Missal of 1969, The
In the previous section of my essay I discussed the so-called novelty of ecumenism. Here I mean to demonstrate that the authors have, given their misunderstanding of the Church's use of the term "tradition," wrongly stated that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is a break with the tradition of the Church. This error is rooted in their insistence that tradition-custom, that is, the practices of the Church over time, is as hallowed as tradition-doctrine. They argue essentially that the praxis of the Church is as equally important and at times more important than the doxa. They argue that orthopraxis is the means by which to determine what is integral to the Catholic faith, while they ignore orthodoxy. Let us turn to the Ferrawood argument and see where these errors manifest themselves.
authentic development
Now half of the authors' definition for "traditionalists" states that they worship as Catholics have always worshiped for nearly 1,900 years, that is "until approximately 1965, when, in the name of Vatican II, the Church began to undergo a series of unprecedented 'reforms' that altered virtually every aspect of ecclesial life."1 I have already gone over some of the difficulties that exist in this definition. The first of these difficulties lies in the attempt to understand what the authors mean by "the Roman Rite." There is further confusion over what the authors consider essential and not essential. "Radical revision" is forbidden by the Popes according to the authors, but the authors do not explain what is at the root of liturgy. The authors spend an entire chapter titled "Liturgical Minimalism" without so much as a lunge at pinpointing what is essential and nonessential to the Roman Rite. In point of fact this chapter on minimalism is perhaps one of the most frustrating chapters in the book, because the authors ultimately decide that what is nonessential actually is essential.
Chapter four of The Great Facade begins with a defense of the "externals" or the nonessentials in the liturgy. After condemning a trumped-up definition of the "substance of the Faith" which the authors attribute to neo-Catholics, the authors argue that the "externals" of the liturgy are actually the "substance" of the liturgy; what is nonessential is actually essential. That there is a difference between Tradition and tradition is something already discussed in this essay. The authors have completely missed this distinction. Thus they posit that the "substance of the Faith," the "essentials," are the brain and the "traditions," the "nonessentials," are the body. "One cannot survive without the other." The authors create a practical equality between the essential and nonessential, between the "substance" of the liturgy and the "externals." The result of this is an intellectual train wreck. The authors have effectively barred any possibility of change in the liturgy.
The authors would no doubt object to this characterization. On page 28 the authors do in fact state that "Traditionalists, being Catholics, recognize and embrace legitimate change in the Church through gradual growth in the content of ecclesiastical tradition." However, the authors apply Cardinal Newman's parameters for "legitimate change" to this development of liturgical custom. Again, as has been stated before, the good cardinal addresses the development of doctrines and not the development of customs. Since doctrines are ideas and customs are not, the "legitimate change" theory that is expressed by Cardinal Newman cannot possibly be applied to the externals of the liturgy, which are customs. This is not to deny that "legitimate change" has meaning. The Vatican fathers used the phrase themselves. However, one cannot equate Newman's development of doctrine to this development of custom.
This reason is that when a doctrine is developed by the Magisterium, there is simply no going back, for this kind of authentic development is pristine and without corruption. For instance, the Eucharist has been taught throughout the ages to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord. Understanding and expressing the nature of this miracle has gone through discernible development. The dogma of Transubstantiation was associated with the basic teaching that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. This fact demonstrates that the Church has taken up the philosophical language of substance and accident in order to explain the miracle of the Eucharist. No orthodox Catholic, then, can rightly attempt to return to a time in the Church when transubstantiation is not explicitly associated with the Eucharist. The language is part of the dogma, and there is no backpedaling now. Therefore if customs develop as doctrines, which is what the authors are saying, then no earlier liturgical form could be reinstated.
But liturgy does not develop thus. One can rightly return to an earlier manifestation of the Roman Rite. In point of fact Pius V, who promulgated what is known as the Tridentine Rite, stated explicitly that his goal in reforming the Roman Rite was to bring back the traditions and customs of the Early Church Fathers. We read from his bull Quo primum:
Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved, or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers [emphasis mine].
