The Desacralization of the Most Holy
Eucharist
The Communal Aspect of Liturgy, Or Self Worship?
Renewal and Pastoral Considerations
By Matthew James Bellisario O.P.
2010, 2020
Due to the situation we find ourselves at the present time, not having access to public Mass or many of the Sacraments, I thought it would be an opportune time to rewrite one of my older essays on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is my hope that due to this crisis we may come to view the Mass in a more profound and serious manner than before. This essay was originally written for a diocesan class that I was taking several years ago. This class was used for the formation of deacons. I thought it would be most effective at the time to use the current writings of Pope Benedict XVI to counter what was being taught in the class. Although I opposed the priest teaching the class at every turn I did receive an A on my paper! What follows is an edited and partially rewritten form of the paper that I wrote for my class.
Due to the situation we find ourselves at the present time, not having access to public Mass or many of the Sacraments, I thought it would be an opportune time to rewrite one of my older essays on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is my hope that due to this crisis we may come to view the Mass in a more profound and serious manner than before. This essay was originally written for a diocesan class that I was taking several years ago. This class was used for the formation of deacons. I thought it would be most effective at the time to use the current writings of Pope Benedict XVI to counter what was being taught in the class. Although I opposed the priest teaching the class at every turn I did receive an A on my paper! What follows is an edited and partially rewritten form of the paper that I wrote for my class.
Introduction
Since the Second Vatican Council, we have witnessed a widespread
desacralization of the Sacraments in the Catholic Church. There has been great
dissent within the Catholic Church by theologians who proudly proclaim
themselves to be a part of the school of the “new theology” more well known in theological schools as 'Nouvelle théologie.' This school came primarily from French and German theologians who created a new school of theology rooted in modern philosophy. There is no
Sacrament that has been left untouched by this theological school which has over the years claimed to have the true “spirit” of Vatican II. Through this clouded theological lense, these theologians have slowly eroded the true meaning of the Sacraments.
For example, baptism is now often taught as being only a sacrament of the community, while completely neglecting the Church's long defined dogmatic teaching which concerns grace and original sin. This downplaying of original sin and the necessity of baptism often leads Catholics to question the Church's baptism of infants. It also puts doubt into the minds of Catholics as to the supernatural effects that the Sacrament has on the soul. Despite the benefit we would receive from studying how each sacrament has been effected in recent years, our point of focus will be concerning the treatment of the Divine Savior Himself in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is important to focus our attention as to how Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist has been treated by these “new theologians” in order for us to understand what has happened to the rest of our sacramental theology.
Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the following, “Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments.” (Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q83, A 4) (1) Over the last 40 years or so there has been a drastic change in attitude towards Our Lord in this most Holy Sacrament. No longer is Christ, the King of our Church, He has instead become Christ the social worker, Christ the psychologist, or Christ the revolutionary. In many parishes, the Mass in its celebration no longer reflects what it is in its essence which is the very same sacrifice made on Golgotha. We know in reading the Gospel of St. John, and by the infallible interpretation of this passage by the Church, that Christ gives us Himself in complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him” (John 6:56-57) No longer do we bow down to give God the glory, honor and worship due to Him in the liturgy or in presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Instead, we now turn to ourselves as the primary focus of “liturgy.”
For example, baptism is now often taught as being only a sacrament of the community, while completely neglecting the Church's long defined dogmatic teaching which concerns grace and original sin. This downplaying of original sin and the necessity of baptism often leads Catholics to question the Church's baptism of infants. It also puts doubt into the minds of Catholics as to the supernatural effects that the Sacrament has on the soul. Despite the benefit we would receive from studying how each sacrament has been effected in recent years, our point of focus will be concerning the treatment of the Divine Savior Himself in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is important to focus our attention as to how Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist has been treated by these “new theologians” in order for us to understand what has happened to the rest of our sacramental theology.
Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the following, “Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments.” (Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q83, A 4) (1) Over the last 40 years or so there has been a drastic change in attitude towards Our Lord in this most Holy Sacrament. No longer is Christ, the King of our Church, He has instead become Christ the social worker, Christ the psychologist, or Christ the revolutionary. In many parishes, the Mass in its celebration no longer reflects what it is in its essence which is the very same sacrifice made on Golgotha. We know in reading the Gospel of St. John, and by the infallible interpretation of this passage by the Church, that Christ gives us Himself in complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him” (John 6:56-57) No longer do we bow down to give God the glory, honor and worship due to Him in the liturgy or in presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Instead, we now turn to ourselves as the primary focus of “liturgy.”
Vatican II
It is easy to blame this turbulent upheaval of Eucharistic theology solely on
the Second Vatican Council. Upon close examination, however, we can see that
this deconstructive attitude was alive and working behind the scenes well
before the Council. We may even trace the rebellious roots back to the
Protestant revolt of the 16th century and the following years of the so-called
“Enlightenment.” No, it was not the Council itself that spawned this
desacralization, despite some who attended the Council who wanted this to
happen; it was the Council that would be the victim of this “new theology.” It
is the Council that would be hi-jacked by these “new theologians.” This can be seen from the manner in which the document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium was constructed. It is one of the most poorly constructed documents of the Council which was worded in a "this but" format. I will give just one example.
The “this, but” format being the leitmotif of the “norms” made in reference to the Latin language is one of the clearest examples of what happens when you format a document like this. The norm concerning the language of the Mass like the rest in the document is frequently followed with a “but” accompanied by a completely different norm which always seems to replace the originally stated “norm.” For example, we have stated in 36. 1. the following plain statement, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Everyone knows still to this very day that this "norm" is not followed as the general norm of the Church. In fact, a majority of the bishops oppose it! Instead, they all hide behind the “but” of the document, “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…” As we know as a result of this construct, the “but” is now the "norm." Obviously, no Thomistic theologian would ever have constructed a document of such importance in this manner.
The “this, but” format being the leitmotif of the “norms” made in reference to the Latin language is one of the clearest examples of what happens when you format a document like this. The norm concerning the language of the Mass like the rest in the document is frequently followed with a “but” accompanied by a completely different norm which always seems to replace the originally stated “norm.” For example, we have stated in 36. 1. the following plain statement, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Everyone knows still to this very day that this "norm" is not followed as the general norm of the Church. In fact, a majority of the bishops oppose it! Instead, they all hide behind the “but” of the document, “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…” As we know as a result of this construct, the “but” is now the "norm." Obviously, no Thomistic theologian would ever have constructed a document of such importance in this manner.
The era after the Council also followed this leitmotif and as such became the era of "learned scholars" who
suddenly knew more than Christ and the collective Magisterial Church of the
past 2000 years. The arrogant “scholars” of the modern age sought to recreate
their own vision of what the early Church was, and they tried to recreate how
this early Church supposedly celebrated the liturgy of the Eucharist. In short,
they tried to recreate God, the Mass, and the Church in their own image. This heavy
reliance on historical criticism became a recipe for disaster. The mentality of
modernism had now penetrated the minds of those inside the Church. This problem
can also be attributed to theologians adopting the faulty modern philosophies of
Descartes, Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Heidegger, and others. They defined a new “reality” where suddenly everything shifted away from objective truth; instead, rationalism and subjectivism became the norm for determining “truth.” No longer
was truth defined by the mind conforming to the object, but the object being
conformed to the subjective perspective of the mind. This faulty philosophy
was popular within Protestantism with men like Soren Kierkegaard and Frederick
Schleiermacher who stressed emotionalism. Catholicism did not escape these
philosophical deficiencies. Thomistic philosophy was abandoned to deficient
philosophers like Maurice Blondel who introduced his, 'Nouvelle théologie' in
which freedom, action, and emotion became the most important functions of
religion.
