The following version is a revision of the original
text. The revised text was mailed to the web site of the St. Peter Claver
Society for publication in Jan. 2005
Q. Father, could you clear up some of
the confusion Catholics today are experiencing with the Liturgy as it is being
carried out in many of our Churches today?
A. Some have described the state of the liturgy in the
Church today as a crisis in faith, and this is correct. Lex orandi est Lex
credendi. This means that the way we pray is the way we
believe.
Before looking at the developments in liturgy, we should
look at some of the irreformable dogmatic decrees of some earlier ecumenical
councils, especially those of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and Vatican I
(1869-1870). Some counciliar decrees, including all those of Vatican II,
are not dogmatic. That is, they do not define what is required for
Catholics to hold and believe.
Most of the twenty one general councils were held to
defend matters of faith which required definition because of attacks by
heretics. Such a council was certainly the Council of Trent held after the
attacks against the faith by Protestant Reformers.
Let us consider a few excerpts from the Council of Trent
on the Eucharist and the Mass. Please note that the phrase "let him be
anathema" at the end of the canons indicates a dogmatic definition. The
word "anathema" is the same as the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic
Church. This strong phrase is used to leave no doubt in the
matter.
Regarding the Eucharist: "If anyone denies that
the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus
Christ and, therefore the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially
contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is
present in the Sacrament only as a sign or figure, or by his power, let him be
anathema."
Comment: Since Christ is present in the Eucharist,
the greatest reverence and adoration should be shown to the Blessed
Sacrament.
Trent: "If anyone says that Christ, the only
begotten Son of God is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist
with the worship of latria, (the highest degree of adoration reserved for God
only) including the external worship, and that the Sacrament, therefore, is not
to be honored with extraordinary festive celebrations nor solemnly carried from
place to place in processions according to the praiseworthy universal rite and
custom of the holy Church; or that the Sacrament is not to be publicly exposed
for the people's adoration, and that those who adore it are idolaters, let him
be anathema."
For many years Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament
and Corpus Christi processions were commonplace in every parish. Today
this is rare.
Trent: "...this holy council has determined
and decreed that those who have mortal sin on their conscience, no matter
how contrite they may think they are, must necessarily make a sacramental
confession before receiving (Communion), provided that they have access to a
confessor. If anyone presumes to teach, or preach, or stubbornly maintain,
or defend in public disputation the opposite of this, he is
excommunicated."
Comment: The opportunity for sacramental
confession was formerly quite frequently available. Today in the modern
world the reality of sin is denied, and many approach Holy Communion without the
required spiritual preparation.
Trent: If anyone says that in the Mass a true and
proper sacrifice is not offered to God or that the sacrificial offering consists
merely in the fact that Christ is given us to eat: let him be
anathema."
Comment: To represent this eternal sacrifice,
altars, not tables were used. Today we have witnessed the destruction of
our altars and in their place are tables which symbolize eating and drinking,
not sacrifice. Today many liturgical writers stress that the Mass is but a
memorial meal. True, it is also that, but not solely. The main
element is always sacrifice.
Trent: "If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the
Mass is merely an offering of praise and of thanksgiving, or that it is a simple
memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross, and not propitiatory, or that is
benefits only those who communicate; and that it should not be offered for the
living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities,
let him be anathema."
Comment: It is clear that the Mass is a
re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and that its purpose is the
same as the redemptive act of our Lord.
In addition to conciliar decrees, other sources of
liturgical instruction are the encyclicals of the Popes. Outstanding among
these is the great encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII on the sacred liturgy
entitled Mediator Dei. Its subject is the sacred liturgy.
Today we hear much about the priesthood of the laity, a
gift conferred by their baptism. Because the word priesthood is used, many
moderns understand this to pertain to the recipient of the sacrament of Holy
Orders and to the priesthood of all believers and the priesthood conferred by
the Sacrament of Holy Orders, are one in the same. Listen to what Pius XII
has to say on this in Mediator Dei: (numbers are to paragraphs in the
encyclical).
"The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the
Eucharistic Sacrafice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly
power. (#82) It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your
flocks. For there are today . . .those who are dangerously near falling
into errors long since condemned. For they teach that in the New Testament
the word 'priesthood' means only that priesthood which applies to all who have
been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His
Apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to
the entire Christian Church, and that, thence only, arises the hierarchical
priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true
priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office delegated to
him by the community, wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a
'concelebration' in the literal meaning of that term and consider it more
fitting that priests should 'concelebrate' with the people present and that they
(i.e. priests) should not offer the sacrifice privately when the people are
absent. (#83)
"We deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for
the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is the Head of all His
members and offers himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as
the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ, but superior to the people.
The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the Divine
Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess
the sacerdotal power." (#84)
Comment: Despite this clear teaching, there many
today who think that they will be just as well served by an extraordinary
minister of Communion and that Mass offered by a priest is no longer
necessary. Unfortuneately, today some bishops seem more preoccupied in
preparing laity for priest roles than trying to fill the near empty
seminaries. We all know that we are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and
holy days, but there is no obligation to attend a paraliturgical service.
If this policy is promoted, not only the seminaries but the churches will be
empty.
How often have you heard it said when someone refers to
a doctrine of faith not found to be to the liking of the hearer, something like,
"Well, that's all changed now since Vatican II." It is clear from the
doctrine of the Church that the dogmatic decrees of ecumenical councils in union
with the Roman Pontiff are IRREFORMABLE. It is also true that the decrees
of Vatican II are pastoral. They are dogmatic only when they affirm what
has been infallibly taught by previous councils. As Vatican I says so
clearly, "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by
the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine, but that by
His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the
Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it
forth."
Let us make now some overview of what Vatican II decided
with respect to liturgy. The main document is entitled SACROSANCTUM
CONCILIUM, (Dec. 4, 1963). This was meant to be a constitution for
liturgical reform. Therefore, to be faithful to the Council, no post
conciliar decrees contravening this constitution should have been enacted.
As we all know a constitution is the basis of law. In the U.S. for
example, if a legislature attempt to enact a law not in conformity with the
Constitution, that may be declared unconstitutional and have no
effect.
I shall answer a few common questions:
Q. What did the Vatican
Council actually say with respect to:
1) Turning the altars to face
the people? A. Nothing
2) The use of Latin in the Mass? A.
"The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be
preserved in the Latin rites." {art. 36 (1)}. In the next
sub-paragraph it said that "a wider use of the vernacular might be used in
readings, directives and in some prayers and chants." {art 36
(2)}.
3) Communion in the hand? A.
Nothing. In March of 1969 this question was put to the Church's bishops in
this form: "Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire
that.....the rite of receiving Holy Communion on the hand be
admitted?"
A. Yes, 597; No. 1223; Yes but
with reservations, 315.
Q. "Do you
think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper
catechetical preparation?"
A. Yes, 835; No, 1,185. As a
result, Paul VI in his decree Memoriale Domini of May 29, 1969 did not approve
the practice, but he left the matter open for further discussion.
Q. Isn't it true that Pope
Paul VI approved the use of altar girls?
A. No, in fact a Vatican document published Sept.
5, 1970 said: "The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit
women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the
altar, even in women's chapels, houses, convents, schools and institutes."
{par. #7 Liturgiae Instaurationes of the Sacred Congregation of Divine
Worship.}
Q. Isn't it true that
Sacrasanctum Concilium approved of the use of guitars and bongo drums at
Mass?
A. "The Church recognizes Gregorian Chant as being
especially suitable to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being
equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." {116}
"The Pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the
traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor
to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lift up men's minds to God and higher
things." {120}
The camel's nose under the tent, however, is found later
in article 120: "But other instruments also may be admitted for use in
divine worship;...they (should) accord with the dignity of the temple and truly
contribute to the edification of the faithful." You be the judges of
whether bongo drums fit this description!
Q. Didn't Vatican II suggest
the removal of statues?
A. "The practice of placing sacred images in
churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained."
{125}.
Q. Isn't it true that Vatican
II approved of many innovations?
A. "......there must be no innovations unless the
good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken
that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms
already existing." {23}
Q. Isn't according to the
spirit of Vatican II that different forms of worship from parish to parish would
be acceptable?
A. "As far as possible, notable
differences between the rites used in adjacent regions should be avoided."
{23} "Region" is elsewhere in the documents of Vatican II defined as a large
territory like the United States, not merely a diocese.
Q. The Novus Ordo Missae (new
order of the Mass) was just a reform of the Roman rite, wasn't it?
A. In my opinion and in the opinion of the
eminent liturgist Klaus Gamber, it attempts to create a new rite more or less
detached from the former. This seems to be the same view as Cardinal Ratzinger
held in his published biography. The prayer known as the Second
Eucharistic Prayer resembles the liturgical and heretical service forced on
Catholics by the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, during the
reign of Edward VI in England. Cranmer was later executed for heresy and
his other crimes during the reign of Queen Mary Tudor. Just before he
died, he dramatically rejected the Catholic faith.
Q. Isn't it true that the
proper posture from the Sanctus until the end of the Canon is now
standing?
A. This was first addressed by the U.S. Conference
of bishops in their meeting of November 1969. They decreed, and the Holy
See confirmed, that the proper posture in the United States was to kneel at this
time. The exact words of this decree may be found in any Novus Ordo
priests' missal in The Appendix to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
for the Dioceses of the United States of America, paragraph 21. A proposed
change to kneeling during this part of the Mass was discussed and voted upon at
the bishops' meeting in 1995. At that time a move to change was
defeated. Standing may be a sign of respect. Kneeling is a sign of
worship.
Q. Isn't it true that a bishop
in his own diocese is completely free to make liturgical changes as he sees
fit?
A. The norm of the Council is that there be
uniformity of worship in entire regions such as the U.S. Changes for the
region must be voted on by the National Conference of Bishops, pass by a
two-third majority and become effective only when approved by the Holy
See. Therefore, no one, whether a bishop or priest, may change the sacred
liturgy on his own authority. {par. 22}
Now, I wish to discuss briefly the use of the
Traditional Latin Mass. According to the testimony of the Council of Trent
the Roman Canon of the Mass traces itself back to the time of the Apostles and
was substantially complete by the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great
(590-604). After the Council of Trent it was found that many variations of
the Roman Rite had crept in, and Pope St. Pius V in 1570 required priests,
except those of religious orders in existence for two hundred years, to offer
Mass according to the Roman rite approved for use in Rome at that time. He
further decreed that no ecclesiastical authority at any future time could
deprive any priest of the rite to celebrate Mass in the Latin rite. It is
also interesting to note that the Council of Trent defined that the Roman Canon,
also now known as the first Eucharistic prayer in the new Mass, was without any
doctrinal error whatever. No such guarantee is given to any other
Canon.
For a time after the institution of the Novus Ordo, even
though the old rite was never abrograted, it was extremely difficult for priests
to celebrate Mass in the traditional rite. Some priests were even
suspended by bishops for continuing to offer the Mass in the traditional Latin
form. Cardinal Heenan of Westminster, England, fortunately, obtained from
Paul VI the indult for priests in the United Kingdom to have the option of
offering Mass in either rite. In 1984 Pope John Paul II gave a limited
permission to offer Mass in the former rite according to the Roman Missal of
1962. He also insisted that the rites must never be mixed to create a new
thing. When in 1988, traditionalist Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated
bishops without papal mandate in order to preserve the Latin rite, the Pope
reacted by offering to priests who would apply an indult to offer the
traditional Latin Mass. At first, this indult was easily granted until
some liberal bishops, mostly from western Europe and the United States,
complained that the Holy See should not grant this indult without the approval
of the local ordinary. The Pope yielded to these bishops, so in years
after 1988 indults are rarer because many local bishops will not go along
despite the explicit insistence of the Holy Father that bishops should be
"generous" in accomodating the spiritual needs of the faithful attached to the
former rite.
In 1986 the Pope called a secret commission of nine
cardinals to answer these two questions: 1) Did Pope Paul VI
abrogate the Latin rite? The answer was unanimous in the negative.
The next question was 2) Does any priest need special permission to offer
Mass in the traditional rite? The response was eight votes in the negative
and one in the affirmative. Again the Pope was prevailed upon by liberals
not to publish this result, and he has not. The source of this information
is Cardinal Stickler who served on this commission.
At the present time there are several societies of priests who
have explicit approval to offer the traditional Mass. Among them are
the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, now accepted in over fourteen dioceses in
the U.S. and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign High Priest. The
latter group has been accepted into the dioceses of Rockford, IL, LaCrosse,
WI, and Oakland, California. To date only one California bishop
has accepted the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and it is rumored that
another bishop will soon accept the Institute of Christ the King. This
niggardly response is the result despite the petitions of hundreds of Catholics
for the traditional Latin Mass. It may be a surprise to some that many
priests are offering these Masses anyway. The Society of St. Pius X
founded by Archbishop Lefebvre offers only the Latin Mass and sacraments.
It serves about a million Catholics in the world, a very significant
number.
It should be clear from your own experience that many
abuses in the liturgy still abound. One cannot just blame Vatican
II. Most of the post conciliar concessions by Rome arose from practices
previously not approved. Gradually the number of these abuses grew so
large that Rome said, "Why not legitimize these things?"
What advice do I have for the befuddled laity?
First, read and study the documents of the Councils, the papal encyclicals, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church and solid expositions of
doctrine.
Secondly, insist from your bishops, pastors and priests
that the sared liturgy should always be done according to established norms and
in a reverent manner without engaging in unlawful experimentation. Pray
especially for the Holy Father, bishops and priests of the Church that they will
be faithful to their sacred office.
I would like to conclude with some statements of
previous Roman Pontiffs. Regarding the removal from our sanctuaries of
beautiful altars, communion rails and statues, Pope Pius VII had this to say in
his encyclical letter of May 15, 1800: "Whoever takes away or intends to
take away what other faithful have given from the heritage of their possessions
for the care of souls, the honor of God, the beauty of His Church and the use of
its ministers assuredly turns the gifts of others into danger for his own
soul." Diu Satis, par. 7}.
This Pope's immediate predecessor Pope Pius VI said in
his encyclical of Christmas Day, 1775: "....you should undoubtedly
always give special attention to the beauty of the house of God and the splendor
and beauty of objects dedicated to the divine service. Such beauty and
splendor often greatly inspire the faithful, and draw them to the veneration of
the sacred realities." Inscrutabile, par. 5}
In the same letter Pope Pius VI gives us the words with
which I now conclude: "Assuredly with such reason for fear, we would have
no hope of escaping slavery except that the Guardian of Israel, who does not
sleep, says to His disciples: 'Behold, I am with you all days even to the
consummation of the world.' (Matt. 28:20) He deigned to be not only the
guardian of the sheep, but the shepherd of shepherds as well."
{Inscrutabile, par. 2}