The attempt to return to an earlier form of the liturgy is clearly the object of Pius V's reform. If the scholars' effort was the restoration of the "original form and rite of the holy Fathers," then the development of the liturgy over the ages cannot be compared to the development of doctrine, which cannot be "restored," for there is never anything to restore in the proper development of doctrine. Of note is the fact that the Latin word the Pope uses for "original" in the phrase quoted above is pristinam, i.e., the original and pure, or pristine "form and rite of the holy Fathers."2 The development of custom, of liturgy, is not free from corruption as the development of doctrine is. The Holy Spirit did and does guide the development of liturgy. What must be understood, however, is that the liturgy is directed to a people and that changes in style and form are not matters of universal truth.
Truth did not change when the liturgical language changed from Greek to Latin. No more has it changed merely because the liturgy is now said in the vernacular. Further, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the development of the liturgy manifests itself through the rule of the Magisterium. It is the Magisterium that is the guarantor of a Spirit-filled liturgy. That is, the only reason the development of liturgy can be said to be guided by the Spirit is that rites are officially sanctioned or not by the Magisterium, and it is the Magisterium that Christ guaranteed to be moved by the Holy Spirit. It is then up to the Magisterium to determine what is just development and what is not. Allow me to quote from a motu proprio of Pope St. Pius X dated October 23, 1913:
Two years ago, when we published the Apostolic Constitution, Divino afflatu, by which we directly provided, as far as circumstance allow, that the recitation of the Psalter be completed within the week, and that the ancient Offices of the Sundays be brought back, many other plans were before us, some only meditated, some actually started, all relating to the reform of the Roman Breviary, which we had begun. But because of manifold difficulties these projects could not be carried out then, and we were compelled to postpone them to a more suitable time. For before one could change the Breviary, as it then was, to what we wanted it to be, that is, perfect in all its parts, the following things were prerequisite:a) to bring back the Calendar of the Universal Church to its pristine arrangement and form, but retaining the beautiful accretions, which the marvelous fecundity of the Church, the Mother of the Saints, has always added;
b) to select suitable passages of the Scriptures, and of the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and edited according to the genuine text;
c) to rewrite The Lives of the Saints soberly and from the sources;
d) to rearrange many other portions of the liturgy, having cut away the superfluities.
But all these plans, in the opinion of wise and prudent men, entail researches as difficult as they are lengthy, and so an interval of many years must elapse before this temple of the liturgy, which the Mystical Spouse of Christ designed with cunning skill to portray her love and devotedness, may shine once more resplendent in dignity and in beauty, the age-old disfigurement being cleansed away.
Please note the phrases "pristine arrangement," "genuine text," "soberly and from the sources," "having cut away the superfluities," and finally "the age-old disfigurement being cleansed away." It seems clear, does it not, that Pope St. Pius X understood there to be a great deal of distortion in the liturgy and that this distortion was present in the externals. So much so that "an interval of many years" of "researches as difficult as they are lengthy" would have to be undertaken before an actual reform of the liturgy could even take place. The opinion of this Pope is noteworthy at least. Not so surprisingly, it does not appear in The Great Facade.
The consequences of the fact that liturgy is not free from corruption and "disfigurement" in its externals are concrete. Pius V sought the best scholars he could find on the history of the liturgy and, before letting them loose in the Vatican archives, set in their minds that the goal was to return the liturgy to the ancient and pristine forms of the Church fathers. Pius' goal was to reinstate the practices of the Early Church, a Church which other fathers tell us was blessed because of its chronological proximity to Christ and His first Apostles. Thus Pius V and Pius X both had in mind the principle that reverting to earlier liturgical practices is a project justly undertaken. If the authors' theory about the development of liturgy were correct, then both Pius V and Pius X were wrong to suggest there was distortion in the liturgy. But of course these Popes were not in error, the authors' theory is completely false, and Paul VI cannot be blamed for attempting to bring back something of the liturgical structure of the Early Church.
specific externals
The second difficulty in the authors' argument in chapter four is that they make no distinction between externals qua externals and specific externals. The authors are right when they say on page 98 that "the 'externals' of Catholic worship are what mediate faith in Christ and the Blessed Eucharist to the members of His Church." However, the authors confuse — only too readily — the mediation for the message. They argue that to change the thing mediating the faith, i.e., changing the externals, is to change the substance of the faith, i.e., the message. And they argue that the specific mediation present in the immediately preconciliar Roman Rite communicates the faith better than the current rite. Therefore — or so goes their logic — since the externals communicate the substance of the faith, and since the externals in the old Rite are superior to the new Rite, then the substance of the faith that is communicated in the new Rite is inferior and even appears to contradict the perennial teaching of the Magisterium.