The Historical Deconstruction of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice
The first deconstruction of the Mass was based on a supposed return to
the early Church. The scholars of the day thought they could recreate the early
Church as if they had a time machine that was able to enlighten
them as to how the early Church practiced the liturgy. This was one of the
vehicles that the “new theologians” used to try and overthrow Christ from His
rightful throne in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No longer would there be an
altar, but a table. Instead of the burial shroud, which the altar linens
represented, we now had table cloths, as if we were attending a Sunday
afternoon picnic, rather than coming to worship Christ as He gives Himself in a
total Sacrifice to God the Father for the forgiveness of our sins. Suddenly we
have the priest facing the people rather than facing God, which we must admit
was never promulgated by the Council itself, but by those who later took it
upon their own initiative to turn their faces away from God. They took the
focus off of Christ and His sacrifice to God the Father and turned it upon the
community itself.
U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (2) rightfully says, “There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions.” One of the pioneers of the 'Nouvelle théologie' Joseph Ratzinger seems to have later changed his position on liturgy which he held during the Council. Pope Benedict XVI's view on the orientation of the priest has nothing to do with facing toward or away from the people but says the priest must be oriented with the people towards God, facing east if possible. This has been the standard practice of every documented liturgical rite since Christianity left the catacombs and the house churches up until the time period extending beyond the Second Vatican Council. It must be noted that there was no functioning liturgy in any of the 27 Rites of the Church, East, or the West that celebrated the liturgy “facing the people,” before the introduction of Pope Paul Vi's new Mass. To my knowledge, only the Novus Ordo and the restructured Maronite Rite follow such irregular “norms.”
U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (2) rightfully says, “There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions.” One of the pioneers of the 'Nouvelle théologie' Joseph Ratzinger seems to have later changed his position on liturgy which he held during the Council. Pope Benedict XVI's view on the orientation of the priest has nothing to do with facing toward or away from the people but says the priest must be oriented with the people towards God, facing east if possible. This has been the standard practice of every documented liturgical rite since Christianity left the catacombs and the house churches up until the time period extending beyond the Second Vatican Council. It must be noted that there was no functioning liturgy in any of the 27 Rites of the Church, East, or the West that celebrated the liturgy “facing the people,” before the introduction of Pope Paul Vi's new Mass. To my knowledge, only the Novus Ordo and the restructured Maronite Rite follow such irregular “norms.”
Pope Benedict XVI says that the liturgical orientation of the priest
together with the people facing God has existed from the beginning, and that
liturgical orientation is not really an option. “Despite all the variations in
practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has
remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the East is a
tradition that goes back to the beginning... a common turning to the East
during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of
something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no
importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a
question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who
is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the
closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction
for prayer.” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger) (3) It is my
position then that the Pope has understood this movement from priest to
presider, priest to social worker, priest to community leader as being developed under a
crippled theological system that has been introduced into the Church over recent years. This theological system was driven largely by erroneous historians.
Historians thought they could reinvent the Church by
going back to the “pure” state of the early Church, which we must admit, only
existed in the fantastical figments of their crippled imaginations. Suddenly
everything before Vatican II became viewed as being the rigid, stagnant Church
of Trent, which was to be rejected altogether in favor of the “new theology.”
We can see this attitude displayed in Ray R, Noll's book, Sacraments a New
Understanding for a New Generation. (4) Unfortunately, I had to study this book in one of the diocesan theology classes I once took many years ago. In his chapter on the Eucharist, he
openly downgrades the sacrificial aspect of the Mass by saying that it was a
one-sided approach. He paints a gradual development of the sacrificial aspect
of the Mass, claiming that it went off the rails in the middle ages and was
only brought back into proper perspective in light of Vatican II. Yet Noll
never proves this premise.
Noll uses one quote by St. Justin Martyr, who lived in the middle of the second century, as being a supposed first step to this wrongfully assumed long developing theology of sacrifice. He quotes noted liberal scholar William Bausch who states that when this sacrificial aspect took hold, it was only then that there became a “priesthood” instead of a leader who presided over a “meal.” (page 52) I must point out that Bausch is a well-known dissenter from Catholic teaching. We have only to look at his book titled, 'A New Look at the Sacraments' (5) to find his heretical attitude towards the priesthood, “In the early church, "significantly, there is no mention of anyone having the power 'to offer sacrifice', which would have been a foreign concept at this point," and “The crucifixion and death of Jesus replaced forever the need for any sacrifice or priesthood so "there was no reason for early Christianity to think in terms of priests.” (pages 246 and 249) It is precisely this movement from sacrifice to meal, priest to presider that we begin to remove the crown from Our Beloved Savior.
