A Reading of Pope John Paul II’s New
Encyclical Letter,
Ecclesia
de Eucharistia, on the Holy Eucharist
This Encyclical Letter is interesting, even
very interesting. It may even be a
historical act. It goes, if it is not
too presumptuous from me to say so, in the right direction. And so does go in the right direction the
celebration -- and its announcement urbi et orbi -- of Saint Pius V’s mass, at
Saint Mary’s Basilica, by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, on this May 24th, in a
Roman basilica and on a papal altar. And in the right direction equally goes
the last document of the Congregation of the clergy about the priest and the
parish, which was signed by this cardinal and published on the 4th of August
2002.
Would there not be today a desire for restoration
within the Holy Church? We believe so.
This Encyclical Letter is right, even though
we may regret certain points, such as a conspicuous difference of tone and
style which impinges on the unity of the text.
Yet, let us leave criticism aside, which is
always possible on a text, and focus on the essential part of the document.
A
Doctrinal Reminder
The Encyclical Letter is a doctrinal reminder
on the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.
Yet there is nothing so extraordinary in this!
Indeed! But it strikes me that this document
seems to be a doctrinal reminder aimed at correcting the notorious
insufficiencies of the liturgical reform issued from Council Vatican II, and at
rectifying the ambiguities of the text “Institutio Generalis” published by the
Commission “Missale Romanum” signed by Pope Paul VI on April 3th 1969.
These ambiguities boils down to the number of
three, which are parallel to the three truths of the Catholic doctrine on the
holy Eucharist:
1) A sacrifice
2) A victim (the real presence)
3) A priest
THE
POST-CONCILIAR LITURGICAL REFORM
A) The sacrifice
The liturgical reform -- I include under this
term both the doctrinal text “Institutio Generalis” which governed this reform
and the so-called rite of the new “Ordo Missae” -- does not express in a clear
way the sacrificial mystery of the Holy Eucharist. In fact, it does not even
refer once to the propitiatory character of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet we
know that the Eucharist is a “veritable and authentic” sacrifice and not only a
“food” (cf. Can. I of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent).
We equally know that the Eucharistic
sacrifice, namely the mass, neither simply consists of a sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving nor a simple commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on
the cross, but rather of a true “propitiatory” sacrifice (cf. Can 3 of the 22nd
session of the Council of Trent).
B) The real presence
The liturgical reform neither expresses in a
satisfactory fashion the doctrine of the “real and substantial” presence of Our
Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
The substantial presence of Our Lord in the
Eucharist is in fact assimilated -- in
the “Institutio Generalis” -- to the presence of Our Lord in the Holy
Scripture. This implies that the spiritual presence of Our Lord in the Holy
Scripture is qualitatively homogeneous to His presence in the Holy Eucharist.
This is a grave Protestant error.
We know as well that the term
“transubstantiation” appears nowhere in “Instititio Generalis.” This is
altogether reprehensible for this word is the only one that can correctly
express the Catholic doctrine of the substantial conversion from bread into the
Christ’s Body and from wine into his Blood (cf. Chapter IV of the 13th session
of the Council of Trent).
From there, it is impossible not to notice the
abolition or the alteration of actions through which our faith in the real
presence spontaneously expresses itself.
The new “Ordo Missae” removes genuflection,
the purification of the priest’s fingers, the gilding of the sacred vases,
thanksgiving on one’s knees which is replaced by the grotesque thanks from both
the priest and the seated faithful as the normal outcome of standing communion.
Would all this not provoke an implicit repudiation of the dogma of the real
presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist?
This is what the pope realizes, and this is
what he wants to correct.
C) The ministerial priesthood
Finally, the liturgical reform does not
express clearly the role of the priest at the altar.
It simply regards him as an assembly president
acting on behalf of the faithful and no longer specifically on behalf of Our
Lord Jesus Christ -- in persona Christi.