This is one of the worst breakdowns of logic in the book. We, as Catholics, are required to believe in one God, but we are not required to believe that the only means of properly expressing this liturgically is to say Credo in unum Deum. The use of Latin is an external which is simply not part of the essentials of the faith. Its use does "mediate faith in Christ and the Blessed Eucharist to the members of His Church" in a particular mode, however, it is no more or less true to say "I believe in one God" in Latin as it is in English. Finer vestments are externals which communicate the sacredness of the Eucharist in a particular mode, but it is no more or less valid for the priest to say "This is my Body" in ornate vestments as it is in simpler ones.
They attempt to use the old adage lex orandi, lex credendi to support their position. What they have done, however, is to translate this ancient truism to mean: how we pray determines how we believe.3 This is not the fullest or the best understanding of this phrase. It should be understood in the following manner: what we pray is what we believe. The distinction is that the substance of what is said in prayer, the what, is the important thing, not the language or means by which we say the same thing, the how. The externals are not the substance, no matter how much the authors would like them to be.
In fact the authors once again use verbal sleight of hand by suggesting that neo-Catholics are as Protestant Gnostics who reject the incarnational aspects of the faith by attempting to jettison all externals. They state on page 99:
Moreover, if so-called "externals" are dispensable, why even have a Mass liturgy at all? If the "essentials" of the mass are just the bread, the wine, and the words of the Consecration, why not have the priest simply confect the Sacrament, administer it, and send everyone home?
And then on page 100 they write:
As an incarnational religion, Catholicism should be the last to suffer gladly the dismantling of its traditional forms of worship . . . The neo-Catholic insistence that all that matters are the so-called "essentials" — e.g., the words of Consecration — reflects a profoundly sterile and anti-incarnational attitude that would have filled churchmen with contempt in every other generation but our own. It is, truly, a Protestant approach to worship, emphasizing the purely spiritual nature of worship and neglecting our created nature as human beings. The view that the sacred traditions of Catholic worship can safely be viewed as matters of indifference has absolutely no pedigree within the Catholic tradition.
The authors replace the "conservative" claim that specific externals are not necessary to liturgy with a claim that externals themselves are not necessary to the liturgy. The authors accuse neo-Catholics of rejecting externals as being not at all important. Once again, however, no neo-Catholic or conservative or orthodox Catholic that I know has ever suggested that externals are not important to liturgy. It is increasingly difficult to believe that these neo-Catholics exist in any place outside the authors' minds. Again, none of the neo-Catholics that have been labeled as such by the authors and whom I personally know reject any such incarnational aspect of divine worship.
Externals qua externals are important for the reason the authors give: Catholicism is an incarnational religion. No orthodox Catholic rejects this. What is challenged is the notion that specific externals are necessary for the proper communication and mediation of the faith and that if these specific externals are removed or changed, then necessarily the very substance of the faith is changed.
This theory of the authors further unravels when history is taken into account. The authors' statement that the specific externals of the Rite of 1962 had existed for "two millennia" is patently false. Everyone in the earliest years of the Church understood and spoke and wrote of the faith in Greek! There is not one single book of the New Testament written in Latin. In fact the earliest texts that we have from Rome or elsewhere regarding the liturgy of these times were all originally written in Greek. Changing this external, this language, did not alter the substance of the faith.4 The authors are wrong to accuse neo-Catholics of Protestantism, because the neo-Catholics they label do not reject externals at all. Externals are clearly important. Which externals are to be used is another matter altogether.
inferiority
The authors go on to argue that with the change of externals the current normative rite of the Roman Catholic Church is inferior and has ultimately obfuscated the substance of the faith.5 The great example the authors put forward of how the externals of the current rite have failed to communicate the faith properly can be found on page 167:
Traditional Catholics are familiar with the beautiful and doctrinally rich words in which the Host is offered in the traditional liturgy:Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.