A Refutation
Noll uses one quote by St. Justin Martyr, who lived in the middle of the second century, as being a supposed first step to this wrongfully assumed long developing theology of sacrifice. He quotes noted liberal scholar William Bausch who states that when this sacrificial aspect took hold, it was only then that there became a “priesthood” instead of a leader who presided over a “meal.” (page 52) I must point out that Bausch is a well-known dissenter from Catholic teaching. We have only to look at his book titled, 'A New Look at the Sacraments' (5) to find his heretical attitude towards the priesthood, “In the early church, "significantly, there is no mention of anyone having the power 'to offer sacrifice', which would have been a foreign concept at this point," and “The crucifixion and death of Jesus replaced forever the need for any sacrifice or priesthood so "there was no reason for early Christianity to think in terms of priests.” (pages 246 and 249) It is precisely this movement from sacrifice to meal, priest to presider that we begin to remove the crown from Our Beloved Savior.
A Refutation
We can refute this line of thinking from Sacred Scripture which dates
from the first century. If we look to Saint Paul in the book of Hebrews 10: 10-12 we read, “We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat
who serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is
brought into the holies by the high priest for sin, are burned without the
camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood,
suffered without the gate.” There is no denying the sacrificial nature of St.
Paul's words in reference to Christ in the Eucharist. We can also see St. Paul
draw a similar comparison in 1 Corinthians, 10:14-21 when he draws comparisons
to Christ's sacrifice to the sacrifice, the pagans were offering in his time.
We can also put forth historical evidence to prove that not only was the
sacrificial aspect of the Mass not slow in developing, it was an integral part
of the early Eucharistic theology. Pope Clement I wrote around 80AD, "Our
sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and
holily have offered its sacrifices.” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 ).
Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110AD, "Make certain, therefore, that you all
observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of
sacrifice" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4) Saint Irenaeus wrote in 189AD,
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying,
‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which
we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new
covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified
beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not
accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting
my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered
to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says
the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the
former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place
sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is
glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
Although I could go on ad nauseam with quotes to prove my point, I will
conclude with St. Cyprian of Carthage writing around 253 AD, "If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is
himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a
sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration
of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did,
truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).
I firmly state that it is, therefore, an act of intellectual dishonesty to
lobby for a gradual development of the Catholic priesthood, and the gradual
development of the Eucharistic Liturgy as being sacrificial in nature. It is
firmly rooted in Biblical and Patristic Tradition from the earliest days of the
Church. We must also realize that we do not depend upon historical sources
alone for the truths of our faith, lest we fall into the same errors of the
“new theologians”. No, we listen to the Church herself through which Christ
speaks. Despite their lack of specificity in many respects, the Vatican II documents hold the same sacrificial aspect to the
liturgical celebration in very explicit wording. Chapter Two of Lumen Gentium
(6) states, “Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the source and summit of
the Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God and themselves along
with it.” Pope Paul VI also wrote in his declaration Presbyterorum Ordinis (7) the
following, “In the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice, in which priests
fulfill their principal function, our redemption is continually carried out.”
The Communal Aspect of Liturgy, Or Self Worship?
It has been commonplace for those who have been trying to change
Catholic liturgical theology to take the documents of the Church out of context, making great use of their ambiguous language to their advantage.
