Redemptionis sacramentum - a turn around

[Question]{.underline}: Is Rome’s 2004 instruction on the Liturgy a sign of a turn around?

[Answer:]{.underline} Rome’s document, Redemptionis sacramentum, an Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published on April 23, 2004, is a follow up to Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical of April 17, 2003, on the Holy Eucharist. It gives an initial impression of being a positive step in the right direction, for it is explicitly written to counter the innumerable abuses that are legion in the post-conciliar church: “It is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another” (§4).

Alas, however, it suffers from the same defect as the previous year’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia, quoting §10 of that document from its very outset: “Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active, and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.” How unreal, as demonstrated by the closing of innumerable churches, and the drop in Sunday Mass attendance to a fraction of what it was 40 years ago. However, more serious is the reason for this blindness: the rethinking of the mystery of the Redemption as a Paschal Mystery, that is, as a pure manifestation of love rather than as a propitiatory sacrifice. This leads to a rethinking of the Eucharist, now only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, with the innumerable consequences that this means for the Liturgy, namely that it is now a celebration of the community, a meal, a memorial, a presentation of God’s love, rather than a true sacrifice for sin, offered in an unbloody way.

CONNECTION WITH VATICAN II

In fact, this document suffers from exactly the same defects as the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, of which it rightly claims to be the continuation. Indeed, the Vatican II document pretended to preserve rites while revising them (§4), for the liturgy needs to be adapted to the needs of modern man (§1 & 4). It likewise accepted:

• the principle of change (§21 & 50)

• adopted the Paschal Mystery theology (§5,6,106)

• confused the Real Presence with Christ’s spiritual presence amongst the faithful (§7)

• made external participation an absolute and gave primacy to the community of the faithful over the sacramental priesthood (§14, 51)

• gave predominance to the Liturgy of the Word over the Eucharistic Sacrifice itself (§7, 33)

• authorized the principles of liturgical innovation (§22 & 40), including inculturation & experimentation (§37 — 40) and ecumenism (§1).

Each and every one of these false modernist principles can be found in this most recent instruction, since not one of them has been rejected. It simply condemns the worst abuses that come from these false principles. Take for example the question of ecumenism. It does not order, for example, that priests desist from administering Holy Communion to non-Catholics as permitted by Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, but in fact reiterates this permission (§85) nor does it condemn the Ecumenism that is destroying the Faith. It simply has this to say: “It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her Faith” (§8), and insists that “care should be taken lest [out of ignorance]{.underline} non-Catholics or even non-Christians come forward for Holy Communion” (§84).

Another example is the acceptation of the principle of local innovation in the liturgy, which makes it nothing less than an ongoing revolution. It has this to say: “Ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing [each celebration]{.underline} to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation, and their gifts…There is ample possibility for introducing into [each celebration]{.underline} a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident…” (§39). It is indeed a not so subtle contradiction to say that tradition is handed down by a variety of practices, since ecclesiastical tradition is precisely the handing down of the one, sacred, immemorial rite that perfectly expresses Catholic Faith and devotion to Our Lord Jesus Christ. This principle of creativity and variety is a catch-all for all kinds of abuses.

It is no wonder, then, that this instruction does absolutely nothing to stop, but in fact approves, the principal abuses of the Novus Ordo Missae, namely Mass facing the people, destruction of the Offertory, changing the words of consecration, abolition of the Canon and replacing it by alternative empty Eucharistic prayers, Communion in the Hand (§92) and under both kinds (§103) and by extraordinary ministers (§133), abolition of Latin, formal admission of girls and women to serve on the altar (§47), modern music and dancing, and so on and so on. How could such an Instruction really claim to put an end to abuses, since the very principle of these abuses is that of liturgical innovation, which it strongly defends?

If there were any doubt as to this, it is confirmed by the absence of any firm measures in the section on remedies (chapter VIII). There are no consequences for liturgical abuses, except that the worst crimes must be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This includes such crimes as … — no, not concelebration, as one would hope, nor concelebration with non-Catholics either, for that matter - but concelebration “with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination” (§172). This is the only kind of crime that merits an investigation — namely a sacrilegious denial, not just of the Church and of the value of the sacraments, but of the sacramental priesthood and transubstantiation itself. Otherwise, the only remedy to be applied to abuses is this ineffectual statement: “There is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful, so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood” (§170).

Truly this document is a pussy cat, and will be received with the same indifference as other post-conciliar disciplinary documents — that is, except by those who actively oppose it as being too conservative, such as Cardinal Kasper, or those who interpret it on the basis of its own ambiguity, such as Bishop Le Gall, President of the Liturgical Commission of the French Episcopal Conference, who emphasized the statement that “the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner…” (§21). With this, anything goes.