This magnificent Catholic prayer has been replaced with:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Quite apart from its utter blandness, this new prayer in no way grows organically "from forms already existing." Quite the contrary, it does not have the slightest relation to the original prayer, which summarized the Catholic teaching so beautifully.
But the old offertory prayer and in fact the authors themselves refer to what is being offered — before the consecration, mind you — as the "Host."6 The words used for what is offered are simply inaccurate. The bread is not yet the Host (immaculatam hostiam). The chalice is not yet the "cup of salvation" (calicem salutaris). They are bread and wine, nothing more. How this prayer expresses the true Catholic teaching that the bread and the wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior only at the consecration, I do not know, and the authors give no semblance of an explanation. Here is a clear example of where a specific external does not communicate the Catholic faith properly. But the confusion is not in the new prayer; it is in the traditional one. Therefore, despite the fact that the rest of the prayer expresses well the Catholic teaching about the host or victim, the thing being offered at this point in time is not the Host!
It has been argued that this language in the old offertory is figurative, that it is anticipatory and so releases the old Rite from heterodoxy. I do not doubt that the meaning should be understood thus. However, there is very little in the language of the old prayer itself that would lead one to come to this conclusion. It does not say, "Accept this unspotted host which we will offer to you . . ." or "When we offer this unspotted host . . ." or even "We offer the unspotted host . . ." Rather it uses the imperative case (Suscipe), uses the article "this" (hanc) and emphasizes the immediately present not the future — proximate or otherwise.7 I might also point out that Fr. J. Jungmann, author of one of the most authoritative histories of the Roman Rite, writes that the commission set up by Pius V after Trent for the reform of the Roman Rite found "expressions like Hostia immaculata, calix salutaris at the offertory" to be "theologically controvertible."8 Pretending that there is no problem with these expressions is to deny the observations of Pius V's commission.
The confusion that this language causes is clearly manifested in the authors' own words when they refer to the bread as the Host. Are the authors using anticipatory language here as well? Is it so objectionable to insist on accuracy and thus clarity in the words of the Mass? How is it a better expression of Catholic doctrine to refer to something in a manner that causes the authors themselves to fall into error? Cannot truth trump tradition?
Further, the new offertory prayer enforces several Catholic doctrines. One of these is the closer representation of the prayer of blessing which was uttered by Christ Himself at the Last Supper.9 Another aspect concerns the fruit of the earth which is, by the sweat of our brow (Gen. 3:17-19), made into bread. Here the offering of the bread and wine as fruit of the earth demonstrates the fact that in the Eucharistic, i.e., thanksgiving, sacrifice we offer back to God all that He has created.10 Through the words "work of human hands" and "which human hands have made," the new offertory reinforces the idea that Christ's sacrifice sanctified even our labor, a labor that was part of the curse for the original sin. The earth, the fruits of the earth, and our labor belong to God. Everything is His for the taking so that He might transform everything that we are into a closer reflection of Christ.
Let it not be said that the aspect of sacrifice has been lost in the prayer, either. The closing part of the new offertory prayer is, after all, "Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father." To which the people are to respong, "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church." The new offertory prayer emphasizes along with the sacrifice the notion — found in several of the Church fathers — that the Eucharist is a prelude to that final reconciliation between the created world and its Creator. In the Eucharist we have a tangible example of the physical world's reconciliation with God, an example of a fulfillment of what St. Paul tells us the world yearns for in Romans 8:18-23 and a fulfillment of what Christ desires when He stated that He would draw all things to Himself.
But our authors would argue it is not traditional. It does not adhere to the development of tradition. Well, the authors do not understand the right meaning of tradition, they cannot argue for a binding development of tradition and truth must certainly be able to trump customary practice.
