|
With the publication of
Missale Romanum almost thirty-two years ago (April 3,
1969), the very venerable, ancient, and sacred Mass of the
Roman Rite was displaced by the Novus Ordo Missae of
Pope Paul VI. On the Feast of Corpus Christi of that same
year, Pope Paul VI was presented with the Brief
Critical Examination of the Novus Ordo Missae with a cover
letter by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci which affirmed the
principle: “The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have
always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to
abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful" (The
Ottaviani Intervention, p.28).
The two cardinals did
not mince words why the Novus Ordo created a duty to
request its cancellation. The new rite of the Mass,
"represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was
formulated in Session 22 of the Council of
Trent."
Such "a striking
departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass" had already
been noticed and condemned in the liturgical movement which
preceded the Second Vatican Council. In Mediator Dei
(1947) Pope Pius XII had written,
we observe with
considerable anxiety ...that...certain enthusiasts, over
eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the
path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact,
they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the
sacred Liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest
of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it
with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine
(§8).
With this encyclical
Pope Pius XII sought to "distance from the Church" "false
opinions. . . altogether contrary to sacred and traditional
doctrine," "errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical
doctrine," "exaggerations and over-statements which are not in
agreement with the true teaching of the Church" (§94). A
glance through Mediator Dei reveals that these
condemned aberrations are the very soul of the liturgical
"reform" of Pope Paul VI, and of all the various developments
which flow from it, whether formally sanctioned or otherwise
in conformity with the "Spirit of the Council."
A "Formal and Violent Rupture"
In Mediator Dei,
Pope Pius XII reiterated a fundamental principle of
liturgy, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi - let
the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief” (§48). "The
entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its
content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of
the Church" (§47). Consequently, the ceremonies with which the
Church surrounds the Sacrifice of Christ conserve the faith
and distinguish between true and false Christians, and from
heretics.
But within only 18
years Pope Paul VI's so-called liturgical "reform" provides
the liturgy with a new fundamental principle. "The prayer of
the Church should not generate discomfort to anyone," and
therefore the Church must "discard any stone that risks
becoming a stumbling block or displease our separated
brethren." So writes Fr. Annibal Bugnini, guiding member to
the Consilium in charge of preparing the Novus Ordo
Missae and all other liturgical revisions, in the
L'Osservatore Romano of March 19th, 1965.1
Thus the rule of prayer will now be based on an "ecumenical"
principle, which will inform the new beliefs of the
post-Conciliar ecumenical Church. No longer will the liturgy
evidence the public faith of the Church, but rather evidence
the ecumenical sensitivities of certain churchmen.
All the essential
features of the Novus Ordo are contained in that
statement and constitute a "formal and violent rupture with
all the rules which guided Catholic liturgy up to Vatican
II."2
Needless to say, the new rites will not "preserve the faith,"
nor "distinguish true from false Christians."
A “Tragic Choice”
Founded on this
ecumenical intention, the new liturgy was scrupulously
preserved inviolate, with the assistance of six Protestant
observers, from any "discomfort" or stones which might be a
"stumbling block" to the "separated brethren." That "entire
abomination, the so-called Offertory" (Luther), was eliminated
in its entirety. Guido Ceronetti described the result of this
"major amputation passed off as a reform" to be, inevitably, a
liturgy no longer Catholic, but Protestant (La Stampa,
July 18, 1990). The new liturgy is "a Mass cut down to
Protestant dimensions" according to J. Green, himself a
convert from Protestantism ( Ce qu'il faut d'amour à
l'homme).
This satisfied the
liturgical "reformers," whose goal was "to facilitate
spiritual and psychological union."3
"The liturgical reform has made major advances in the
ecumenical field, and approaches the liturgical forms of the
Lutheran church" reported L'Osservatore Romano of Oct.
13, 1967. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci note the obverse side
of this coin, that the new rite "represents, both as a whole
and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Holy Mass..." (quoted above).
In truth, the central
problem posed by the Novus Ordo to the Catholic
conscience is not one of nostalgic attachment to the historic
rite, it is a problem of belief. "It is clear that the
Novus Ordo does not intend to present the faith of
Trent. To this faith, the Catholic is in conscience bound unto
eternity. With the launching of the Novus Ordo a true
Catholic is forced into a tragic choice" (Brief Critical
Examination). The faith of Trent is none other than the
"ancient faith founded on the holy Gospel, on the traditions
of the apostles, and on the doctrines of the holy Fathers"
(Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 947),
and this alone justifies refusing to accept a Novus
Ordo Missae which "does not intend to present the faith of
Trent" and which "approaches liturgical forms of the Lutheran
church."
Christ
the King Parish, Kansas City, MO, was far ahead of its
time
when construction of a new church began in
1952.
A freestanding altar was the center of
attention when Archbishop O’Hara celebrated the first
Mass after the church was dedicated on May 9, 1954
(A
History of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph,
Missouri). |
Luther's Shadow on the Liturgical "Reform" of
Pope Paul VI
In Mediator Dei,
Pope Pius XII writes:
For there are today
...those who, approximating to errors long since condemned [by
the Council of Trent], teach that in the New Testament by the
word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies
to all who have been baptized ....Hence they assert that the
people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the
priest only acts in virtue of an office committed 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 than that they should
offer the Sacrifice privately when the people are absent
(§83)...Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses
which are offered privately and without a congregation
,...moreover, there are some who assert that different priests
cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time,
because by doing so, they separate the community of the
faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to
hold that the people must confirm and ratify the Sacrifice if
it is to have its proper force and value (§95).
Against such
errors associated with Luther, Pope Pius XII repeats the
Catholic faith, the faith of Trent. "The visible, external
priesthood of Jesus Christ is not handed down indiscriminately
to all members of the Church in general, but is conferred on
designated men, through what may be called the spiritual
generation of Holy Orders" (§41), "one of the seven
Sacraments" (§42). "Hence he [the priest] goes to the altar as
the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the
people" (§84). When "speaking of the people offering with the
priest," the Church means only that the people “unite their
hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving,
with the prayers and intention of the priest, even of the High
Priest Himself..." (§93).
Furthermore, regarding
attacks on private Masses, Pope Pius XII repeats the faith of
Trent, namely that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
necessarily and of its
very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a
public and social act, in as much as he who offers it, acts in
the name of Christ ...and he offers it to God for the Holy
Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead. This is
undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present ...or are not
present, since it is in no wise required that the people
ratify what the sacred Minister has done (§96).
Clearly the Novus
Ordo Missae - with its "people of God assembled ...to
celebrate the sacred Eucharist," and with the priest reduced
to the role of "president of the assembly," (and hence facing
the people, §27); with the consecration altered into a simple
"narration" or "presidential prayer" (§ 10), and hence said
"clearly and out loud" (§ 10-12); and with a people no longer
adoring in silence, but ratifying out loud the "mystery of the
faith"; with its marked favor for "concelebrated services"
which may or may not build community, but certainly reduce the
number of private masses - this all certainly "represents ...a
striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy
Mass" (Brief Critical Examination), and a major slide
into Protestant theory.
An 11 year-old-altar boy reading a missal in
the sanctuary
of St. Thomas Apostle Roman Catholic
Church in Los Angeles
(The New York Times, June 1,
1994). |
“A
Supper of Brotherly Union”
Closely linked with the
aberration of the "priest president" and the heresy of the
"celebrating people" is the error "holding that it is
altogether necessary for the faithful to receive Holy
Communion as well as the priest," to which end, writes Pope
Pius XII, the innovators "put forward the captious argument
that here there is question not of a Sacrifice merely, but of
a Sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the
general Communion of all present as the culminating point of
the entire celebration" (§ 114). This too, warns Pope Pius
XII, is another false doctrine which the Council of Trent,
"supported by the doctrine which the uninterrupted tradition
of the Church has preserved," thus condemns: "If anyone shall
say that Masses in which the priest only receives Communion,
are unlawful, and therefore should be abolished, let him be
anathema" (§ 113). Receiving Holy Communion, in fact, "is
obligatory for the priest who says the Mass, it is only
something earnestly recommended for the faithful" (§ 115).
Neither is Mediator Dei deficient in condemning another
asserted "necessity," namely that the people receive hosts
consecrated during the very same Mass. This proposal has the
same heretical roots as the previous, and Pius writes that,
"they really and truly take part in the Sacrifice should they
receive a Host which has been duly consecrated at a previous
Mass" (§ 118).
