary chooses passages or omits verses so as to bring about a different emphasis on the subjects of divine wrath, sin, Hell, the world, ecumenism, women, and the Eucharist. This section may prove very troubling to biblically-minded Catholics who otherwise have no qualms about the 'style' of liturgy.
Someone with an interest in the subject of the liturgical reform would do well to start with a more fair-minded treatment of these topics, like Lauren Pristas' "The Collects of the Roman Missals", or even with the source material like Bugnini's "Reform of the Liturgy". But those who know where they can look to fact-check Cekada's sometimes misleading statements will benefit from having so many resources cited and organized in one relatively short volume. The case is won or lost on the evidence, and Cekada at his best will show you in his footnotes where to look so as to be convinced, or not, by what's printed for all to see in black and red.
February 11, 2017
Lex orandi, lex credenda: the law of prayer is the law of faith.
In this book, Anthony Cekada proves the 'lex orandi' has changed. The law of prayer in the Church is the prayer of the Mass. The new prayers in the new Mass teach different things.
If the 'lex orandi' changes, the 'lex credendi' changes. Change the prayers, change the faith.
The new Mass is centered on the people; the old Mass is centered on God. The new Mass is an assembly; the old Mass is a sacrifice. The new Mass speaks of human goodness and meeting God where we are; the old Mass speaks of human fallibility, sinfulness, the need for repentance and salvation. The old Mass reminds us how much we need God; the new Mass says we're pretty good as we are.
Since the coming of the new Mass, and the new prayers - the new 'lex orandi' - the faith of the people has followed suit - the 'lex credendi'. The loss of the sense of sin; the emptiness of confession lines, and the fullness of communion lines; the sentimentality and subjectivity of church teaching from the highest levels: all of these are perfect reflections of the 'lex orandi'.
Orthodox church-goers speak of the horrible catechesis of the last 4 generations of "Catholics" - since the 1950s. As if a better CCD curriculum would restore the understanding of personal sinfulness and the glory of God! The true catechesis is the Mass. Change the Mass, change the faith. The intentions of the authors of the new Mass have come to pass.
In this book, Anthony Cekada proves the 'lex orandi' has changed. The law of prayer in the Church is the prayer of the Mass. The new prayers in the new Mass teach different things.
If the 'lex orandi' changes, the 'lex credendi' changes. Change the prayers, change the faith.
The new Mass is centered on the people; the old Mass is centered on God. The new Mass is an assembly; the old Mass is a sacrifice. The new Mass speaks of human goodness and meeting God where we are; the old Mass speaks of human fallibility, sinfulness, the need for repentance and salvation. The old Mass reminds us how much we need God; the new Mass says we're pretty good as we are.
Since the coming of the new Mass, and the new prayers - the new 'lex orandi' - the faith of the people has followed suit - the 'lex credendi'. The loss of the sense of sin; the emptiness of confession lines, and the fullness of communion lines; the sentimentality and subjectivity of church teaching from the highest levels: all of these are perfect reflections of the 'lex orandi'.
Orthodox church-goers speak of the horrible catechesis of the last 4 generations of "Catholics" - since the 1950s. As if a better CCD curriculum would restore the understanding of personal sinfulness and the glory of God! The true catechesis is the Mass. Change the Mass, change the faith. The intentions of the authors of the new Mass have come to pass.
October 6, 2025
The Catholic Church, at least in the United States, has taken a decidedly “conservative” turn over the last couple of decades. Polls show priests ordained since 2000 are far more likely to be orthodox in their beliefs than the immediate post Vatican II cohorts. Efforts are being made by some of the bigger social personality types (think Bishop Robert Barron) to foster reverence for the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Interest in types like St. Thomas Aquinas is booming. The Internet is making it possible for people to pick up the history of the Church, its music, its art, its architecture, its culture. The supernatural elements are attracting attention to a generation that feels a spiritual need even if it doesn’t understand it.
None of this will matter so long as our liturgy remains cringy. And the Mass of Paul VI is simply cringe. All of the above things are intentionally downplayed. It’s not uncommon to hear Catholics desperate for that supernatural vision feeling actual pain at having to sit through Father Bob’s ad libs in what is supposed to be the worship of God Almighty, the Creator and Redeemer, the Alpha and Omega.