However, what is most remarkable about this document is the gravity of many of the crimes that are condemned as abuses. If they have to be condemned in such a solemn manner, it is that they are a frequent occurrence, and nothing is being done to halt them. While some of the abuses with which this document is filled simply concern liturgical rules, an astonishing number are truly horrific offenses and a radical denial of the Catholic Faith, invalidating the Mass and the sacraments themselves. The following are but examples:

• the use of invalid matter, that is, other substances than pure wheaten bread (§48) and natural wine (§50)

• the composition of new Eucharistic prayers (§51)

• the celebration of Mass at a banquet, common meal, or dining room table (§77)

• the administration of the sacrament of Penance by the priest as he celebrates Mass (!) (§76)

• the distribution of unconsecrated hosts or edible things during Mass (§96)

• the non-consumption of left over Precious Blood (§107)

• taking the Blessed Eucharist home (§132)

• leaving the exposed Blessed Sacrament unattended (§138)

• refusing the faithful the right to make visits to adore the Blessed Sacrament (§139)

• the celebration of Mass in non-Christian temples (§109)

• the use of common vessels for the sacred species (§117) or the celebration of Mass without vestments (§126).

These are just a few examples of the frightening list of abuses which goes so far as to even list three times the throwing away of the consecrated species or retaining them for sacrilegious ends (§ 107, 132, &171). Why do such things happen? According to the document, it is “human weakness” (§185). A much more insightful response would be to ascribe it to a liturgy and hierarchy penetrated by the indifferentist errors of modernism that have undermined the Faith and led to a complete loss of the supernatural spirit. They are the ineluctable consequence of 35 years of the New Mass.

MEDIATOR DEI — PIUS XII

It is not without interest to compare this document with another document written well before Vatican II to condemn the abuses of the liturgical movement. For it gives us the perspective of the radical change of orientation over the past 60 years. Pope Pius XII’s magistral encyclical of 1947 is incredibly tame by comparison. The abuses that he had to condemn were limited to relatively minor questions in themselves. Nevertheless, they did contain in germ all the abuses that have grown frequent since the advent of the New Mass. They include:

• overemphasis on active exterior participation (§107), or

  anthropocentrism, the liturgy losing its necessary link with interior worship (§25)

• undermining of the efficacy of the sacraments and also of the

  Church’s ceremonies, rites, and prayers (§27)

• the belittling of personal piety and of the necessity of personal

  devotion as a preparation (§28-37) — already a beginning of Paschal Mystery theology, denying the necessity of personal cooperation

• the questioning of the dependence of the liturgy on ecclesiastical

  authority (§44-48)

• the abuse of legitimate development by the introduction of the

  vernacular (§59 & 60) and archeologism, or the opinion that the best is always to return to the most ancient forms of the liturgy (§61-64)

• the undermining of the distinction between the ordained priesthood

  and the priesthood of the faithful (§94-97) with the subsequent disapproval of “private” Masses, that is, individual Masses celebrated each day by every priest

• the overemphasizing of Holy Communion at the expense of sacrifice,

  so that the Mass is to be considered null and avoid if the faithful do not communicate (§ 114,115)

• the abolition of private, personal Thanksgiving after Mass (§125)

• the abolition of devotion to the historical Christ, and His Passion,

  no longer considered important in the Redemption, in virtue of a more elevated spiritual Christ, i.e. his “dethroning” by the removal of crucifixes from churches (§162)

• the demeaning of non-liturgical devotions, and in particular

  adoration of the
  Blessed Sacrament, frequent Confession, and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (§176).

If these condemned errors are in themselves of lesser importance, not directly calling into question the Catholic Faith or the validity of the sacraments, they nevertheless are the root of the sacrilegious abuses that have now become so frequent as to require a special Instruction. If only Pope Pius XII’s profoundly Catholic analysis of liturgical deviations had been listened to, then there would never have been a New Mass, and the present Instruction’s horrible list of denials of the Faith would never have been necessary. For Pope Pius XII strove to instill the Liturgy’s supernatural spirit (§206), with such admonitions as the following: “Do not let your flocks be deceived by the subtle and dangerous errors of false mysticism (= no need for devotion to the Passion of Our Lord, nor to make reparation for sins) or quietism (= no need for personal cooperation and devotion to unite ourselves with Our Lord’s sacrifice) — as you know We have already condemned these errors — also do not let a certain dangerous ‘humanism’ (man as the center of the Liturgy, and not God, as in Mass facing the people) lead them astray, nor let there be introduced a false doctrine destroying the notion of Catholic Faith, nor finally an exaggerated zeal for antiquity in matters liturgical” (§203).

Let us consequently not be fooled by the conservative appearances of this most recent Instruction. It is a response, but not the answer. It is an inadequate response, and one consequently doomed to failure. The only answer is the abolition of the Novus Ordo Missae altogether and the return to Catholic liturgy, the Mass of all time. May we continue to pray for this intention and contribute to the best of our ability by refusing to attend any New Mass, no matter how conservative the appearance that disguises the truly revolutionary nature of this liturgy. May Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament obtain for us an ever greater devotion to her Divine Son in the sacrifice and sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.