|
Letter from
Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969
Most Holy
Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of
others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium
ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy
prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight
of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following
considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work
of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite
clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations
implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in
different ways, the Novus Ordo 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 XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons"
of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable
barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with
tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in
the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The
innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of
perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could
well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in
many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the
Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that
sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for
ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the
liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of
the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an
indubitable lessening of faith.
Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising
crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice
daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your
Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but
find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous
for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always
been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to
be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty
of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.
Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such
painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the
Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father,
not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to
the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly
praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole
Catholic world.
A. Card.
Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Brief Summary
I
History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod,
was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal
Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every
possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon
the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of
the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to
remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only
"spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is
implicitly repudiated.
V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant
appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true
nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship.
This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no
intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent
to which the Catholic conscience is bound.
VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate
the East.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the
purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the
deposit of Faith.
I
History of the Change
In October 1967,
the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on
the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New
Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra
Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting
showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial
reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The
international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative
Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined
papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately
promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once
again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance,
nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal
Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about
it.
In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal
promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part
to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four
centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for
priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world,
"it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to
many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform,
putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since
"from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more
widespread and intensive among Christians".
This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the
desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X
- they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the
liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be
changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a
better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they
would never have wanted changed.
The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear
to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use,
together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller
participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why,
when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have
been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of
Christians.
Rejected by Synod
Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as
the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance
rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial
judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of
all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass
whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new
legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since
the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself
acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it
appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it
acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution
Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be
reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio
clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated
corresponds with this original intention.
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such
magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with
regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every
possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.
II
Definition of the Mass
Let us begin
with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio
Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo:
"De structura Missae":
"The Lord's
Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God,
met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the
memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is
eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
The definition
of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is
found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further
characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a
memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy
Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real
Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of
the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a
word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which
together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of
these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and
therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.
In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the
already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for
this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII,
20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ
with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the
greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the
Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.
In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and
Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in
the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of
Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an
altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as
though between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said
about this point later.
This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all
acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are,
separately in an absolute sense.
We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or
Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table;
The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic
Liturgy.
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the
supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the
Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and
Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the
memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the
Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.
We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and
throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and
reiterated.
III
Presentation of the Ends
We now come to
the ends of the Mass.
1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most
Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the
primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he
saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast
fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).
This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of
the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with
the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the
Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy
Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the
Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.
2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been
deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of
sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment
and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly
instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the
state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state
but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an
antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody
immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present
are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.
3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely
necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no
sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the
Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering
turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man
brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings
the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".
"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity
we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of
the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread
of life (or spiritual drink)".
There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the
formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean
anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the
definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among
His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not
substantially) changed.
Suppression of Great Prayers
In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from
the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae
dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a
reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one
of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole
economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final
propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum adore
suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency
was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the
continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no
longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up
scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious
ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union of
priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings
for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the
Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this
offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of
the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity
banquet.
IV
The Essence
We now pass on
to the essence of the Sacrifice.
The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only
there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these
reasons:
1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex
Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be
united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in
offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)
Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given
to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex
Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the
whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a
prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The
effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said.
The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in
the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in
formulation reveals the change in doctrine.
2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is
quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central
position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic
liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a
quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the
context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)
The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The
very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.
The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy
Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations,
as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish
the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the
systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.
Note, too, the suppressions:
- of the
genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with
certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
- of the
purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
- of the
preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the
Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be
immediate, nor made on the corporal;
- of the pall
protecting the chalice;
- of the internal
gilding of sacred vessels;
- of the
consecration of movable altars;
- of the sacred
stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when
celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads
straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
- of the three
altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
- of thanksgiving
kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest
and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
- of all the
former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which
are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur"
(no. 239)
All these things
only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real
Presence is implicitly repudiated.
3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost
always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the
centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid
down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is
possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no.
262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the
faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it
(ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that
the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded.
This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the
celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought
about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.
Separation of Altar and Tabernacle
Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place
apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were
a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into
a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but
upon a stripped, bare table. Once again the contrast is made between
'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up against altar.
In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species
consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the
priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find
reasserted disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards
every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes
yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the
consecrated Species remain.
The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was
properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by
three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline
insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's
faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the hierarchical
priesthood.
b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new
paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the
sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger
characters at the centre of the page and often in a different colour,
clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the
formula a proper and autonomous value.
"To separate the
Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things which,
of their very nature, must remain together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to
the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956).
cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5, note 28.
c) The anamnesis
("Haec quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in
Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This referred to
Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an
invitation to recall what He did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam
facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper.
The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will
now take the place of the old - proclaimed as it will be daily in
vernacular languages will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate
on the memory of Christ as the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst
it is really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration'
will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental
action.
The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula "narratio
institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the
anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of
Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of
the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of
modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The
consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as
expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whole Person
the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").
Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after
the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest")
introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity
concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the
expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed
just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar,
almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.
This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional
acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and
drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou
comest", where the juxtaposition of the different realities of
immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second
Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.
V
The Elements of Sacrifice
We come now to
the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were: 1)
Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.
In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is
autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening
definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the
priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the
assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua
salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae
mysterium".
A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a
mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and
soliciting such a presence.
This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive
references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the
unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass
without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio
universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the
"sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus
excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to
that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest,
as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the
intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.
In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following
words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people
to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be
made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear
that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in
the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the
offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous
priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before
long, the people were authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the
consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have
already occurred).
Priest as Mere President
2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly
in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere
president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating
in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de
populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations
are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has
vanished.
In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer
judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is
no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed.
He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such
in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".
Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction
between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal
High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in
the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been
suppressed.
Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or
about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the
Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant
minister.
The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in
certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate
even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more
clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned
officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the
people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quite the involuntarily
humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table"
and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole
Priesthood and the Word of God.
3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In
one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the Mass
acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord.
no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is
not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and
sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the
sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the
priest associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones
which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per
Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".
In this context the follows are to be noted:
1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord",
the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John,
XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);
2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no
other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the
communication of grace;
3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication
of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is
brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the
march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers of
Darkness - looking towards a future which having lost its line with
eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.
The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as such in
the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the
place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox
believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely:
"all who seek you with a sincere heart".
Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on
"with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who
have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with
further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of
all the dead whose faith is known to you alone".
Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any
reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering of
those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento:
all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and
redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.
Desacralizing the Church
Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church.
Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints
are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective
Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the
person of St. Michael, for the first.
The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is
without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the
Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the
Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters
of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became,
with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera
nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer
mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in
time of peril.
The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly
intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new
Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the
Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and
mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being
in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.
A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the
omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the
salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa
est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.
The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's
Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his
sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished
by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of
Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the
merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these
prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect
of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant
here.
The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character,
has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration
outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a
simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single
cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with
regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the
"convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence
Itself.
The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new
procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened
bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie)
being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting
atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest,
deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes
commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain'
what he is about to accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of
servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to
their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst
of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural
and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church
will be authorised to read the lessons and also perform other
"ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).
Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by
destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the
central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective
presence of concelebrants.
VI
The Destruction of Unity
We have limited
ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates
most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our
observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete
evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and
psychologically destructive elements contained in the document -
whether in text, rubrics or instructions - would be a vast undertaking.
By Priest or Parson
No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons,
since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative
criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave
immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon
II it has been well said, among other things, that it could be recited
with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest who no longer
believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character
of the Mass - hence even by a Protestant minister.
The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral
matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal
Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying
circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic
Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal
legitimate variations and adaptations". Besides, Section I of the new
Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the
publication and 'constant revision' of the liturgical books". The last
official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland
and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into
the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be
adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was
conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of
concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of
its myriad congregations."
The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the
Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican
Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of
tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend more
fragrant than any incense".
Council of Trent Rejected
The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of
Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognised as "liturgiae
romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that "principem locum
obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice,
amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual.
From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and
experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept
away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that
went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended
without compromise?
It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the
Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the
Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the
Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic
alternative.
VII
The Alienation of the Orthodox
The Apostolic
Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching
in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result - utterly
remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental
Liturgies - can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in
truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the
multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and
complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque
specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately
shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of
the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character,
the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place
has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other
reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which
debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it
already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the
various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking
havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her
unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis
without precedent.
VIII
The Abandonment of Defences
St. Pius V had
the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself
recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In
conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to
exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith,
then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the
situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly
Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his
Missal "should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he
shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter
and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was
asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the
Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply,
but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more
serious ones today.
It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every
century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi,
devitans profanas vocum novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to
erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defences of her
dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements.
These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most
complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship
back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and
with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII,
what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we
see today only too clearly - to dismantle all the theological ramparts
erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty
by which it was enriched over the centuries.
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most
critical moment - of the Church's history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not
only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened
but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so
much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical
abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the
sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another
which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless
liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or
manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we
feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Editor's note
about the above document:
When studying the issues involved in the new liturgy, you may come
across the assertion that Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document
retracting his words above. This may not be accurate if the following,
as recounted at www.traditio.com, is true:
A purported
letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal's signature,
was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that
the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what
he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his
secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. [Ed. Agustoni was later
made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]
Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [Ed. along with his
brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which that
fabricated the "New Mass" and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order
service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor
of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused
Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result,
Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary.
So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the
Cardinal's secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt
to undermine the Cardinal's public document, which questioned the
validity of the New Order service, by a phony "retraction," which
Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author
Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never "retracted," in
any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they
courageously published.
|
|