Another example of an essential element that has been changed for the worse, according to the authors, is the Roman calendar. On page 30 the authors write, "The new liturgical calendar and cycle of readings have produced (as Msgr. Klaus Gamber noted) a loss of the sense of place and a diminished inculcation of scriptural lessons." On pages 218-219 the authors tell us that "it cannot be a coincidence that in the revised calendar the Feast of Christ the King has been moved to the end of the liturgical year, a shift whose clear implication is that the Kingship of Christ is something we await at the end of time and not anything to be established here and now."
In such a statement, the authors may be right in noticing that there has been an unfortunate lack of preaching regarding the Kingship of Christ in this world. Still, they betray their odd paranoia when they claim that the purpose for the change was to imply that the Kingship of Christ is not to be "established here and now." This is odd because it is a manufactured implication, but also because the Church teaches that the Kingship of Christ cannot be completely established here and now. The authors must certainly be cognizant of the fact that as this is a fallen world, it is impossible to succeed in completely establishing the Kingship of Christ until the parousia. While no doubt a greater link between the roles of the Church and the state must be accomplished in this world and without attempting to suggest that the Church ought to remove this feast, it is in fact true that the final manifestation of "the Kingship of Christ is something we await at the end of time." Christ Himself said that His Kingdom is not of this world.
The authors go on to blame the ambiguousness of Sancrosanctum concilium (SC) for a number of things. They state on page 324, in one of the most unbelievable statements in this work of theirs, that paragraph 107 of SC "authorized a complete revision of the Church's ancient liturgical calendar, but provided absolutely no guidance on how it was to be don." As a result:
It opened the way to destruction of the traditional liturgical cycle of readings of over 1,300 years' standing — to "suit the conditions of modern times." And, like all other aspects of the liturgy, the liturgical year was subjected to local variations under Article 40. Was not the loss of the traditional liturgical year, an integral part of our liturgical home, a prime cause of the confusion and loss of faith after the Council, as Gamber demonstrates in Reform of the Roman Liturgy and as Cardinal Stickler recalls in his memoir of the Council? [Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pages 99-100; Stickler, "Recollections of a Vatican II Peritus," page 32] [emphasis mine].
Quite frankly, I have absolutely no idea how it is the authors have come to the conclusion that the changing of the liturgical calendar contributed in a primary causal manner to the "confusion and loss of faith after the Council." This is essentially the same past hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which the authors have been accused of, for in support of this claim they offer nothing beyond the fact that a crisis came after the changes. They offer no psychological study or poll that demonstrates that many people have left the Church, become Protestant, started contracepting and have accepted homosexuality as being normative because they can no longer celebrate the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas in March. This sort of ridiculous argumentation on their part is an excellent example of the vacuous nature of their larger argument, for they do not back it up with anything but the authority of Gamber, for whom no reason is given to trust over and above an ecumenical council and the Supreme Pontiff's except that he happens to agree with the authors.
private judgment
Another most annoying chapter is the chapter titled "Private Judgment?" Here the authors take offense at the neo-Catholic claim "that any criticism of papally approved innovations constitutes 'private judgment'."11 I must state again that knowing the persons the authors label as neo-Catholic, I do not understand what they are complaining about. What some accuse the authors and other traditionalists of doing is the abuse of language and logic, not really private judgment. For instance on page 175 the authors complain about a Wanderer editorialist making use of canon seven of session XXII of the Council of Trent. The canon reads, "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outwards signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."
The authors claim that this canon does not apply to them since it was directed at the Protestant Reformers who, as they say, "wanted to see something very much like the Mass of Paul VI offered according to Eucharistic Prayer II." The authors, though, do not address this canon. They deflect the accusation by saying that it was meant for Protestants and that if anyone is worthy of being anathematized, it is the present Church and Pope Paul VI. The authors do not address the fact that the current Ordo Missae, which they denounce as being a break with tradition, contains ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses. They do not retract their statements that these ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs of the current Ordo Missae are incentives to impiety. They sidestep the accusation found in The Wanderer editorial completely.
In their counterattack to the editorial, they quote on page 176 canon 13 of Trent's session VII which reads:
If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches whomsoever, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Then the authors quote canon ten from session XXII:
If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
In the authors' minds, there are two irrefutable examples of the error that exists in Paul VI's reform of the Mass, for these canons forbid liturgical novelty. The authors write on page 177, "They [the stated liturgical innovations and opinions] were anathematized . . . because such innovation is wrong in itself — and thus wrong for everyone," even the Pope. Paul VI, then, is the first Pope "in Church history . . . to concoct a new rite of Mass and impose it upon the Church." Since this is the case, he falls under the anathemas of Trent, does he not? The authors shy away from stating this explicitly, but this is the clear and logical implication of their argument. It is a "mystery" to the authors how neo-Catholics can "reconcile a Catholic's obligation to embrace ecclesiastical traditions and observances with Paul VI's de facto suppression of the traditional Roman liturgy." The authors have here again wandered too far from the path of reason.
Not only do they not address the original accusation from The Wanderer editorial, but they present other canons as being applicable to the current liturgical situation, when clearly they cannot be. Canon 13 from session VII anathematizes those who would change or omit those rites which are used in the administration of the sacraments. If this were to be taken as the authors would have it be taken, then every Pope who changed the Roman Rite in any way should have been anathematized. Pius X should have been anathematized for his reform. Pius XII should certainly have been anathematized for remaking the Holy Week liturgies. Clearly, however, this canon cannot be interpreted as the authors would have it be. The alternative interpretation must be that Trent rejected the notion that the approved rites of the Catholic Church could be changed at will by the priest or by a bishop with no recourse or consultation from the Magisterium, that body through whom authentic Tradition is communicated.
Canon ten from session XXII anathematizes those who claim that "the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only." Nowhere in SC or in the words of Paul VI will one find the notion that the Mass ought only to be celebrated in the vernacular. That the vernacular is used does not mean that it is the personal opinion of the Pope that it is the only proper or fruitful method of celebrating the Mass. Furthermore, if the authors are going to argue that it is "wrong in itself" to change the Mass or to use the vernacular, then they would not only have to condemn Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII but also Pope St. Damasus, and Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Peter and St. Paul. Peter and Paul both celebrated the Mass in the vernacular, not in Latin. In point of fact it is St. Paul who states:
And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? Similarly, if you, because of speaking in tongues, do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be talking to the air. It happens that there are many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless; but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it, and one who speaks it a foreigner to me. So with yourselves: since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church . . . Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing [with] the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving? For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up. I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.12
Traditionalists might point to page 171 of Facade to show that even the most recent Catechism states that the "Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition . . . Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy." The authors ask how can anyone deny that the present Church has abandoned tradition and thus fallen under the anathemas given out at Trent? The answer is that the liturgy is a constitutive element of Tradition because the liturgy does indeed communicate the faith, because lex orandi, lex credendi is true. The whatin the liturgy is the key thing, is the constitutive element of Tradition and not the how. The Catechism is clear on this because the very same paragraph which the authors quote from on page 171 also contains these words, "The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer . . ." and "When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles . . ." and "The Church believes as she prays." The context of the words from the Catechism which the authors quote is that of doctrine, of teaching, of faith. It is not of custom or account, not of the traditions but of the Traditions of the Church.
implementation
A crucial question needs to be asked. How much of what appears to be untraditional is a result of the poor implementation of the Missal? The authors do not address this question at all. They do not see that the abuses that occur are just that, for they see them as being the natural fruit of a Missal devoid of the traditional Catholic sense. They see them as being the result of "ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses" that "are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety." They argue that SC allows in its vague language too many loopholes. The authors object to SC allowing options to be determined by bishops, ignoring the historical fact that entire liturgies were for 1,500 years determined by these same authorities.
The Milanese and Gallic liturgies exist because bishops were free to form their liturgies. Pius V suppressed nearly all liturgies outside of Rome because these local liturgies were not always clearly distinct from the new Protestant liturgies, which were themselves based on Catholic liturgical forms. If the authors disagree with the council's prudential judgment to return to the tradition of 1,500 years, then they ought to have addressed this. They do not.
Further, not all bishops gave much heed to the ban on changes to the so-called Missal of Pius V. The Missal was added to and subtracted form quite regularly for centuries. By the 18th century local liturgies with their own version of the Roman Rite were increasing, especially in France. Were these abuses the result of a quintessentially disordered Missal?
The authors might be interested to know that Michael Davies, commenting to a French abbot, stated, during a lecture on May 2, 1998 at Wigmore Hall, "If everyone had celebrated the Mass of Paul VI as they do at Brompton, there would not have been any problems."13 The new Rite, which is apparently so clearly devoid of anything redeeming, is, when properly implemented, considered perfectly traditional by Michael Davies. Yes, the implementation of the Rite has been very poor. This is because, as Cardinal Ratzinger states, we were presented with the idea of a completely new rite. Thus everybody thought they could do as they wished even though this was expressly forbidden by the new Missal.
novelty and doctrine
In the end the authors' arguments for abandoning the current Ordo Missae do not deal with the solid, expert arguments for the changes that occurred. In other words, they do not take the arguments for these changes as they appear in any number of works and refute them. Rather, they point to the abuses, or the blandness of the language, or they read into ancient texts the contradictions they wish to find or just make fun of the Church and the Vatican. What passes as an argument starts with the premises that 1) externals are part of tradition since they communicate doctrine, and 2) since change in tradition must follow the rules of change in doctrine, the externals cannot be reformed as they have been. But again, the authors do not confront what it is the new Rite teaches and why it teaches it. They never point to a single doctrinally erroneous statement in the new Rite. The authors' response is to sneer and snarl and to make snide remarks.
They write, "More than that, they have taken a theologically perfect and aesthetically stunning rite that even a civilized pagan could see was something extraordinary and stupendous, dumbed it down so that a second-grader would be insulted by the finished product, and actually called it an improvement."14 Does anyone see an argument in here? What is theological perfection? Is freedom from theological error theological perfection? If so, then do the authors mean to say that the Rite of 1969 contains theological error? Did the authors interview this second-grader? What are the principles the authors adopt in their evaluation of the old Rite and the new in determining what is and is not an improvement? When and if these are articulated, according to what authority are they to be applied? None of these questions, one of which is facetious, of course, are even granted a second thought. The authors appeal to "common sense," but more is required of them if they are going to openly chastise the Vatican and the Vicar of Christ.
Whatever lack in prudential judgment Paul VI had, the Popes have taught that the current Ordo Missae is traditional. Traditionalists perpetuate their counter-assessment by simply claiming over and over that it lacks traditional pedigree. The insist that the old Rite has been abolished and that the new Rite is an abomination — insulting to even a second-grader. Therefore, instead of working toward a traditional implementation of the current Ordo Missae traditionalists have chosen to ignore the Pope and cast the Missal of 1969 into the dustheap, all in the name of fidelity to tradition, a word they never define.
Thus there is really no point in going through the so-called liturgy of Paul VI in order to defend its changes, and one can briefly attend to the accusation of novelty. Customs are not doctrines, and no essential doctrine is compromised in the new Rite. That the Mass is a sacrifice is stated in the offertory prayer. That it is a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins is also upheld. More of the Scriptures are included in the present liturgy, reinstating a tradition that leads back to the very earliest liturgies of the Church. All these facts are known to traditionalists and to our authors, but there is still no recognition on their part of the traditional nature of the Missal of 1969. No one doubts that the form of this Missal is different, that it is new for us, that it is in this common sense a novelty, however, the Pope has been clear that it is absolutely in line with tradition. Cardinal Ratzinger has been clear about this as well.
When we turn to the apostolic letter of John Paul II titled Vicesimus quintus annus written on the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, we find the following statement in reference to the Missal of 1969:
This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, (Cf. Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23) and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers (Cf. Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 50; Roman Missal, Preface, 6) [emphasis mine].
Here we see that the Supreme Pontiff, in an apostolic letter bearing his signature, has stated for all to hear that Paul VI's reform of the Roman Rite was a "reform," and thus not an "invention," and "strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers." This last line is one borrowed from Pope St. Pius V who used these same words to describe the reform he undertook after Trent, the same words that I reproduced above. This statement by our present Pope communicated through an apostolic letter, where he calls to mind the statement of a previous Pope, is a clear example of a authoritative and weighty expression. Thus it is the clear determination of the present Holy Father that, in this matter of discipline and government, the so-called Missal of Paul VI was a reform of the Roman Rite and that it was a strictly traditional reform. All Catholics are called to submit to this judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, a judgment made in an apostolic letter!