It is the definition of famous article 7. It
follows that “the Eucharistic prayer” -- that is the canon of the mass -- is
defined by the “Instutio Generalis” document as a “presidential prayer.” But
this is wrong (n10 n12). At the altar as on the cross, it is the same
sacrifice, it is the same victim, Our Lord, and it is the same priest, always
Our lord and his ministers who offer it -- representing “the great priest” and
only acting on his behalf -- in persona Christi.
We may not harbour any doubt on this point.
THE
ENCYCLICAL LETTER ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
The pope now perceives some “shadows” -- that
is his term -- regarding the Holy Eucharist as conceived by the “post-conciliar
liturgical reform” (n10).
Granted, this reform brought about “some
benefits,” among which he sees “a more conscious, more active, and more
fruitful participation of the faithful in the holy Sacrifice of the Altar.” But
it caused desolation as well. Moreover, what platitude, what boredom! In fact,
the present liturgy is so empty that it is emptying churches. The pope,
besides, admits it: “Unfortunately, he
says, alongside these lights, there are also shadows” (n10). And he goes on to
list them in paragraph 10. They precisely correspond to those we find in
“Institutio Generalis” and to those I just mentioned.
Moreover, we must point out that when the pope
quotes those errors, he draws his references exclusively from Paul VI’s Roman
missal and his “Institutio Generalis.” In other words, those two documents are
both the very documents he criticizes and those he uses to found and expound
his criticism (n11-14-17-18-28). This is very clever and maybe very Roman.
The authority, anyhow, cannot reverse his
judgment. It is still too early.
A) THE SACRIFICIAL MEANING OF THE EUCHARIST
The pope indeed notices that the sacrificial
meaning of the Eucharist has been forgotten, which transforms the Eucharist
into a simple friendly meeting.
“Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, the
Eucharistic mystery is lived as though it did not go beyond the sense and
meaning of a fraternal banquet” (n10).
The pope wishes to correct that, and expressly
says it:
“It is my hope that the present Encyclical
Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine
and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its
radiant mystery.” (n10)
This very first “cloud” will be corrected in a
fine chapter, namely chapter 1, which radiates throughout the whole letter.
Here, the pope reminds us with force of the
sacrificial character of the Eucharist. This can even be found in the first
lines of the chapter.
“The Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed”
(1 Cor 11:23) instituted the
Eucharist Sacrifice of his body and his blood. [...] It is not only a reminder
but the sacramental re-presentation” (n11).
It is clear that this text is a reply to those
who mean to view the Eucharist as a simple commemoration, as opposed to a
sacramental actualization of the redeeming mystery of the Cross.
“It is the sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated
down the ages” in such a way that “the sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharistic
sacrifice are the same and unique sacrifice [...] The same one which makes the
sacrifice of the supper present” (n11), yet without adding to it nor
multiplying it.
The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic
mystery cannot therefore be understood as something which exists by itself independently
from the Cross or as only an indirect reference to the “sacrifice of the
Calvary” (n12).
From there, “by virtue of its close
relationship to the sacrifice of Golgotha, the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the
strict sense.”
The propitiatory sacrifice is also
affirmed, although one could have been
more precise.
For instance, the pope reminds us that,
through the gift of the Eucharist, it is “the work of salvation” that lives on
(11). A little further, the pope refers again to Christ’s “the work of
redemption” which is carried out through the Eucharist (11n).
The pope speaks of the Eucharist as “a mystery
of mercy” offered “for the salvation of all.” He also speaks of the Eucharist
as “a redeeming sacrifice”: “The Church constantly draws her life from the
redeeming sacrifice” (n12). He speaks also of the reconciliation realized by
the Christ’s sacrifice: “The Eucharist thus applies to men and women today the
reconciliation won once for all by Christ for mankind in every age” (n12).
Through his blood, he ratified a “new and eternal alliance” realizing a “work
of sanctification,” the gift of a new and immortal life (n12).
