October 2008 Print

Fr. Matthias Gaudron
 

Is the Mass essentially a Supper? The import of this idea, which cropped up in the Common Declaration of the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Commision, is examined.

59) Was the Tridentine Mass abolished?

Since the introduction of the New Mass (Paul VI’s Mass, in 1969), Rome endeavored to make people believe that the traditional Mass was abolished and its celebration prohibited. But in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum ( July 7, 2007), Pope Benedict XVI publicly recognized that it had never been abrogated. All those who were accused of disobedience for nearly 40 years because of their fidelity to this Mass indeed suffered persecution for justice’ sake.

Could the traditional Mass have been abolished?

Celebration of the traditional Mass could not easily be prohibited, for the Church has always respected rites of immemorial custom instead of forbidding them. Moreover, in promulgating the Tridentine Missal (by the Bull Quo Primum, of July 14, 1570), St. Pius V granted a perpetual privilege by which no priest could ever be prevented from being faithful to this rite for the celebration of the Mass.

Were not the stipulations of St. Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum abrogated by Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969) promulgating the New Mass?

It is difficult to determine the exact juridical scope of Paul VI’s Constitution Missale Romanum because of the ambiguities it contains. What is sure is that it did not attempt to abolish the privilege accorded by St. Pius V. The defenders of the traditional Mass saw this right away and said so, but the bishops, and even Pope Paul VI, tried to make the faithful believe that the new Mass was obligatory.

So it took nearly 40 years for Rome to notice that the traditional Mass had not been abolished?

The Roman authorities were well aware, at least since 1986, that the traditional Mass had not been abolished. But it was necessary to wait 20 more years for the fact to become official. Cardinal Stickler related:

“In 1986, Pope John Paul II asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. First: Did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?

The Cardinal explained, “I can answer because I was one of the Cardinals.”

He continued: “The answer given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was ‘No, the Mass of St. Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed.’”

In answer to the second question, Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating the Tridentine Mass?, Cardinal Stickler replied, “The nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass....There is no official interdiction, and I believe that the Pope will never issue one...precisely because of the words of Pius V, who said that this Mass would be valid in perpetuity.”¹

60) Is the new rite of Mass an adequate expression of Catholic teaching on the holy sacrifice of the Mass?

In the judgment of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, the new rite of Mass promulgated in 1969 “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass.”² All the changes tend to silence any mention of propitiatory sacrifice in favor of the Protestant Supper.

How, concretely, does the New Mass resemble the Protestant Supper?

The most serious changes were those touching the Offertory and Canon. It could be said that the demands of Luther, who called for abolishing the Offertory and the Canon, are substantially satisfied in the New Order.

What did Luther say about the Offertory?

Luther affirmed: “That abomination called the Offertory, and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation.”³

Why did Luther so hate the Offertory of the Mass?

The ancient Offertory clearly expresses that the Mass is a sacrifice offered in propitiation for sins. The priest prays:

Receive, O holy Father, almighty, eternal God, this spotless host which I, thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my own countless sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians, living or dead; that it may avail for my own and for their salvation unto life eternal. Amen.

What has become of this Offertory in the new rite?

In the new rite, the Offertory was suppressed and replaced by a preparation of the gifts, the text of which was taken from a Jewish table blessing:

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.

What might be noticed in this new prayer?

Besides its markedly naturalist tone (there is no allusion to supernatural truths revealed by God), this prayer completely voids the notions of sacrifice and propitiation. It is the equivalent of a simple prayer before a meal.

But isn’t the most important thing that the Canon of the Mass–the very ancient and venerable Roman Canon–was preserved?

It cannot really be said that the Roman Canon was retained in the new liturgy. Firstly, it lost its character of canon, that is to say, a fixed, obligatory rule: now it is but one option among others (it became “Eucharistic Prayer I,” to which, in fact, one of the other three “Eucharistic prayers” introduced in 1969 is often preferred, or else one of the many others authorized by the Holy See). Secondly, even “Eucharistic Prayer I” distorts the Roman Canon.

Isn’t “Eucharistic Prayer I” the same as the Roman Canon?

At first glance “Eucharist Prayer I” of the new liturgy may seem to be the ancient Roman Canon, but in fact several modifications have been introduced. Noteworthy among these are the following:

1) recitation in a loud voice (which leads to a desacralization of the Canon);

2) the alteration of the formula of consecration (made to resemble the Lutheran rite); 3) the banalization of the formula of consecration (henceforth recited in a narrative tone rather than in the customary low voice); 4) the suppression of the priest’s genuflection between the consecration and the elevation (which favors the heresy that teaches that the faith of the assembly, and not the words of consecration, are the cause of the real presence); 5) the elimination of numerous signs of the cross; 6) the addition of an ambiguous acclamation after the consecration.

Are these new ways of doing things really bad?

Taken separately, these practices are not necessarily bad in themselves (one or the other of them can even be found in an Eastern rite). But taken together and compared with what was previously done, they all tend toward a weakening of the faith.

Are the three other “Eucharistic prayers” also contestable?

The three new “Eucharistic prayers” add several grave deficiencies to the defects of the first, which Fr. Roger Calmel summarized thus:

They begin by putting the larger part of the Preces Eucharisticae after the consecration, with just a short invocation to the Holy Ghost bracketed between the Sanctus and the narrative of the institution. By all means they want to rush the priest into the consecration without leaving him suitable time to become focused on what he is going to do, without allowing him to prepare himself for the infinite mystery he is to accomplish....Lastly, if, despite everything, certain ideas from the Roman Canon on the nature of the Mass and its effects have been retained, they have been systematically weakened by well-calculated omissions: the Lord God to whom the sacrifice is offered is no longer invoked under the titles of His omnipotence or His infinite mercy; there is not a word of our condition of servants and sinners, constrained by these two titles to offer the holy sacrifice; nothing on the Church as Catholic and apostolic....⁴

Aren’t these criticisms a bit severe?

These criticisms are true. And many more omissions common to the three new “Eucharistic prayers” could still be catalogued: the propitiatory end of the sacrifice of the Mass is never explicitly affirmed (even if the words sacrifice and victim figure in Prayers III and IV); all the types and figures of the sacrifice of Christ (Abel, Abraham, Melchisedech) have disappeared; the Virgin Mary is never called ever virgin; the merits of the saints are ignored (the saints themselves being reduced to anonymity: even St. Peter is not named); hell is never mentioned, etc.

Isn’t “Eucharistic Prayer II” very old?

“Eucharistic Prayer II” does deserve a special mention for, as has been written, “a priest who no longer believed in either Transubstantiation or the sacrificial character of the Mass could recite it with perfect tranquility of conscience,” and “a Protestant minister...could use it in his own celebrations just as well.”⁵ Not once does the notion of sacrifice occur, yet it is the most often used because it passes for ancient and venerable, and especially because it is the shortest of the four (it has been nicknamed the “mini-canon”).

Is not this Eucharistic Prayer II the Canon of St. Hippolytus (3rd century)?

Some claim that this prayer is the ancient canon of Hippolytus, but: 1) at best, it would only be a truncated version of that canon (the passage affirming that Christ voluntarily gave Himself up to suffering in order to “destroy death, to break the bonds of the devil, to trample hell underfoot, and to enlighten the just” has, for example, been suppressed⁶); and 2) it is forgotten that Hippolytus was the second antipope, and that it is not at all certain that his liturgy was ever celebrated in the Catholic Church.

But isn’t this Hippolytus a saint?

Father Roguet, who cannot be suspected of hostility towards the new liturgy, explains:

Hippolytus does not give his text as a canon, that is to say a fixed, obligatory rule, but rather as a model for improvisation; his text, then, was probably never pronounced as written. Lastly, he was a very reactionary character, so opposed to the Roman hierarchy as to play the antipope (which he redeemed by martyrdom) and it is highly likely that he presented his anaphora in opposition to the Eucharistic prayer then in use by Rome.⁷

What are the consequences of the deficiencies of these new Eucharistic prayers?

Fr. Calmel remarked:

As a result of these alterations and manipulations, the inexhaustible but well-defined riches of the consecratory rite are no longer suitably set forth. The interior dispositions required for receiving the supernatural fruits of the holy sacrifice are no longer fostered as they ought to be. The unavoidable consequences seem to be that priests and the laity cease to perceive the significance of the Mass and the Catholic Mass more closely resembles the Protestant Supper.⁸

Are all the deficiencies of the New Mass fortuitous, or do they correspond to some overarching idea?

The new liturgy is the bearer of its own spirit, which is a new spirit. Its principal author, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, could declare: “The image of the liturgy given by the Council is completely different from what it was before.”⁹

(Question 60 will be continued in the next installment.)

^{Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from} Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloß Jaidhof, Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation.

 

¹ Cardinal Alphonse Stickler, Latin Mass Magazine, May 1995.

² Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, letter to Pope Paul VI dated September 29, 1969, accompanying the Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass written by a group of theologians. [In English, it is known as The Ottaviani Intervention, tr. Fr. Anthony Cekada (Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books & Publishers, 1992).

³ Luther, in Formula Missæ et Communionis (1523), XII, 211.

⁴ Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P. “Apology for the Roman Canon” [French] Itinéraires, No.157, Nov. 1971, p.38. In the rest of the article, Fr. Calmel fully develops the facts enumerated here.

⁵ Ottaviani and Bacci, The Ottaviani Intervention, Chapter VI.

⁶ See Hippolytus of Rome, La Tradition apostolique, texte Latin, edited by Dom Botte, O.S.B., Sources Chrétiens (Paris: Cerf, 1946), p.32.

⁷ Amon-Marie Roguet, O.P., Pourquoi le canon de la messe en français? (Paris: Cerf, 1967), p.23.

⁸ Calmel, “Apology for the Roman Canon,” Itinéraires, p.38.

⁹ Annibale Bugnini, Documentation Catholique, No. 1491, Jan. 4, 1967, col. 824.