There are a few reasons for this tactic. One reason is that it makes it appear
as if the Church Council documents endorse their “new theology.” Again, this is made
possible in my opinion by the ambiguous language used in composing today's
Church documents. Since the Second Vatican Council, Church documents are not
written in the same style or format they were written in before the Council. Instead of laying
out canons, decrees or doctrinal statements in a clear format, Vatican II opted for a more “pastoral”
format, written in a loose essay form. Therefore it is important that one has a strong
foundation in the Sacramental theology that existed before the Council, in
order to understand the theology of the newer documents. Simply put, the Vatican Ii documents do not and were not created to stand on their own. Pope Benedict XVI has
called this applying of the traditional teaching of the Church to the ambiguous
Vatican II documents the ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’
Benedict XVI argues that we must interpret the Vatican II documents in
light of the declarations by the Church which came before them. This would not ordinarily have to be stressed so much but due to the consistent workings of modern theologians taking advantage of the loosely worded documents, it seems now to have be pointed out repeatedly. It is important
to quote the Holy Father at length regarding this proper hermeneutic principle,
which is still hotly debated in Catholic theological circles. “Well, it all
depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today
- on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and
application...On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call
"a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently
availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of
modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform",
of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given
to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always
remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God...The
nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way,
it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution
and creates a new one.” (Address to the Roman Curia, Dec 22nd, 2005) (8)
It is here with the interpretation of the documents that we have many of
our problems today. We have a rupture of theological continuity by today's “new
theologians.” This has carried over into the attitude in which we celebrate the
Mass and every other sacrament. We have now turned our attention away from the
Lord and instead, have turned it upon ourselves. We no longer kneel to receive
the King of Kings on our tongues in a sign of reverence. Instead, we take Him on our
hands as if we were eating a mere piece of bread, rather than receiving the
actual Body and Blood of Our Lord. What a travesty that pieces of the host are falling the ground only to be walked upon as a result of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. I highly recommend reading Bishop Athanasius Schneider's book 'Dominus Est' for a concrete treatment of this topic.
The Catholic community is now turned in upon itself, rather than turned towards the
Lord. Liturgical abuse after liturgical abuse is the result of, not only the
loss of the sacrificial theology of the Mass but the lack of belief that
Christ is truly present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation. We see terms
used by these “new theologians” which arouse suspicion as to their adherence to
the dogma of Transubstantiation, like Transfinalization, and Transignification,
which Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx invented. They often refer to the
Body of Christ as mere “bread and wine” or as Fr. Gregory Klien writes in his
book, referring to the Eucharist after the epiclesis and institution narrative
has taken place as, “Christ is sacramentally present in the bread and wine.”
(Pastoral Foundations of the Sacraments, page 89) (9) Yet, we know by divine
faith that after the consecration there is no longer bread and wine present, but
only Our Lord. “If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the
Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole
substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine
remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls
Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Canon II on the Eucharist, Council
of Trent) (10) Could we really act with these irreverent attitudes if we really
believed that Christ was actually present on the altar? If we were standing at
the foot of the cross as Our Lord was being crucified, would we be so casual in
our actions? Would we act as if we were only at a community meal with a group
of friends? I think not.
Fr. Gregory Klein a priest who lauds many of the these "new theologians" writes in his book, Pastoral Foundations of the
Sacraments on page 86, the following, “Eucharist begins with the assembly, the
people gather in the name of Jesus Christ. While the details of the environment
in which the people gather, the occasion on which people gather, and the manner
in which people gather are not unimportant, eucharist is about people.” This is
the prevailing mentality that modern theologians have today. Pope Benedict XVI, however, sees this theological position as being in complete contradiction to
the true meaning of the liturgy and the Eucharist. “For the Liturgy is not
about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of
our age. As against this, the Liturgy should be setting up a sign of God's
presence.” (The Organic Development of Liturgy, page 13) (11) Without first
starting with the vertical ascent to God, we have no true community. The
efforts of these “new theologians” are clear; take the focus off of Jesus and
move it to the people. This in effect takes the focus off of the supernatural and moves it to the natural.
