Letter from a confused Catholic: Could the liturgical crisis stem from the Council itself?
By Moyra Doorly

3 July 2009

Dear Fr Aidan,

The current orthodoxy is that the liturgical crisis in the Church is the result, not of the Second Vatican Council itself, but of the manner in which it has been implemented. Unfortunately, this reminds me of how western Communists reacted when the reality of life in the Soviet Union became apparent. Karl Marx's ideas were not at fault, they insisted. The problem, instead, was how they had been put into practice.

This may be an analogy too far. But when the modernist architects sold their vision of cities fit for a brave new machine age, and the vision turned out to look like the Peckham Estate, now demolished, their response was to blame, not their own ideas, but the governments and local authorities who had cut corners and skimped on the details. And so too the undoubting feminists, who wanted to liberate women from the shackles of patriarchal marriage and establish a nurturing, sharing matriarchy - which in the real world meant children without fathers - and who now accuse the state of failing to provide adequate support.

Given that the 20th century produced so many silver-tongued visionaries determined to sweep away the past and remake the world, could the liturgical renewal simply be another example of a big idea gone wrong? And could the current liturgical crisis actually stem from the Council itself which articulated the vision? One clue is to be found in paragraph two of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM), which asserts that Vatican II reaffirmed the sacrificial nature of the Mass as affirmed by the Council of Trent in accordance with the Church's universal tradition. The GIRM then refers to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (CSL) which states: "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (paragraph 47).

But compare this with an apparently similar, but significantly different, definition of the Mass in Pope Pius XII's 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei: "Christ the Lord, Eternal Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, loving His own who were of the world, at the last supper, on the night He was betrayed, wishing to leave His beloved Spouse, the Church, a visible sacrifice such as the nature of men requires, that would re-present the bloody sacrifice offered once on the cross, and perpetuate its memory to the end of time, and whose salutary virtue might be applied in remitting those sins which we daily commit ... offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the same species allowed the apostles, whom He at that time constituted the priests of the New Testament, to partake thereof; commanding them and their successors in the priesthood to make the same offering" (paragraph 67, my emphasis).

Somehow the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of the Mass has been dropped from the CSL version, with the emphasis placed on a "bond of charity, a paschal banquet" etc, and the Mass is described as a memorial of Christ's "death and resurrection".

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the various terms used to "convey the dignity and excellence of this admirable sacrament" are explained, eg the Eucharist, the Sacrifice, Communion, the sacrament of peace and charity, the supper. Also explained are the three things indicated by this sacrament: "The first is the Passion of Christ the Lord, a thing past ... Another is divine and heavenly grace, which, being present, is imparted by this sacrament, to nurture and preserve the soul ... The third thing, which it foreshows as future, is the fruit of eternal joy and glory, which, according to God's promise, we shall receive in our heavenly country."

But no room is left to doubt that "the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes, one, that it might be the celestial food of our soul, by which we may be able to support and preserve life; the other, that the Church might have a perpetual sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated".

And also that, "it must be unhesitatingly taught that ... the holy sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but also a truly propitiatory sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us."

As far as I can make out, this is because "Christ, after redeeming the world at the lavish cost of His own blood, still must come into complete possession of the souls of men." So states Mediator Dei 77, which continues: "In a certain sense it can be said that on Calvary Christ built a font of purification and salvation which He filled with the blood He shed; but if men do not bathe in it and there wash away the sins of their iniquities, they can never be purified or saved.'

To be fair, the GIRM paragraph two, does include the following: "The Mass is a sacrifice of praise, of thanksgiving, of propitiation and of satisfaction." But then it goes on to practically ignore this, as do the rest of the Council documents. Everywhere the emphasis is on the Mass as a memorial of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Ascension - the Paschal Mystery - which the people gather to celebrate as if salvation is guaranteed because God's love is unconditional and His justice makes no demands.

For example, the CSL points out that "the wonderful works of God among the people of the Old Testament were but a prelude to the work of Christ Our Lord in redeeming mankind and giving perfect glory to God. He achieved his task principally by the paschal mystery of his blessed passion, resurrection from the dead, and glorious ascension ..." (paragraph five).

And continues: "The Church has never failed to come together to celebrate the paschal mystery, reading those things 'which were in all the scriptures concerning him, celebrating the Eucharist'..." (paragraph six).

It concludes: "The Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's Day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the passion, resurrection and glory of the Lord Jesus" (paragraph 106).

Which is all very puzzling. What's more, something seems to have happened to the teaching on the priesthood. According to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

"Though they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are none the less ordered to one another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ ... The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist" (paragraph 10).

And the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests has this to say: "The purpose then for which priests are consecrated to God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood ... the eucharistic celebration is the centre of the assembly of the faithful over which the priest presides. Hence priests teach the faithful to offer the divine victim to God the Father in the sacrifice of the Mass and with the victim to make an offering of their whole life" (paragraph five).

But how can priests be "sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood"? Does this mean that the laity and the ordained priesthood share in the one priesthood of Christ, albeit "each in its own proper way"? As Mediator Dei points out, the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper. Am I right in thinking that this was achieved without the presence of the lay faithful?

On this subject, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent's definition, "the priests of the new testament far excel all others in honour; for the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of our Lord, and of remitting sins, which has been conferred on them, transcends human reason and intelligence, still less can there be found on earth anything equal and like to it."

And yet somehow, the priest has now become the "president of the assembly".

It is hardly worth quoting the Council documents on their by now familiar proposals for reforming the appearance of the liturgy. But since the reforms were intended to encourage the people to participate actively and as a unity in the Mass, and to this end the rites were simplified and the non-authentic and therefore disposable accumulations of the centuries stripped away to reveal an underlying purity and simplicity, the question is whether or not these proposals could ever have been suggested, far less put into practice, had there not been a shift in thinking on the nature of the Mass and the Priesthood.

If "form follows function", as the architect Mies van der Rohe claimed, then the appearance and structure of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite will resemble a community gathering and a fraternal meal, because its function is considered to be just that. Similarly, the Extraordinary Form will appear as a sacrificial rite because sacrifice is considered its primary aim.

Therefore the current attempts to "reform the reform" by adding more Latin and Gregorian chant, or discouraging Communion in the hand and replacing the sanctuary rails, will not be able to overcome the fundamental opposition that the Ordinary Form has to these additions, since they are, essentially, superfluous to its requirements. After all, if the people are almost priests, why shouldn't they receive Communion in the hand?

Since a rationalised, stripped-down, community-orientated liturgy is bound to become desacralised, rather than tinker with the appearances, surely the question has to be addressed - what was the mindset that allowed this vision of liturgical renewal to take hold in the first place?

Kindest regards,
Moyra Doorly