Worship: Sacrifice
and Sacredness
“The interior acts and
affections of the virtue of religion, that is, of adoration, thanksgiving,
petition and satisfaction, manifest themselves in many ways, but find their
supreme and most solemn expression in sacrifice.” (Rev. Doctor Nicholas Ghir)
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the center
of our faith and our spiritual lives. For this reason it is important to
correct any popular misconceptions about it. At the Mass we give proper worship
due to God and He generously offers Himself in the person of Christ as priest
and victim on the altar. There is a reason that the very first Canon of Trent
explicitly deals with sacrifice and anathematizes anyone who denies this
central attribute of the Mass. “If any one saith, that in the mass a true and
proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema..”[1]
In today’s Catholic theological circles little is ever heard about Christ’s
sacrifice offered in the Mass. Instead we hear about the Mass as a “supper.”
Yes, it is true
that in His generosity Christ also gives Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist as
our spiritual nourishment. We refer to this from the Last Supper in the gospel,
where Jesus gives Himself to eat. The reality however is that the very notion
of partaking in this supper, or meal is the fact that a sacrifice is taking
place. They are interrelated and the partaking of the Lord is only possible due to
the fact we are receiving Him as a true Sacrifice! As important as the
receiving of the Eucharist is, it is only mandatory for the priest himself so that the
Sacrifice be complete. “The offering made to God in sacrifice is always
destroyed or consumed.”[2]
This is referential to the Old Testament in which the sacrifice of the lamb on
Passover must also have been consumed. The sacrificial element of the Mass is
what everything else, including the receiving of the Eucharist revolves around.
If we view the Mass as first a supper in which we partake of to receive Christ,
the Mass becomes anthropocentric. The Mass is truly theocentric in that we are
participating in the perfect Sacrifice of Jesus offered up to the Father so
that man could be reconciled to God. From this one Sacrifice which is
represented at every Mass, we are then able to receive Our Lord the victim on
the altar from the hands of Jesus Himself as priest, which is often referred to
as a spiritual banquet or communion. The latter flows from the prior.
After Vatican II the
theology surrounding the Mass has taken an unfortunate turn towards an
anthropocentric focus rather than a Christocentric focus. Even more
specifically, the sacrificial centrality of the Mass has often been discarded
for a communal centrality which has not the power to present any form of
spiritual banquet or communion. As in all things, there are primary principles
and secondary principles. Strictly speaking, there can be no communal, horizontal element
without first recognizing the sacrificial, vertical element. Proper worship must first
contain the vertical component of sacrifice in order to have a true horizontal
component of communion. Simply put, without God first, there is no true
unifying element in the community. Without continual participation in the one
sacrifice of Jesus the true form of worship is lost. This loss of the divine sacrifice
in the theology of the Mass has resulted in a loss of faith in the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When those in the Church perpetuate a
teaching which either diminishes or denies the centrality of the sacrificial
element of the Mass, it results in a changing belief over time.
The Problem of
the Paradigm Shift
If we are to base
Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence of God in Most Holy Eucharist as
a measuring rod for the success of the liturgical reforms, we would have to
grade it as a complete failure. The latest polls show that an overwhelming
majority of professed Catholics do not even comply with the basic precepts of
the faith, nor do they believe in the dogmatic teaching of Transubstantiation. With
the change of the Mass in 1968, the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI began a
theological paradigm shift, which was viewed to be a welcome change by the Council
Fathers, the various committees and periti appointed by Pope Paul VI. In
practice, however, the average parish abandoned a theological emphasis on the
sacrificial nature of Christ and His ministerial priesthood, in favor of ecumenical
and community-oriented theology. In addition, the liturgy took on a less sacrificial
appearance both in her rubrics and her prayer structure. Thus, reverence in the
celebration of the Mass along with attendance rapidly declined after its
implementation.
To be clear after
my criticism, I am in no way claiming the Novus Ordo to be an invalid Mass. I
personally attend both the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass, though I
am not shy about preferring the latter. I am merely pointing out the fact that the
Novus Ordo inherently lacks the centrality of sacrifice in its rubrical and
prayer structure compared to the former Traditional Latin Mass, or what is now
referred to as the ‘Extraordinary Form’. There is indeed more than one reason
for this decline, but I will cover only one of them here. Since the Most Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass is “the fountain-head of genuine Christian devotion”[3]
and the summit of our Catholic faith, it is my opinion that this post-Council
theological paradigm shift is one of the reasons for this decline. I believe
this must be corrected among the faithful if we are to see a return to true
evangelization and perseverance in holiness throughout the Church. It is
necessary because the rubrics and prayer structure are an important element in
disposing the faithful to the reality in which they are partaking. In order to
accomplish this reparation, either by reforming the Nous Ordo or by returning
to the Traditional Latin Mass, we must first examine where things went off
track in the institution of the Novus Ordo.
The Second Vatican
Council on October 22nd, 1962 presented to the council fathers its
first schema which was on the Sacred Liturgy. At the closing of the first
session, Pope John XXIII said, “It was not by chance that the first schema to
be considered was on the Sacred Liturgy, which defines the relationship between
God and man.” [4] Between
the publishing of the Council’s Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium and the institution of Paul VI’s Mass (Novus Ordo) there had been
a lot of debate on the Church’s effort to renew the Liturgy. In fact, the
original schema proposed was sacked at the insistence of the Council Fathers
and a new one was drafted, as were the other schemas. One of the primary topics
of discussion was that of active participation by the laity. Many of the
Vatican II theologians deemed that praying at Mass was not enough participation
by the laity. Yet, the proper interior disposition, accompanied by the prayers
in the Mass along with a worthy reception of the Most Holy Eucharist was always
considered the highest form of participation by the Church in her liturgy.
Dom Mark Tierney
points out already in 1965, “The first principle, and the most important one,
is that which concerns active participation of the faithful in the public
worship of the Church…” [5]
How did this active participation play out in the life of the new Mass? The
laity for example, almost taking the place of clergy in the distribution of the
Holy Eucharist had severe theological consequences in the theology of the
Church. It took the emphasis off the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, as
well as the Real Presence. Rather than the Eucharist being handled by the
consecrated hands of the ministerial priest acting in persona Christi at
the altar rail, the laity were now distributing Our Lord rather cavalierly out
in the nave of the Church. We can see how being an Extraordinary Eucharistic
Minister is anything but extraordinary, and many laypeople think it is their
right to have this “active” role in the Mass.
Another negative
consequence was the removal of the altar rails in most parishes. It is easy to
see the logic behind this when one sees the addition of the laity distributing
the Eucharist. The laity now without the altar rail present were almost forced
to receive standing rather than kneeling. I will not get into the practice of the Eastern
churches here which is commonly brought up as a rebuttal but suffice it to
say, the intended outcome of the Council Fathers was intended to help the laity
recognize their role in the priesthood of Christ. The results, however, have in
practice taken away much of the sacredness of the ministerial priesthood and
the sacredness of Who it is we are receiving. It is also my opinion that along
with the use of altar girls, this is a major cause of our lack of priestly
vocations. When the lines of the ministerial priesthood are blurred with the
common priesthood, the importance of the former is also diminished. In short, I
believe that all the priests and deacons of a parish if possible should be
present to distribute Holy Communion at every Mass on a Sunday as was done for
centuries. This would restore some of the sacredness of the Real Presence of
Christ. Unfortunately, over the next ten years, we are going to see a sudden
decline in the priesthood due to a high rate of retirement of which new
vocations are nowhere near enough to replace. We may have gone down this road
too long!
The Vernacular
Experiment
Having the Mass
said in the vernacular was also a main point of interest for liturgists. The
vernacular is defined as one’s ordinary language spoken in one’s mother tongue.
It was thought that it would be easier for the faithful to engage in the
liturgy if it was said in the language of the "people." Many theologians had a
low opinion of the laity’s ability to learn and comprehend the Latin language
used for centuries by the Church in her liturgical functions. They viewed the
Latin language as being irrelevant to modern culture. ‘Sacrosanctum
Concilium’ released on December 4th, 1963 tried to promote the centrality
of the Latin language in the liturgy but made allowances for the vernacular. I
believe that the major weakness of the document was the “this but that” wording
which often made a general rule followed by a contradicting allowance, which
would eventually become the general rule. As we all know, this allowance for
the vernacular quickly became the rule for the entire Mass. This was calculated
since many bishops in the Church started complaining about the inconsistency in
languages during the Mass when most of it was being said in the vernacular.
Having part of it in Latin and some of it in the vernacular was argued to be more
confusing for the faithful. Annibale Bugnini, the appointed head of the
Concilium by Pope Paul VI, for the liturgical renewal, admitted that many of the
Fathers were not satisfied with the original document and he reported in his
memoirs,
“…the Council fathers who
were involved in the liturgical overhaul were not satisfied with this, and many
of the bishops in Europe wanted further concessions...the vernaculars had to
stop at the threshold of the Roman Canon and the sacrament of holy orders. Many
thought or hoped that this threshold would not be crossed, or at least not in
the near future. But the need was very quickly felt for having the entire
liturgy in the vernacular. It was felt with special intensity in certain parts
of the world, particularly in the Netherlands, where translations of the Canon
were beginning to circulate, along with texts of new Eucharistic Prayers.”[6]
As we know
eventually Latin was not to be the preferred language of the Mass in the
average Catholic parish. Sacrosanctum Concilium had left the door open
for vernacular experimentation. First, the Dutch episcopal conference
petitioned the Holy See to get their vernacular translations approved. In
addition, they also asked for permission to allow the laity to distribute
communion in the hand, which would also later become the norm in many countries.
Pope Paul VI called upon the Consilium headed by Bugnini, along with the
Congregation of Rites to study the proposition and help address the issue. Pope
Paul VI in addition also created a special committee to examine the final
proposal. On January 31st, 1967 Paul VI approved the concession, which allowed
for the entire Canon to be said in the vernacular and the rite of ordinations
to be allowed in the vernacular. A special commission was later put together to
allow the same concessions for the entire Church. Bugnini wrote, “The
desire was expressed that in sacred orders the essential formula for the
ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops remain in Latin, but the decision
was left to the conferences.” [7]
We all know the result of this permission.
Many in the Church
today still refuse to acknowledge the consequences for the clouded “this but
that” wording of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Bugnini himself however the
leading man for Pope Paul VI’s liturgical overhaul acknowledges that all the
those participating in the liturgical discussions viewed the document as being
very uncertain and vague in its wording. He conceded the following,
In article 54 the
Constitution says that a suitable place may be allowed to the mother tongue in
Masses celebrated with the people, especially (“in the first place) in the
readings and the prayer of the faithful and, depending on the local conditions,
also in parts belonging to the people. the wording is vague. What is a
“suitable” place? What is the point of the words “in the first place”? And what
does “parts belonging to the people” include? In the third paragraph of this
same article 54, the Council leaves it to the episcopal conferences to judge
whether “a more extended use of the mother tongue” is desirable. What limits
then did the Council set? If we judge solely on the basis of the text, no one
will ever be able to answer with certainty.”[8]
What we know with
certainty is that Latin would not be preserved as many initially thought. Due
to the vague wording of the document leaving such an open door for the vernacular,
this quickly became the norm rather than the exception. What were the consequences
of the entire liturgy being celebrated across the world in various languages?
The first issue was the problem of accurate translation. There are 4500 major
spoken languages across the globe. The Vatican had enough trouble with approving
translations for the 23 major languages, let alone the rest of the world.
Eventually, the bishop’s conferences would be tasked with translating the Mass,
often failing miserably. In the end, the vernacular liturgy would not be the
unifying element for the Church as was presented, but a severe element of
confusion and disunity. The Roman Catholic Church had long since preserved the
use of liturgical Latin for use in the Mass and all the Sacramental Rites for a
reason. This language was preserved not by happenstance or as a carryover from
the middle ages. (Read Part II for the conclusion)
[1]
The Council of Trent, Canon 1 On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
[2] A
Priest, Explanation of the Sacrifice and of the Liturgy of the Mass
(1870)
[3]
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei 1947, Para5
[4]
Dom Mark Tierney, O.S.B., The Council and the Mass (Dimension Books Inc, 1965)
P13
[5]
Ibid 28
[7]
Ibid 106-109
[8]
Ibid 111
Matthew J. Bellisario
Comments
Post a Comment