* * *
The two novelties which the authors point to as being the main culprits for the current crisis do not reject any doctrine of the Church. They do not cause, by their mere existence, any faithful Catholic to reject doctrine. The abuses that are associated with ecumenism and the Missal of 1969 have caused harm, and do lead Catholics away from the truths of the faith. Further, the lack of proper leadership from our bishops and arguably from the Pope himself on occasion can be said to have caused harm. However, the Ferrawood argument does nothing to demonstrate that there is a direct correlation between these two aspects of the Church, but to simply state that, in virtue of the fact that the crisis occurred directly after their implementation, there is such a correlation. They ignore the doctrinal weight of ecumenism with a manipulative template test and in no way attempt to give an example of a doctrine which the current Missal denies. Nor do they make any distinction between the implementation of the Missal and the Missal itself. What would they say to Michael Davies' statement?
What has led the authors to the tactics they have used in their argument is difficult to say. Certainly they feel very strongly about the well-being of the Church, yet there is such a willingness to twist papal decrees and invent contradictions that they demonstrate anything but calm logic. The consistently deceptive nature of the Ferrawood argument does not speak well of the integrity of the traditionalist movement. What is at the root of the authors' brand of traditionalism shall be the subject of the next and final section.
Footnotes
1. Page 1
2. Quo Primum July 1570 ". . . ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum."
3. Page 98: "It does not seem to have occurred to the authors that the 'externals' of Catholic worship are what mediate faith in Christ and the Blessed Eucharist to the members of His Church, and that when the externals become 'confusing' (as the authors admit), the faithful themselves become confused, and no longer believe as they once did. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The way one worships determines the way one believes" (emphasis mine). Literally this Latin phrase is translated "the law of praying, the law of believing" where the verb "is" is understood.
4. The difference in language did cause difficulties in the attempt to formulate dogmatic statements regarding the Trinity and Christ's nature. In the end, though, Greek was always used to formulate the dogmatic teaching.
5. Page 96: "The new rite is also markedly inferior in its presentation of Catholic doctrine. Anyone even minimally versed in Catholic Eucharistic teaching can see that the three new Eucharistic prayers are clearly deficient in their presentation of doctrine; the traditional teaching on the Catholic priesthood and its uniqueness vis-à-vis the priesthood of the faithful is likewise obscured. And yet if the moderately educated Catholic can see this, how can the Pope fail to see it?"
6. The word "host" comes from the Latin word hostia which means victim. The victim of our sacrifice is Christ, not a piece of bread, which is what is being prayed over at the offertory prayer.
7. In the interest of honest clarity, I do recognize a difference in the old offertory between the words spoken over the bread and those spoken over the wine. In the former the Latin hanc or "this" appears, whereas in the latter the words are simply, "We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, . . ." The words over the wine might be read as being anticipatory. However, the words over the bread are more difficult to read thus, because the priest is clearly talking about "this immaculate Host." Thus, the words of the wine too become confused.
8. Page 134 v. 1 The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Developments.
9. Fr. Jungmann tells us that Matthew and Mark do not use the word for thanksgiving (eucharistesas) over the bread but rather "a term that signifies a simple blessing." During a Passover meal, which is what our Lord and the Apostles were gathered to celebrate, "the father of a family pronounced only a short benediction: 'Praised by Yahweh, our God, the King of the world, who brings the bread forth from the earth'." This resembles our present blessing over the bread more than the old Rite does.
10. The authors' comment on page 168, footnote 190 is vapid. The new offertory prayer does not offer up the fruit of the earth to be sacrificed, rather, the prayer offers it up to be transformed into the sacrifice, which is of course Christ, the paschal lamb.
11. Page 175.
12. 1 Cor. 14:8-12.
13. As appears in footnote 2 on page 42 of The Liturgy After Vatican II: Collapsing or Resurgent? by Denis Crouan (Ignatius, San Francisco).
14. Page 103.
© Wanderer Printing Co.
This item 6332 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