Number 14 of this document will perhaps be the
subject of some criticism from those of our priests who wrote the book
presented to the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger, The Liturgical Reform in Question.
“Christ’s Passover includes not only his
passion and death, but also his resurrection. This is recalled by the
assembly’s acclamation following the consecration: ‘We proclaim your resurrection.’ The Eucharistic Sacrifice makes
present not only the mystery of the Saviour’s passion and death, but also the
mystery of the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice” (n14).
This amounts to saying that the Eucharistic
Sacrifice is “the memorial of the passion and of the resurrection of the Lord,”
which is not accurate. The mass formally refers to the only sacrifice which is
in itself redeeming, while resurrection is only its fruit.
Whatever this criticism, and even though it
would have been very desirable that the expiatory character of the Sacrifice of
the Cross be further clarified through a precise allusion to the original sin
for which Our Lord came to suffer, in our place, the Father’s justice and who
was the only one capable of fulfilling this reparation since he was both God
and man, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is undeniably recalled. It is
moreover recalled not only in this chapter but throughout the Letter.
The reader may indeed notice that the phrase
“Eucharistic Sacrifice” is pervading. It would even be interesting to count how
many times it is used. This insistence is very significant, in fact as
significant as the insistence on the notion of banquet was in “Institutio
Generalis.”
In that text on the institution, the words
“meal,” “Lord’s supper,” “banquet” and “Lord’s table” constantly appear. The
authors of the new “Ordo Missae”
manifestly put a great emphasis on the Last Supper and on its memory, as
opposed to the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross (Brief Critical
Examination).
This is manifestly what the pope
wants to rectify. This does not mean that the Eucharist is not food, but
rather, as the pope points out in number 16, that the Eucharist is a real
banquet in which Christ offers himself as food -- yet however true the aspect
of banquet is, it must be subordinated to that of sacrifice.
This is what the authors of the “Brief
Critical Examination” underlined at the time:
“Christ instituted the sacrament during the
Last Supper and then became a victim so that we could unite with his state of victim; that is why this
immolation precedes manducation and fully encompasses the redeeming meaning that stems from bloody Sacrifice.”
B) THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
The pope takes also notice that we have
forgotten today “the irreplaceable role of the ministerial priesthood ‘acting’
in persona Christi to realize the Holy Eucharist, the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
“The necessity of the ministerial priesthood,
grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured” (n10).
The pope wants to rectify this error. It is
the subject of Chapter III whose title is precisely “The Apostolicity of the
Eucharist and of the Church.”
He reminds us that the Church is “one, holy,
catholic and apostolic.” And so is the Eucharist. It is on the apostolicity
that the pope wishes to draw the reader’s attention.
The Eucharist is apostolic in that it was
imparted, from the start, to the apostles (n27), that it is celebrated in
accordance with the apostles’ faith (n27), and that, in order to be, it still depends on the sacrament of
Holy Orders, and as the Church, on the apostles and their priestly successors.
Once this foundation laid, the pope
distinguishes very well the ministerial priesthood from the “royal” priesthood
of the faithful. He constantly dwells on this difference.
These following quotations will suffice to
prove it.
“The faithful join in the offering of the
Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood. Yet it is the ordained priest
who, acting in the person of Christ, brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice and
offers it to God in the name of all the people” (n28).
It is the priest alone who utters the
Eucharistic prayer while the people joins with him in faith and in silence.
This point of doctrine, as the pope remarks,
is already well established in pontifical teaching and he quotes it in a
footnote (#59). Pope Pius XII asserts it in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, as well as Pius X in his
Letter Haerent Animo (4 August 1908),
and Pius XI in his Letter Ad Catholici
Sacerdotii (20 December 1935).
He personally insists upon it:
“As I have pointed out in other occasions, the
phrase in persona Christi means more
than offering ‘in the name of’ or ‘in the place of’ Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental
identification with the eternal High Priest who is the author and principal
subject of the sacrifice of his, a sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can
take his place” (n29). And the pope concludes solemnly: “The ministry of
priests who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders, in the economy of
salvation chosen by Christ, makes clear that the Eucharist which they celebrate
is a gift which radically transcends the
power of the assembly and is in any event essential for validly linking the
Eucharist consecration to the sacrifice of the Cross and to the Last Supper”
(n29).
As though this was not sufficient, the pope
adds: “The assembly gathered together for the celebration of the Eucharist, if
it is to be a truly Eucharistic assembly, absolutely requires the presence of
an ordained priest as its president [the term of president should be dispensed
with]. On the other hand, the community is by itself incapable of providing an
ordained minister.
This minister is a gift which the assembly receives through episcopal succession going
back to the Apostles. It is the bishop who, through the Sacrament of Holy
Orders, makes a new presbyter by conferring upon him the power to consecrate
the Eucharist. Consequently, the Eucharistic mystery cannot be celebrated in
any community except by an ordained priest, as the Forth Lateran Council
expressly taught” (n29).
And what does this Holy Council say?
“Nobody can carry out the sacrament of the
Eucharist apart from the priest who is ordained in the rules according to the
power of the Church’s keys which Our Lord himself granted to the apostles and
their successors” (F C n31).
Under this light, the articles 10 and 12 of
the “Institutio Generalis” certainly need to be modified. We can no longer say
that the Eucharistic payer -- the canon -- is a “presidential prayer.” The best
would be to suppress or forget them and to modify the rite in that place...
while recalling for instance that the words of Consecration are to be uttered
in “a low voice” as the Council of Trent required in its canon 9 of the 22nd
session.
C) THE REAL PRESENCE
Finally, the pope remarks that we have
forgotten today the sacramental aspect of the Eucharist: “The sacramental
nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of
proclamation” (n10).
The pope’s doctrinal reminder on this point is
the subject of many chapters of the Encyclical Letter: the chapters 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Chapter 1
We have here a fine reminder of the
Eucharistic dogma -- starting from n15.
“The sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s
sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special
presence which (to which “Institutio generalis” refers) is called real not as a
way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were not real, but
because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby
Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present” (n15).
This is indeed a return to the Catholic
doctrine. This is so true that the pope quotes some decisions of the Council of
Trent on the matter. He does this, moreover, not only in footnotes, but also in
the text as though to destroy definitively the error: “And so the still-valid
doctrine of the Council of Trent is once again proposed,” to which he quotes an
extract of chapter 4 of session XI.
“Through the consecration of the bread and of
the wine, the transformation of the substance of all the bread into Christ’s
Body, and the transformation of the substance of all the wine into Christ’s
Blood takes place. The Catholic Church has precisely and rightly called this
transformation transubstantiation.”
This is clear!
The correction is done.
Justice is accomplished. Truth triumphs.
And that is the essential thing. We are
willing to forget all the suffering, sanctions and rejection undergone.
Truth is the only thing we aspire to.
Here she is proclaimed with force.
That is sufficient.
Chapter 2
We also have here a fine reminder of the
Catholic doctrine on “the worship of the Eucharist outside the Mass.” Article
25 is indeed reminiscent of chapter 5 of the 13th session of the Council of
Trent on the worship due to the Holy Eucharist: “The worship of the Eucharist
is of inestimable value for the life of the Church” (n25).
Chapter 4
Entitled “The Eucharist and Ecclesial
Communion,” this chapter reminds us that the Holy Eucharist, whose reception
supposed faith and the state of grace, must be celebrated in communion with the
Supreme Pontiff -- hence the necessity to cite his name in the canon of the
mass -- with the bishop -- same obligation -- and the faithful. Once the idea
is expressed, the pope “castigate” some ecumenical practices.
The fifth chapter
Entitled “The Dignity of the Eucharistic
Celebration,” this chapter allows the Holy Father to recall the dignity of the
Eucharistic celebration. Because of the real presence of Our Lord in the
Eucharist, the priest and the faithful must show respect, adoration,
“simplicity” and “gravity.”
Very finely, the pope draws inspiration from
the Bethany scene when Mary Magdala anoints Our Lord’s feet with a
“high-priced” perfume.
He write: “Like the woman who anointed Jesus
in Bethany, the Church has feared no ‘extravagance,’ devoting the best of her
resources to expressing her wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift
of the Eucharist” (n48).
Further on, the pope rejects the over-familiar
way in which we often treat the Eucharist on pretext that it is also a banquet.
He calls to mind Saint Paul’s severe remarks to the Corinthians.
“Though the idea of a “banquet” naturally
suggests familiarity, the Church has never yielded to the temptation to
trivialize this ‘intimacy’ with her Spouse by forgetting that he is also her
Lord and that the “banquet” always remains a sacrificial banquet marked by the
blood shed on Golgotha. [...] O sacrum
convivium, in quo Christus sumitur!” (n48).
From there stems the necessary expressions of
inward and outward forms of worship “meant to evoke and emphasize the grandeur
of the event being celebrated” (n49).
Form there also stems a particular form of
regulating the Eucharistic liturgy “with
due respect for the various legitimacy constituted ecclesial traditions”
(n49).
Be careful! As we will see later on, this
sentence is significant.
Hence the rich artistic and esthetic heritage
we enjoy as much in the East as in the West, as this fine text on sacred art
points out:
“Sacred art must be outstanding for its
ability to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the
Church’s faith and in accordance with the pastoral guidelines appropriately
laid down by competent Authority. This holds true both for the figurative arts
and for sacred music” (n50).
___________________________
The
pope himself speaks of the abuses of the liturgical reform.
Let me
quote him: “It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the
post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of
creativity and adaptation [these are not the only reasons, as the abuses can be
understood through the liturgical reform itself, which is itself an abuse] there
have been a number of abuses which
have been a source of suffering for
many.” ...Thank you Holy Father!
“A certain reaction against ‘formalism’ has
led some […] to consider the ‘forms’ chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as
non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often
completely inappropriate” (n52).
It
is said, and it is from the pope’s pen.
It
had to be said.
The
pope concludes : “I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the
liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great
fidelity” (n52), that is those which correspond to the great liturgical
tradition of the Church from the above-quoted paragraph.
May
we at last remember, says the pope, that “liturgy is never anyone’s private
property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are
celebrated” (n52). The pope also
asserts that “priest who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical
norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently
demonstrate their love for the Church” (n52).
Further
on, the pope announces the coming of a new text which will pertain to the
respect owed to liturgical norms : “Precisely to bring out more clearly this
deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the
Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of
juridical nature, on this very important subject.” And the pope goes on : “No one is permitted to undervalue the
mystery entrusted to our hands : it is too great for anyone to feel free to
treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality”
(n52).
After
going through this Encyclical Letter, we see that the pope firmly denounces the
abuses, the omissions, and the “shadows” which touch on the holy mystery of the
Eucharist and that he examines them very critically.
These
are the very faults which, right from the beginning of the liturgical reform, a
certain “chosen group of theologians, liturgists and soul ministers” (Cardinal
Ottaviani’s letter to Paul VI) respectfully presented to Paul VI in a little
work known as the Brief Critical
Examination .
Go
through it. Go through Father Calmel’s
article in Itinéraires, as well as
those of Father Dulac in the first issues of Si Si No No (Courrier de Rome).
Go
also through Archbishop Lefebvre’s lectures and sermons, Bishop Castro Mayer’s
letter to Pope Paul VI, Dom Guillou’s articles in Nouvelles de Chrétienté, Jean Madiran’s, des Charlier’s, and Miss
Quenette’s articles in Itinéraires,
and you will find the same criticism, that is the one that the Supreme Pontiff
John Paul II presents in his Encyclical Letter.
They
have all found at last “a (favorable) echo in the Supreme Pontiff’s fatherly
heart”.
But
that is not all, and the following point shows a very interesting aspect of the
Encyclical Letter. Not only does the
pope want to encourage a true return to the Eucharistic worship in the Church,
but he especially wants to proceed to a correction of the new “Ordo Missae”
which has provoked – among other causes – the present errors and
“shadows”. He wants to rectify in order
to rebuild, in order to re-edify the dying Eucharistic worship in the world,
and rebuild it on the three truths recalled in the Encyclical Letter :
-
The Eucharist is a sacrifice, that is Christ’s sacrifice
characterized by its noble latreutic, eucharistic, satisfactory and impetratory
finalities.
-
This sacrifice demands a victim, namely Our Lord who is
substantially present under the transubstantiated species.
-
The sacramental sacrifice, realized by the double
consecration of the bread and the wine, is an act which requires the
ministerial priesthood.
This text by the pope is finally a
text which prepares “the reform of the liturgical reform.” It reminds us of the great truth which will
be the foundation, the principle and the light of the forthcoming announced text.
He
will recall the liturgical rites which will be this time in true osmosis with
Catholic truth, as Lex Orandi should express Lex Credendi.
Here
is the precise task which the following prefects will undertake, namely
Cardinal Ratzinger from the Congregation of the Faith, Cardinal Arinze from
Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, Cardinal
Castrillon Hoyos from the Congregation of the Clergy, and Bishop Herranz of the
Pontifical Council of the interpretation of legal texts.
Consequently,
we may reasonably believe that the time of the end of the liturgical abuses is
at hand, and that now is the time of the return to liturgical order and finally
to a totally Catholic liturgy.
How
can we believe that it may exist a dichotomy between the Encyclical Letter and
the announced text. Yet we must expect
the devil to break loose… If this new
text really restores the Catholic liturgy, the devil will lose its “major
asset”.
Let’s hope that the
cardinals will have the courage to recall – for instance as Bishop Gamber
insistently asked in his liturgical studies – that the Eucharistic sacrifice is
to be celebrated facing the East.
Didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger write the preface to his books?
Let’s hope that the
cardinals will have the courage to recall – as the pope does here – the acts of
worship that are required to adequately honor the Holy Eucharist and the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass.
Let’s hope that
they will suppress this communion in the hand, and that they will make the
distribution of communion the proper act of Priesthood…
Let’s hope that
they will free us from this “scandalous offertory imposed by Bishop Bunigni –
famous freemason – and that a clearly sacrificial offertory will be take its
place… And why not return to the fine
prayers of the Roman offertory?” (Item
9).
Let’s hope that the
cardinals will allow us to come back to the worshiping silence of the
celebrations, as Cardinal Ratzinger suggested it in his last work.
YES, it is the time of restoration.
We must pray!
If
such a thing occurs, it will really be a great achievement. Let me explain myself.
Mr.
Jean Madiran, in his interview with Father Tanouarn in his last Certitude maintains : “I believe that
Vatican II is susceptible of a Pia Intrepretatio (as St. Thomas did with some
Fathers). I am not against the idea
that the pope could, through some documents, rectify the ambiguities of the
Council. Neither I am against the idea of a reform of reform, if, in the
reform, there is a rectification.” Yves
Chiron fortunately remarked this extract in his Aletheia of March 2nd 2003.
I
readily share this opinion.
Besides,
it corresponds to what Archbishop Lefebvre thought. He told me the same thing one day in the car. He spoke about the Council and told me that
the pope could, either by himself through documents or by a commission of
cardinals named to this end, rectify the ambiguities of the Council, rather in
the same way as Pope Paul VI did himself about the Collegiality by imposing –
in the middle of the Council – a papal act : the famous “nota praevia” which
gave the right interpretation on an equivocal text voted by the Council
Fathers.