Even these two asserted
"necessities" condemned by Pope Pius XII on the strength of
the "faith of Trent" find a home in the liturgical "reform" of
Pope Paul VI. The second, regarding hosts consecrated at the
same Mass, finds mention in Article 55 of the Constitution on
Sacred Liturgy, and was satirized by the Italian author Tito
Casini, with the ironic contrast "Fresh Christ" versus "Stale
Christ.”4
Liturgical Activism
From the heresy of the
"priest president" and the "celebrating people" is also born
the "false opinion" concerning the active participation of the
faithful at the Mass. Pope Pius XII praises those seeking to
promote greater liturgical participation with chant, dialogue
response, and by providing the people with missals. But he
cautions that these ways of participating in the Sacrifice
"are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to
give it a social character" (§ 106). Furthermore, and very
wisely, he notes that "so varied and diverse are men's talents
and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and
be attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns,
and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations
of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the
same individual" (§ 108). Thus it is possible to fruitfully
participate in "some other method which proves easier for
certain people, for instance, they can lovingly meditate on
the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of
piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the
sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them" (§
108).
Here, too, the
liturgical "reform" of Pope Paul VI, in which activism by the
faithful is above all an external reality rather than an inner
devotion, banishes other forms of participation, especially
the Rosary, and is clearly contrary to Mediator Dei. It
should also be said that in contrast with the pastoral wisdom
of Pope Pius XII, the "pastoralism" of Pope Paul VI's
liturgical "reform," which regiments the faithful with no
regard for personal needs, is revealed for what it really is,
a convenient and superficial pretext.
Pan-Liturgism
Pope Pius XII's
condemnations extend also to "new theories touching a
so-called ‘objective' piety," which "tend to belittle, or pass
over in silence, what they call ‘subjective' or ‘personal'
piety" (§28): "...they feel that all other religious exercises
not directly connected with the Sacred Liturgy and performed
outside public worship, should be omitted" (§29). On the
contrary "the work of Redemption ...requires a serious
interior effort on our part if we are to achieve eternal
salvation" (§31). "In the spiritual life ...there can be no
opposition between the action of God [the ‘objective' element,
...and the tireless collaboration of man [the ‘subjective'
element], who must not render vain the gift of God" (§ 36);
furthermore, these exercises of devotion and pious practices
"are not only highly praiseworthy, but absolutely
indispensable" (§32) because "[they] enable them [the
faithful] to participate in the august Sacrifice of the altar
with better dispositions. They now receive the Sacraments with
more abundant fruit" (§35) which is the point of "active
participation" in the liturgy.
Among the many
exercises of devotion, Pope Pius XII highlights and recommends
meditation, examination of conscience, ritual prayers, visits
to the Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, spiritual exercises and
"other practices of piety which although not strictly
belonging to the Sacred Liturgy are, nevertheless, of special
import and dignity, and may be considered in a certain way to
be "346 an addition to the liturgical cult" (§ 182). Among
these Pope Pius XII notes "are the prayers usually said during
the month of May in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God,
or during the month of June to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus;
also novenas and triduums, Stations of the Cross and other
similar practices" (§ 182). These excite Christians to
frequent the Sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and
"hence he would do something very wrong and dangerous, who
would dare to take on himself to reform these exercises of
piety and reduce them completely to the methods and norms of
liturgical rites" (§ 184).
Also on this point the
liturgical "reform" of Pope Paul VI signals the triumph of
"new theories" condemned by Pope Pius XII, with the
discouragement of "other practices of piety ...not strictly
belonging to Sacred Liturgy" and as such merits the
anticipated rebuke as "very wrong and dangerous."
Pope Pius XII had
already noted an insidious attack on Eucharistic adoration if
separated from the Sacrifice of the Mass, such as visits to
the tabernacle, Benediction of the Holy Sacrament, solemn
civic processions, Forty Hours, etc.; which practices
have all been discontinued, discouraged, if not eliminated
with the liturgical "reform" of Pope Paul VI. But Pope Pius
XII also noticed a menace to Marian devotion and to the
salutary practice of sacramental Confession. These threats
generated his cry of alarm to the Bishops:
Do not allow - as some
do, who are deceived under the pretext of restoring the
liturgy or who idly claim that only liturgical rites are of
any real value and dignity - that churches be closed during
the hours not appointed for public functions,...where the
adoration of the august Sacrament and visits to Our
Lord in the tabernacles are neglected: where confession is
discouraged: and devotion to the Virgin Mother of God, a sign
of "predestination" according to the opinion of holy
men, is so neglected...Such conduct most harmful to Christian
piety is like poisonous fruit, growing on infected branches
of a healthy tree, which must be cut off so that the
life-giving sap of the tree may bring forth only the best
fruit (§ 176).