To drive our point home we now return to Fr. Klein's book once more. Here we see
the subtle, yet clear effort to change the focus of the Mass. On page 83 he
quotes the popular dissenter Fr. Richard P. McBrien, “The ancient custom of
reserving the eucharist for the sick and dying gradually led to the practice of
placing tabernacles in churches, often on the altar, and the custom of
eucharistic devotion tended to overshadow the actual celebration of the
eucharist.” It is clear that these “new theologians” view devotion to God in
the Blessed Sacrament as being an obstruction to true “Eucharistic”
celebration! We have only to look yet again to Pope Benedict XVI to learn the
proper response to this false accusation of this supposed “overshadowing” of
Eucharistic devotion. “Thus adoration is not opposed to Communion, nor is it
merely added to it. No, communion only reaches its true depths when it is
supported and surrounded by adoration. The Eucharistic Presence in the
tabernacle does not set another view of Eucharist alongside or against the
Eucharist celebration, but simply signifies its complete fulfillment. For this
Presence has the effect, of course, of keeping the Eucharist forever in the
Church... A church without the Eucharistic Presence is somehow dead, even when
it invites people to pray.” (Spirit of the Liturgy, page 90) Here we see the
stark contrast of Eucharistic theologies. They both cannot stand! The “new
theologian” sees Eucharistic devotion as being a burden that overshadows the
celebration of the liturgy, and the authentic theologian views it as being
essential to its celebration and to its completion.
It is clear that we see that Christ Himself is the target here. This “new theology” has infiltrated many
Catholic parishes in our age. Personal emotional preferences have become the
standard in which we celebrate the liturgy. Hence we reflect back on the bad
philosophy that is holding up this “new theology” that I presented at the
beginning of this essay. How else can we explain the tolerance of such
shenanigans as liturgical dance? We do not have to look hard to find horrible inappropriate music used in today's liturgy, which is not fitting to what is actually
happening in the Mass. These sacrilegious acts are numerous, even spilling over
into the sacrament of Holy Orders. “New theologians” such as Ray R. Noll are
still heretically calling for women to the priesthood. (Sacraments a New
Understanding for a New Generation, page 168) The ordination of women deacons is a constant point of conversation in the Vatican despite its impossibility.
Renewal and Pastoral Considerations
After reading my assessment concerning this desacralization of the
Eucharist in the modern Church, it is no wonder that Mass attendance has
declined by almost 50% since Vatican II. Before Vatican II there was 65 to 75%
Mass attendance. It has now dwindled to about 25 to 30%. (Index of Leading
Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II) (12) It will be a challenge
to restore Christ back to His rightful place in our liturgies. When this
happens, the faithful will come back to Mass. It is important now to
acknowledge changes that have taken place and we should strive to return Our
Savior to His rightful place in the Church and in the Mass. I believe that the consequences of this corona-virus "pandemic" are a result of our neglect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is it a coincidence that we had the Sacraments taken away from us over the entire period of Easter? I think not.
Summorum Pontificum and the Beginning of Restoration
Summorum Pontificum and the Beginning of Restoration
In July of 2007, Pope Benedict released his Apostolic Letter
"Summorum Pontificum" which effectively reinstated the practice of
Classical Roman Rite Mass now called the ‘Extraordinary Form of the Roman
Rite’ or what many simply call 'the Latin Mass.' Many bishops have followed the Pope's wishes by inviting groups like the
ICK and the FSSP into their diocese to accommodate the ever-growing demand for
the Extraordinary Form. In Jan of 2008, Pope Benedict XVI removed the
freestanding altar in the Sistine Chapel and celebrated the Novus Ordo liturgy
ad-orientem on the original altar. Likewise, a few Bishops are starting to follow
suit as Bishop Slattery in Tulsa has, following the Pope's example, returned to the proper orientation of the liturgy. The bishop stated in Sept 2009 (13), “Even
before his election as the successor to St. Peter, Pope Benedict has been
urging us to draw upon the ancient liturgical practice of the Church to recover
a more authentic Catholic worship. For that reason, I have restored the
venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral. This
change ought not to be misconstrued as the Bishop “turning his back on the
faithful,” as if I am being inconsiderate or hostile. Such an interpretation
misses the point that, by facing in the same direction, the posture of the
celebrant and the congregation make explicit the fact that we journey together
to God. Priest and people are on this pilgrimage together.”