This
is precisely what the pope is doing today through this Encyclical Letter,
“Ecclesia de Eucharistia”. He corrects
the weak points and gives the right interpretation. He gives the rectification on the omissions
and the ambiguities of the liturgical reform.
I
would also point out that we must not forget the rectification of the
translation of orisons and many other texts.
Yet we know that Cardinal Arinze is working on the subject as well as
the Congregation, which has been working on it for almost a year.
I
would also add that the true Roman Missal, that is that of Saint Pius V, will
have to be respected and honoured again.
We will also have to declare it to be neither abrogated nor
prohibited. Bishop Fellay asked it in
his April 25th interview to Il
Giornale, for this multi-secular custom cannot be prohibited. As manner of fact, it has never been the
case canonically. I have argued in this
direction before the very official Cardinal Daneels in Brussels in 2001 (cf. Item 2). During the restoration, Saint Pius V himself respected the rites
that were more than 200 years old. His Roman Missal is now more than 200 years
old itself in the Church. It is now time for the restitution of that missal,
that is Saint Pius V’s. Besides, Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book Here is Our God (Voici quel est notre Dieu), was already stating that “it is also
important to stop banishing the liturgical form that was in effect until 1970”
(page 291).
Fourth conclusion
Consequently, it seems to me that the Church
is tending towards a revival of liturgical pluralism -- which would even be
acceptable doctrinally since the new rite is reformed in a Catholic sense-- as
it used to be without any problem before the liturgical reform as Vatican II
itself admits it in “Sacrotanctum concilium” (n4). As a matter of fact, there
used to be, beside the Roman Missal, the Lyon rite, the Dominican rite, the
Carthusian rite and maybe some more within the Latin Church, not to mention the
Eastern rites of Uniat Orthodox Churches.
Cardinal Ratzinger himself confessed to it in
a lecture, “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta,” he gave to the Catholics in Rome in 1998.
Yet the liturgical reform destroyed this rich variety. One rite had to rule --
all revolutions are totalitarian -- and it was that of Paul VI. Bishop Bunigni
went himself to the Carthusian monastery to make the monks abandon their
Carthusian rite for the benefice of that of Paul VI.
Those totalitarian times are behind us. Let us
hope. They have done so much harm...
We are thus drawing near the return of
liturgical pluralism. The pope’s Encyclical Letter will be its source. And that
may be why, in the Letter itself, as though to recall their legitimacy, the
pope speaks of the different liturgies. He speaks about that of Saint James in
n23, about that of Saint John Chrysostom, and that of Saint Basil in footnote
91. Why such a reminder? Just to look knowledgeable and scholarly?
Why not to accustom minds to this true
ecclesial reality of pluralism. Aren’t the bishops of France going to have a
hard time accepting that! But the pope has spoken! Causa finita est!
And it is with that in mind that the pope’s
phrase in n49 can be fully understood: “with due respect for the various
legitimately constituted ecclesial traditions.” And isn’t Saint Pius V’s Roman
rite among them!
Final conclusion: a spark of hope!
Consequently, Father Barthe seems to go in the
right direction when, after witnessing the Catholic hierarchy’s endeavour to
restore Saint Pius’s rite within the Church
1)
by creating a personal apostolic Administration with the explicit recognition
of Saint Pius’s rite
2)
by recommending the bishops to create in their dioceses personal parishes (this
idea was neither expressed
in the Idult of 84 nor in the Motu Proprio of 88) for the faithful devoted to this rite
3)
by wishing to settle the case of
Society Saint Pius X by recognizing its right to celebrate the traditional mass
he states: “We are going towards a global
treatment of this doctrinal and/or liturgical refusal of the Council” (Catholica n79 p65).
I would add that this treatment will take
place through the recognition of Saint Pius V’s rite, the return to liturgical
pluralism and the “catholicization” of Paul VI’s liturgical reform.
Father Paul Aulagnier
Translated into English by Jean-François Roy