The auditorium
of the Tenth Street School in Oakmont, PA, was the
setting for an ecumenical pryer service Jan. 21,
celebrating the annual Week of Prayer for Christian
Unity. Auxiliary Bishop David Zubik spoke at the event,
which is sponsored by the Oakmont/Verona Ministerial
Association and attended by members of various area
denominations (Pittsburgh Catholic, Jan 26,
2001).
The cross with
a hole in it belongs to the Diocese of
Pittsburgh. |
Exalting Christ Glorified and Slighting the Suffering
Christ
In Mediator Dei,
Pope Pius XII condemned "the temerity and daring of those
who introduce novel liturgical practices" such as "those who
make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august
Eucharistic Sacrifice," (§59) [1) Latin
is a beautiful sign of unity, 2) as well as an
effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth (§60)
- Ed.], "those who would transfer certain feast days
...to other dates" (§59). Also, one "would be straying from
the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its
primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color
for the liturgical vestments, were he to forbid the use of
sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the
crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no
trace of His cruel sufferings." (§62). There is no need for
explicit demonstration that these deplorable theories have all
been put into place with the liturgical "reform" of Pope Paul
VI.
Pope Pius XII returns
at length on this last point: the slighting of the Passion of
Christ and exaltation of the Resurrection. They "dare to
assert" he writes,
that attention should
be paid not to the historic Christ but to a "pneumatic" or
glorified Christ. They do not hesitate to assert that a
change has taken place in the piety of the faithful by
dethroning, as it were, Christ from His position; since they
say that the glorified Christ ...has been overshadowed and
in His place has been substituted that Christ who lived on
earth. For this reason, some have gone so far as to
want to remove from the Churches images of the Divine
Redeemer suffering on the cross (§
162).
And here the rebuke:
"But these false statements are completely opposed to the
solid doctrine handed down by tradition....In the sacred
Liturgy, the whole Christ is proposed to us in all the
circumstances of His life..." (§ 163).
Since His bitter
sufferings constitute the principle mystery of our
Redemption it is only fitting that the Catholic faith should
give them the greatest prominence. This mystery is the very
center of divine worship, since the Mass represents and
renews it every day, and since all Sacraments are most
closely united with the Cross (§ 164).
The Freeing of Liturgy from Authority:
“Creativity” and “Liturgical
Experiments”
From the fundamental
principle "the law for prayer determines the law of belief"
noted by Pope Pius XII, follows the logical consequence of the
Holy See’s exclusive authority in liturgical matters. Since
"the purity of the faith and of morals must be the normative
character of this matter," "private individuals, therefore,
even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for
themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as
they do the religious life of Christian society along with the
exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God"
(§58).
"Only the Supreme
Pontiff” has the right to legislate on liturgical matters. The
bishops have the duty to ensure that liturgical law is
strictly obeyed.
The Church has
further used her right of control over liturgical observance
to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from
dangerous and imprudent individuals and particular churches.
Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages
and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent
and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters
liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of the
faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and
the further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588,
Our Predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the
Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of
the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition
of any spurious innovation (§57).
Thus in his conclusion,
Pope Pius XII urges the bishops to be vigilant: "Let
everything be done with due order and dignity, and let no one,
not even a priest, make use of the sacred edifices according
to his whim to try out experiments" (§ 109).
Here too, there is no
need to cite chapter and verse to prove that the "reform" of
Pope Paul VI is firmly set on the deviant path condemned by
Pope Pius XII, with the result that in the name of
"creativity" the liturgy has been abandoned to arbitrary
experiments, not only diocese by diocese, but liturgy by
liturgy, and that not only by the clergy but also by the
laity!
Thus what Pope Paul VI
did not directly accomplish with his "reform," was achieved
indirectly in the name of "creativity," with "private
initiatives" threatening "to compromise the integrity of the
faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and the
further spread of their errors," notably a Protestant mindset
of "religion without authority," even in liturgical
matters.