An example: recently our new Pope saw fit to bless a giant ice cube to fight global warming or something. It looked like it was held in the lobby of the Vatican’s Best Western. Some sort of tarp was rolled out, and Cardinals, Princes of the Church, heirs of the Apostles, were waving said tarp like a four-year-old at a pre-school event.
He who has eyes to see, let him see.
What Fr. Cekada has done is illustrate why a beautiful liturgy was gutted. I don’t read sedevacantists lightly, but to his credit, Fr. Cekada kept that to a minimum. There are so many things wrong with the Novus Ordo that the very multicity of errors becomes a weird shield to criticism. Either the critic is being unreasonable, or defenders of the Novus Ordo simply forget that their own arguments have already been undermined by their own liturgists because there are so many of them to go through.
The three legs upholding this new liturgy are antiquarnism, modernism, and ecumenicalism. In short, we will restore the liturgy to what it was in ancient times, we will make changes so that it “speaks” to modern man, and we will remove anything that might offend people from other faiths. But these things are blatantly contradictory. The ancient Christians had no truk at all with heretics. Modernism, speaking to modern man in terms he would understand, obviously means changing how things were done before. The last two, modernism and ecumenicalism, are the only two that can go together, and that’s what ends up actually driving the Novus Ordo liturgy. But what you end up with is insipid and saccharine. This neither speaks to the actual spiritual longings that we have, and these are considerable, nor does it win converts. Why convert to a Protestant lite if you are a Protestant? Why convert to a faith that proclaims nothing very carefully except to say that we’re all ok, nothing is wrong, be happy? You can do that without the goofy experience and the tithe. Which is what tens of millions of people have done.
There are still many who have gotten hold of the strong Catholic faith, the Catholic faith that proclaims itself to be the truth and mean to hang on to that. In the age of the Internet, those people eventually find a beautiful Catholic liturgy, whether Tridentine or Eastern. And then the Novus Ordo individuals have to defend what they have done. “It restores the ancient rite!” is a joke. “It’s winning converts” and “it speaks to modern man!” doesn’t work when 8 Catholics are leaving for every one coming in (and that one often seeking the traditional Catholic faith). They are left with little more than “we order you to find this beautiful and reverent” and will shut down any competing service.
Perhaps the best way of reading this book is by skimming the footnotes. If nothing else, Fr. Cekada has demonstrated that beautiful portions of the Mass were destroyed intentionally for modernist and ecumenical goals, quoting the authors themselves.
Where do we go from here? Fr. Cekada breaks us down into three groups. The Liberals are more than happy to see the old faith die; anything before 1969 should be banned. This group is largely in charge now, unfortunately, but they are also getting pretty old. As I noted at the beginning, the priests of the last few decades have done an about face and returned to the old faith, but they are saddled with a liturgy that undermines the very thing they mean to teach. See how much effort Bishop Barron has to spend to get Catholics to understand the Real Presence that they should be physically encountering once a week, at least. The very liturgy itself should teach this. The other two groups, the Traditionalists and the Conservatives, both agree that the Novus Ordo as it stands isn’t cutting in. The one means to jettison it altogether, the other to “fix” it at the parish level.
I don’t see the Mass of Paul VI ever being officially condemned by some proclamation. At the rate we are going, the Boomer Mass will die with the Boomers, at least in the West. And someday, maybe someday, we’ll get some bishops who understand the deep spiritual yearning of our age is no different than that of any other age, save that we have been starved of spiritual nourishment in solemn prayer. Perhaps we’ll get a bishop who understands you win more converts strongly professing your own faith rather than apologizing for it. Perhaps we’ll get a bishop who sees the historical connection of the Church across time is important and that we have a liturgy that traces itself back in its essentials to the time of the Roman Empire.
None of this will matter so long as our liturgy remains cringy. And the Mass of Paul VI is simply cringe. All of the above things are intentionally downplayed. It’s not uncommon to hear Catholics desperate for that supernatural vision feeling actual pain at having to sit through Father Bob’s ad libs in what is supposed to be the worship of God Almighty, the Creator and Redeemer, the Alpha and Omega.
An example: recently our new Pope saw fit to bless a giant ice cube to fight global warming or something. It looked like it was held in the lobby of the Vatican’s Best Western. Some sort of tarp was rolled out, and Cardinals, Princes of the Church, heirs of the Apostles, were waving said tarp like a four-year-old at a pre-school event.
He who has eyes to see, let him see.
What Fr. Cekada has done is illustrate why a beautiful liturgy was gutted. I don’t read sedevacantists lightly, but to his credit, Fr. Cekada kept that to a minimum. There are so many things wrong with the Novus Ordo that the very multicity of errors becomes a weird shield to criticism. Either the critic is being unreasonable, or defenders of the Novus Ordo simply forget that their own arguments have already been undermined by their own liturgists because there are so many of them to go through.
The three legs upholding this new liturgy are antiquarnism, modernism, and ecumenicalism. In short, we will restore the liturgy to what it was in ancient times, we will make changes so that it “speaks” to modern man, and we will remove anything that might offend people from other faiths. But these things are blatantly contradictory. The ancient Christians had no truk at all with heretics. Modernism, speaking to modern man in terms he would understand, obviously means changing how things were done before. The last two, modernism and ecumenicalism, are the only two that can go together, and that’s what ends up actually driving the Novus Ordo liturgy. But what you end up with is insipid and saccharine. This neither speaks to the actual spiritual longings that we have, and these are considerable, nor does it win converts. Why convert to a Protestant lite if you are a Protestant? Why convert to a faith that proclaims nothing very carefully except to say that we’re all ok, nothing is wrong, be happy? You can do that without the goofy experience and the tithe. Which is what tens of millions of people have done.
There are still many who have gotten hold of the strong Catholic faith, the Catholic faith that proclaims itself to be the truth and mean to hang on to that. In the age of the Internet, those people eventually find a beautiful Catholic liturgy, whether Tridentine or Eastern. And then the Novus Ordo individuals have to defend what they have done. “It restores the ancient rite!” is a joke. “It’s winning converts” and “it speaks to modern man!” doesn’t work when 8 Catholics are leaving for every one coming in (and that one often seeking the traditional Catholic faith). They are left with little more than “we order you to find this beautiful and reverent” and will shut down any competing service.
Perhaps the best way of reading this book is by skimming the footnotes. If nothing else, Fr. Cekada has demonstrated that beautiful portions of the Mass were destroyed intentionally for modernist and ecumenical goals, quoting the authors themselves.
Where do we go from here? Fr. Cekada breaks us down into three groups. The Liberals are more than happy to see the old faith die; anything before 1969 should be banned. This group is largely in charge now, unfortunately, but they are also getting pretty old. As I noted at the beginning, the priests of the last few decades have done an about face and returned to the old faith, but they are saddled with a liturgy that undermines the very thing they mean to teach. See how much effort Bishop Barron has to spend to get Catholics to understand the Real Presence that they should be physically encountering once a week, at least. The very liturgy itself should teach this. The other two groups, the Traditionalists and the Conservatives, both agree that the Novus Ordo as it stands isn’t cutting in. The one means to jettison it altogether, the other to “fix” it at the parish level.
I don’t see the Mass of Paul VI ever being officially condemned by some proclamation. At the rate we are going, the Boomer Mass will die with the Boomers, at least in the West. And someday, maybe someday, we’ll get some bishops who understand the deep spiritual yearning of our age is no different than that of any other age, save that we have been starved of spiritual nourishment in solemn prayer. Perhaps we’ll get a bishop who understands you win more converts strongly professing your own faith rather than apologizing for it. Perhaps we’ll get a bishop who sees the historical connection of the Church across time is important and that we have a liturgy that traces itself back in its essentials to the time of the Roman Empire.
October 10, 2024
A very important text for those curious about the changes to the Mass in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
Discussion with a Catholic bishop on the text: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP8lv...
Discussion with a Catholic bishop on the text: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP8lv...
sgg
October 25, 2020Never read book
Read
October 5, 2013Explosive reading!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews