One aspect of the new Mass, does however deeply distrub me and I ask for help if any of my readers can help me out with this. I have never felt comfortable at the "ecce Agnus Dei" when the priest holds up the broken Host to the congregation, it seems especially unfortunate when a priest decides to just hold up half the Host and doesn't try to conceal its brokenness. When I have asked priests why this is done, they say it is because scripture says so.
[In the older rite, the sacred host is broken for the comingling (and this makes sense), it is not displayed before everyone in this broken state, at the "ecce Agnus Dei" a complete Host is elevated.]
But does it actually say in scripture that Christ's body is broken for us? Not if we read John's Gospel (19:36) For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of Him.
What about what is written in 1Cor 11:24, the earliest account of the Last Supper? It depends on the translation you read. In the Douay it says, This is my body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. There is no mention of the work "broken" there.
Then I find a sermon by Mgr Knox (who is no fan of the Douay and was quite happy to go beyond the Vulgate when reserching scripture). I read this and I am even more disturbed:
Curiously, no one can tell us with certainty what words Our Lord used when he, the first Chritsian Priest, stood there in the Cenacle offering his own flesh to his disciples. [...] "This is my body on your behalf" - the phrase was a mysterious one, and it was natural copyists should try to fill it out and make sense of it, some writing "my body which is being broken for you", and others "my body which is to be given up for you". But it looks as if Our Lord simply said "my body on your behalf".
No one can deny that He broke the bread. That is not the issue. That the bread is broken so that we can each individualy receive in entirity, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Saviour is as it is. I am simply disturbed that the emphasis in the new rite is on the broken and not on the whole. And I have been disturbed even before I knew of the existence of the old rite.
When I attend the new rite, often I simply don't look.
Isn't unity everything?