The
Liturgical Movement: Forerunner of Pope Paul VI’s Liturgical
“Reform"
Mediator Dei
anticipates and condemns the "liturgical reform" with such
clarity because these "false theories," "exaggerations and
betrayals of the truth," "errors touching on the Catholic
faith and ascetical doctrine," had long been snaking through
the liturgical movement, and Pope Pius XII wished to protect
the Church from them.
Already in 1943, Msgr.
Conrad Gröber, the Archbishop of Freiburg, had raised the
alarm in a memorandum to the German episcopate.5
The liturgical movement, he writes, creates a wedge within the
clergy, and slides towards Protestant errors; despises
scholasticism and finds congenial company with false modern
philosophies; criticizes, under a pretext of return to
origins, every bequest from centuries past, as though every
doctrinal and liturgical development, which had occurred under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was merely an arbitrary
deformation and falsification; contains concealed Protestant
influences, notably Karl Barth [the idol of the new
theologians]; is open to the sects "in order to rebuild church
unity"; thinks of the Church, in the Protestant way, as an
invisible organization rather than as a visible hierarchy;
favors a false "mysticism" (charismaticism); highlights the
"priesthood of the faithful" and slights the ministerial
priesthood of the clergy; considers liturgy a universal
panacea; unfetters liturgical celebrations from every
authority and obligation, which rules are trashed as so many
"rubricisms"; agitates for the Mass in the vernacular; and is
a fount of heresies.
The threats denounced
by the Archbishop of Freiburg are a sad reality today. In
fact, during the last Council two movements clashed: the
liturgical movement and the Marian movement. The latter was
poised to advance a uniquely Catholic development against the
Protestant world, and was in line with the counter-reformation
of Trent; the former, the liturgical movement, was in alliance
with all the "aggiornamento" groups intent on
terminating the counter-reformation and intent on opening
towards the "separated brethren.6
After the Council, a disciple of Karl Rahner confessed that
the liturgical movement in Germany was just one of many
movements created to break the so-called "Roman
system."7
The "liturgical reform"
which took place thus represents the triumph of such madness
within the liturgical movement, so infiltrated with
Protestantism, and which had already been condemned first by
Msgr. Gröber and then by Pope Pius XII in Mediator
Dei.
Daughter of Disobedience to the Roman
Magisterium
Pope Pius XII closes
his encyclical by ordering the promoters of the liturgical
movement "to imitate in their thoughts and actions the
Christian doctrine which is in harmony with the precepts of
the Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Mother of saints"
(§207).
In fact, the liturgical
"reform" of Pope Paul VI, and all subsequent actions, is the
daughter of disobedience to the Church and the Pontifical
Roman Magisterium. We cannot say, as Pope Paul VI said, that
the "Pope of today" has the same authority as the "Popes of
yesterday." The contradiction is not between Pacelli and
Montini; the contradiction is between the "Faith of yesterday"
and the "Faith of today," and neither should differ from the
"Faith of all time." The popes have equal authority in matters
pertaining to discipline, the effectiveness of which may
change with different historic circumstances, although even
here, this authority should not be exercised arbitrarily. But
as regards the Faith, and all that which touches the Faith, of
which liturgy touches more than all else, the popes have equal
authority to defend and explain the "deposit of the Faith";
but none has the authority, whether directly or indirectly, to
undermine the Faith. "We have no authority to challenge Truth,
only to defend Truth."
Marcus
1. See also Bugnini's book, La riforma
liturgica.
2. A. X.
Da Silveira, La Novelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?
p.335.
3. La
riforma liturgica.
4.Tito
Casini, La tunica straciata.
5. The
major part of the text in Ami du Clergé (1950),
p.258ff. See also Una Voce of Paris
25/69.
6. E.
Fouilloux, "Mouvements theologico-spirituels et Concile " in
A la veille deVatican II, (Louvain, 1992),
pp.188-198; also SiSiNoNo, Italian edition,
(Sept. 30, 1998) p.5.
7. H.
Vorgrimler, Karl Rahner verstehen [Understanding Karl
Rahner], p.74ff, cited in SiSiNoNo, Italian
edition, (April 15, 1998) p.3.
Courtesy of the Angelus Press, Kansas City, MO
64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via
Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri
(Roma)
|