It will take great effort and courage to return Our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ to his rightful place in the Mass. In my opinion, there should be
an outright abolishment of this “new theology”, in light of the continuity that
we must assent to regarding Vatican II. Vatican II cannot stand on its own and it must be viewed in light of the Church that lived and
breathed this Sacred Mystery before the Council ever came to be. The Church
cannot be a Church that begins and ends with Vatican II. This is a gross theological error that must be confronted boldly. These theological changes must come as a result of sound catechesis first in the home, then at the diocesan parish level. Sound catechesis, must be
followed by the implementation of liturgical changes made by bishops who are
willing to take a stand for Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The ancient Latin Mass is not a liturgical option among others, it embraces and is built upon the rock-solid theology of the Church over the past 2000 years!
In realizing this fact, we must also return without pause to sound philosophy in the Church,
that of traditional Thomism. Pope Pius IX wrote about St. Thomas Aquinas
extensively in Studiorum Ducem, "In a recent apostolic letter confirming
the statutes of Canon Law, We declared that the guide to be followed in the
higher studies by young men training for the priesthood was Thomas Aquinas...
He alone enlightened the Church more than all other doctors; a man can derive
more profit in a year from his books than from pondering all his life the
teaching of others." In my opinion, nothing less than this return will regain stability
to sacramental theology in the Latin Church. The acceptance of modern
philosophy has been disastrous for the Church and its Sacraments, and it must
be rejected at all cost for the salvation of souls!
The "modern theologian" is hopelessly lost in a state of subjective “reality” which can never be reconciled with the objective reality that Christ has given us in His Divine Revelation. This mentality is ultimately at odds with the Church, and should be viewed as her sworn enemy. As many have stated before, “the modern experiment has failed.” Pope Gregory IX, addressed the following to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid." (Gregory IX Epist. ad Magistros theol. paris. July 7, 1223)
The "modern theologian" is hopelessly lost in a state of subjective “reality” which can never be reconciled with the objective reality that Christ has given us in His Divine Revelation. This mentality is ultimately at odds with the Church, and should be viewed as her sworn enemy. As many have stated before, “the modern experiment has failed.” Pope Gregory IX, addressed the following to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid." (Gregory IX Epist. ad Magistros theol. paris. July 7, 1223)
It is now fitting to close with the words of the great theologian,
Archbishop Fulton Sheen. “...the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian
worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us
to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His
Cross than to His garments. A temple without an altar of sacrifice is
non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians. And
so in the Catholic Church the altar, and not the pulpit or the choir or the
organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His
Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it;
it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our
Lord.” (Calvary and the Mass) (14)
Bibliographical Notes
1. Thomas. Summa Theologica.
Franklin Center, Pa.: Franklin Library, 1985. Print
2. Lang, Uwe Michael. Turning
towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer. San Francisco: Ignatius,
2004. Print.
3. Benedict. The Spirit of the
Liturgy. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2000. Print.
4. Noll, Ray Robert. Sacraments: a
New Understanding for a New Generation. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications,
1999. Print.
5. Bausch, William J. A New Look at
the Sacraments. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1983. Print.
6. Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium,
1964
7. Pope Paul VI, Presbyterorum
Ordinis, 1965
8. Pope Benedict XVI, Address to
the Roman Curia, Dec 22nd, 2005,
9. Klein, Gregory L., and Robert A.
Wolfe. Pastoral Foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic Perspective. New
York: Paulist, 1998. Print.
10. Canon II on the Eucharist, XIII
Session Council of Trent1,1551
11. Reid, Alcuin. The Organic
Development of the Liturgy: the Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their
Relation to the Twentieth-century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second
Vatican Council. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2005. Print.
12. Jones, Kenneth C. Index of
Leading Catholic Indicators: the Church since Vatican II. Fort Collins, CO:
Roman Catholic, 2003. Print.
13. Bishop Edward Slattery, Eastern
Oklahoma Catholic, 2009
14. Sheen, Fulton J. Calvary and
the Mass. New York: IVE, 2008. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment