True Sacrifice and Real Presence
This morning's Mass was a true Sacrifice, one and the same with the Sacrifice of Calvary. In it the celebrant, with the awesome power vested in him by virtue of his ordination, called down upon the altar Jesus Christ, truly present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. What an endless source of Grace. Why any bishop would wish to prevent the celebration of such a Mass is beyond me.
In today's Mass we had the opportunity to receive our Creator. We received Him whole and entire under the appearance of bread alone. We received Him, as his creatures should, on our knees. We received Him from consecrated hands.
The Traditional Mass has a quality of timelessness whose appeal to our hearts and minds is not dependent on the ephemeral values of the day.
In today's Mass, we experienced beauty in language, in action and in music. And through that we were given the merest glimpse of the beauty of our heavenly reward.
Even then, our fallible, human minds and hearts were not equal to the task of comprehending the full meaning of the Blessed Sacrament. In the words of the Adoro Te,
"Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit, quia te contemplans totum deficit." But this was more than an occasion of inexpressible beauty. It was an unequivocal and uncompromising statement of the central truths of our Holy Catholic Faith.
Today's liturgy was notable also for what it was not. It was not a social event for the faith community under the genial presidency of the celebrant. It did not bring into the sanctuary the atmosphere of the concert party. It did not involve eye-contact or laughter. It did not require the presence of altar girls or eucharistic ministers.
Where the new liturgy gives us activity, handshakes and rounds of applause, today's Mass gave us solemnity, silence and an atmosphere appropriate to the dreadful sacrifice that it both commemorated and renewed.
A new twentieth century artefact
In 1969 this Mass, the most beautiful of all human events, the Mass that had inspired the martyrs, the Mass that had taken the Faith to the farthest corners of the earth, the Mass that had inspired vocations and conversions in abundance, was replaced by a new twentieth century liturgical artefact.
This was a liturgy drafted in the ephemeral language of the 1960s and in the prose style of committee minutes. It was, to coin a phrase, the work of human hands. Its banalities and ambiguities did not survive intact for even a decade. The current text has being undergoing revision for the last twenty years.
Now ICEL has rewritten it again. Did ICEL draft the new text in order to reinforce the irreformable Catholic theology of the Mass? Did ICEL draft the new text in order to deepen our understanding of the Sacrament? Not a bit of it. ICEL's purpose, in deference to the secular world, was to appease the imperious demands of political correctness and, in line with contemporary feminism, to influence how we shall think by deciding for us how we shall speak.
How unfortunate for ICEL that Rome has spoken. In the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam that came into force on 25 April 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship has made the Church's position clear. It rejects the whole approach of ICEL to the translation of the authentic Latin texts into the vernacular. It proscribes the use of translation as a means of advancing the translators' own novelties. It disarms ICEL of any authority to prepare alternative or renewed texts. It insists - reasonably enough, one might think - that the word Credo should be translated as I believe. It proscribes inclusive language. And it submits all translations of the new rite to the final scrutiny and approval of the Apostolic See.
I am sure that ICEL will implement these instructions loyally and promptly.
Nevertheless, the chairman of the episcopal board of ICEL, Bishop Maurice Taylor, is resentful of Rome's intervention which he sees as undermining "the values of Vatican II" and the concept of the collegiality of the bishops. We know exactly what he means. He means the right of national conferences to liturgical autonomy and the right of the bishops, acting collegially, to call the shots.
What does the traditional Mass do for us? It expresses our Faith to the world. It deepens our Faith within us. It sets out in the clearest words that the Mass is a true sacrifice and not a commemorative meal.
The Martyrs died sooner than compromise on that issue. If we compromise, we deserve to be haunted by their last defiant words to their tormentors, because we will have failed them.
The attack upon the Martyrs came with the rack and the rope. Today we face the same challenge. But the attack upon us comes from ARCIC and the liberal religious media.
Anarchic ARCIC
For twenty years well-intentioned ecumenists, Catholic and Anglican, have attempted in the names of their churches to find a sound intellectual basis for reconciliation on the important matters that divide them.
From the outset both sides have been engaged in a fundamentally futile exercise, that of creating a seeming reconciliation of two irreconcilable theologies. In the course of their discussions, well-meaning Anglicans have had their hopes raised by Catholic spokesmen who spoke only for themselves.
It has never been entirely clear what the two sides hoped to achieve. The Anglican side were being asked to consider a form of unity that was incompatible with the central tenets of their foundation - that the Mass is an idolatrous act and that the Pope has no jurisdiction in this land. The Catholic side were being asked to consider a form of unity that implied that the theology of the reformed church contains truths that have eluded the Catholic Church for two millennia.
The basic flaw in ARCIC has been obvious from the outset. Neither side saw it as a means by which the Church of England would be brought back from both heresy and schism. They saw it as a means by which, by redefining terms, a united church could be created in which both of its constituent parts had undergone change. But true unity cannot be achieved by trading a doctrine here for a dogma there, still less by redefining concepts in order to obscure fundamental differences.
The ARCIC approach has two strands. One is the idea that the controversies of the Reformation over the Mass can be seen with hindsight to have arisen from some sort of terminological confusion. Both sides actually believed the same thing. The other is the idea that ecumenical dialogue can create a super-church, with the Pope as its figurehead, embodying the best features of the Catholic and Anglican traditions. In such a church the Catholic and Anglican religions will together have access to a more complete truth than individually they have been able to discern.
If the first idea is correct, the deaths of the Martyrs were needless and futile. If the second idea is correct, the Catholic Church, contrary to Christ's promise to St Peter, is at present an imperfect repository of His Truth.
ARCIC and the integrity of the Mass
I am not concerned today to analyse the work of ARCIC over the last twenty years. My sole concern is to consider the implications of ARCIC for the integrity of the Mass.
For the moment I shall leave aside the problem of the validity of Anglican orders, whether of men or women. I shall confine my remarks to two related issues: the authority of the Pope and the idea of inter-communion as an ecumenical act.
ARCIC is about unity. Unity depends on the existence of authority. The purpose of the latest ARCIC statement The Gift of Authority (1999) is to redefine the Catholic idea of Petrine authority and to limit the authority of the papacy - to the consequent advantage of the world's bishops and their would-be autonomous churches.
At first sight the ARCIC statement seems to indicate that the Anglican side have accepted that in a "shared primacy" the Pope would be entitled to teach the "faith of the Church." Too good to be true? Of course. The statement then goes on to say that "since it is the faithfulness of the whole people of God that is at stake, reception of teaching is integral to the process." In other words, if the whole people do not accept it, it doesn't count.
The idea that the Catholic Church could ever accept an ecumenical agreement that reserved to the Anglican element in a super-church a veto over any doctrine that was not to its taste is absurd. Such an agreement would mean that the Pope was faithless to his Petrine office. It would simply be a modern extension of the heretical idea that it is legitimate to dissent from any papal teaching that stops short of dogma. That idea was denounced by Pope Pius IX as being directly opposed to the supreme power, conferred upon the Pope by Christ, of shepherding, ruling and governing the Church (Encyclical Quanta Cura, (1864)).
The ARCIC statement calls on both churches "to share the gift of universal primacy" and speaks of the Pope's exercising "leadership in the world and also in both communions." These are meaningless phrases. What universal primacy is there, if not that of the Pope? On what basis is His Holiness to share it? What primacy is there if the teaching authority is not absolute? The Archbishop of Canterbury has no meaningful primacy in the Anglican Communion. He certainly has no primacy worth the name over those sections of it which ordain women bishops.
Perhaps the most dangerous idea in the statement is that "such primacy could be offered and received even before our churches are in full communion." How can primacy be shared by leaders who teach two different things? More particularly, without "full communion" how could any Anglican bishop submit in good conscience to the primacy of the Pope while remaining true to his ordination vows and to the Thirty-Nine Articles?
It is easy for the modern Anglican mind to accept the idea of the primacy of the Pope. The Anglican mind is accustomed to having it both ways on theological and moral issues. But such a primacy would be bogus. The Anglican element would acknowledge the authority of the Pope, while not necessarily accepting his teaching on any individual question of faith or morals; and would acknowledge his leadership, while reserving the right to disregard it when circumstances required.
So how does ARCIC get out of that problem? It has an answer. It is provided by its Catholic co-chairman, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. He envisages that in our lifetime there will be a Pope of the universal church who will be "a Pope for all Christians ? who will preside not with jurisdiction but with love."
Statements such as this demonstrate how Protestantism has achieved greater gains through ecumenism than it achieved in all the violent years of the Reformation.
I respectfully suggest that Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's idea lacks any sort of intellectual respectability. If it is capable of any precise meaning, it is illogical. A Pope who presided over a church in which he had no jurisdiction would have no authority at all, even if he received an ocean of love. He would simply be the figurehead of a world-wide federation of autonomous sects, each being entitled to disregard him on any occasion on any issue. In short, he would be like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The danger of inter-communion
But it is on the question of inter-communion that we confront what is by far the greatest and most imminent danger to the Mass: the idea that the Eucharist should be shared by those who differ fundamentally on its essential nature.
For the present at least the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales, in their document One Bread One Body, (1998) have maintained their opposition to inter-communion.
Archbishop Carey is disappointed by this display of fidelity to Catholic truth. He has suggested that inter-communion is not a sign of unity but a means towards it. The idea sounds plausible, but it too lacks intellectual respectability. What is the "unity" to which inter-communion will lead? Is it the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? If it is, then we can get to it here and now in one short step.
But we know that that is not what Archbishop Carey means. His idea involves a compromise in which, under a superficial appearance of unity, each recipient of the Blessed Sacrament is entitled to believe of it what he wishes. Here lies the fallacy of unity through inter-communion. A Mass at which there was inter-communion would not be a sacrament of faith: it would be a sacrament of doubt. It would not be sacrament of unity: it would be a sacrament of disorder.
It would seem to be dishonest for any Anglican to take part in a sacrament that his religion teaches him is idolatrous. So how does the Church of England get out of that problem? It has an answer. It is provided by the Anglican Bishop John Hind. When asked whether the Church of England still upheld the Thirty Nine Articles, he replied that they "are regarded by members of the Church of England as part of the historic formularies of the Church which were regarded as being in their day an authentic representation of the Catholic faith of the Church throughout the ages."
So much for the Thirty Nine Articles. Here we have the essence of Anglican belief - that truth varies from one century to the next.
Just in case we missed the point, Bishop Hind continued: "If we were to regard modern theological statements as having to be measured in every single respect by what churches have said about themselves in previous generations, we would be in a very serious position indeed." The answer to this comment is of course yes, we should measure modern theological statements by what churches have said in the past; and yes, we are in a very serious position indeed.
The Catholic Church is happy to have any of its modern statements measured by what the Church has said in the past, because the Church's teaching is constant and unchanging. That cannot be said of the Church of England.
Now let me conclude with some straight questions to our Anglican brethren. Our chaplain has emphasised our duty to be charitable in controversy. But straightforwardness in these matters is an essential aspect of politeness. It is the worst discourtesy to conceal differences with ambiguity.
Two sovereign churches?
ARCIC starts from the assumption that its business is to bring about the union of two sovereign churches. That immediately raises the question whether the Catholic Church and the Church of England can be looked at on equal terms.
Is the Church of England a "church"? I suggest that it is nothing of the sort. Ecumenical courtesy requires us to say so. The Church of England speaks with two minds on most issues. It remains deeply divided on the question of women priests. Can any religious body call itself a church when it is uncertain even of its own orders?
If it is a church, which one is it? Is it the church of those bishops who regard homosexual acts as a grievous sin or is it the church of those bishops who regard homosexual acts in the context of a loving relationship as a means of grace?
Is it the church of Bishop Jenkins, who has doubts about the Resurrection and the virginity of Our Blessed Lady? Is it the church of Archbishop Carey who describes those who oppose the ordination of women as heretics?
Is it the church of Bishop Harries who supports therapeutic human cloning? Or the church of Archbishop Habgood who supports destructive experimentation on human embryos?
The Church of England lacks unity or coherence on any question of faith or morals. On all such questions it tries to have it both ways. It respects the right to life while accepting that the destruction of an innocent life in the womb may be a moral good. It respects the indissolubility of marriage while admitting divorcees to the sacrament of matrimony. In short, it is a church that has a sincere and caring respect for the right of every member to believe what he likes.
That is what life would be like in the united parish of St Arcic's. Are things not bad enough already?
Can there be a union between two bodies fundamentally different in kind? One is divinely instituted, governed by the successors of St Peter as Christ's Vicars on Earth, infallibly pronouncing its dogmas with the direct authority of Christ. The other is a humanly instituted organisation whose leader is appointed by a politician, who may have any faith or none, and whose doctrines are decided by the majority votes of a Synod.
Feminism before ecumenism
I think that we now have a short answer to the whole ARCIC industry. It is the decision of the Church of England to ordain women priests. That was a decision taken in the sure and certain knowledge that it was incompatible with Catholic recognition of Anglican orders and with the idea of inter-communion. The decision was supported by Bishop Santer, the Anglican co-chairman of ARCIC.
This was the clearest indication of Anglican priorities. When the critical moment came, the Church of England put feminism before ecumenism.
Having made its decision, the Church of England still wishes to have it both ways. It persists in a dialogue that its own democratic decisions have made futile. In doing so it simply adds to the list of black and white issues that it seeks to obscure by compromise.
The Church of England's male orders are "utterly null and void" (Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae (1896)); but if there was ever the slightest hope that the Catholic Church might change its position on that, there cannot be the slightest hope that the Catholic Church will ever accept women's orders in any circumstances.
In the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) Pope John Paul II said:
" ... in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on woman and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
This puts the matter beyond all further discussion. It makes the ARCIC idea of unity impossible in any form. It makes inter-communion impossible too. It is therefore disappointing that The Gift of Authority makes no reference to the problem.
That brings us back to the Mass. I argued a moment ago that it is fallacious to imagine that inter-communion can be used to bring about unity. If I am right, the inevitable conclusion of my argument is that the theology of the Mass is fundamentally at odds with the ARCIC view of ecumenism. To put the matter more bluntly, it is in the Mass and only in the Mass that there can be true reconciliation with our separated brethren.
The truth which our ARCIC representatives have cravenly failed to assert is that the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Pope exercises the authority conferred on St Peter and speaks in Christ's name as His Vicar on Earth. He is the shepherd and teacher of all Christians and their spiritual father. The Church provides us with the complete and perfect means of salvation.
In his Letter Iam Vos Omnes (1868), written on the eve of the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX exhorted all those who were separated from the Church to return to it.
" ... Let all those, therefore, who do not possess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church seize upon this occasion of the Council, where the Catholic Church to which their ancestors belonged is going to give again a striking proof of her unity and her invincible life-force, to strive conformally to the needs of their hearts to disengage themselves from a state where they cannot be assured of their own salvation. And let them not cease to offer the most fervent prayers to the God of mercies so that He will break down the wall of division, dissipate the clouds of error, and bring them back to Holy Mother Church, in the bosom of which their fathers found the saving food of life, in which alone is kept and transmitted in its entirety the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and where alone are dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace ... "
In the Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928) Pope Pius XI said:
" ... The union of Christians cannot be fostered otherwise than by promoting the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ, which in the past they so unfortunately abandoned. Return, we say, to the one true Church of Christ which is plainly visible to all and which by the will of her Founder forever remains what He Himself destined her to be for the common salvation of men. For the mystical spouse of Christ has never been contaminated in the course of centuries, nor will she ever be contaminated ? No one is in the Church of Christ, and no one remains in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts with obedience the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors ? Therefore, to this Apostolic See which is 'the root and matrix of the Catholic Church,' may our dissident sons return: let them do so, not with the thought and hope that 'the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,' will sacrifice the integrity of the faith, but, on the contrary, with the intention of submitting to her authority and government ... "
The Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Jesus (2000) simply repeats the same unchanging message.
If a Christian sincerely believes that the Blessed Sacrament is merely bread and wine and remains always so, the logic of that view is that the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is indeed idolatrous, and that the language of the Mass is indeed blasphemous. To such a Christian we have to say "if that is your belief, the integrity of our Faith requires that you have no part of it."
But if any Christian believes that the Mass is a true sacrifice and that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, then he must do as conscience commands and submit his human will to the authority of the Church and its earthly leader. To such a Christian we say "the arms of the Church and the hearts of Her people are forever open to you. Come to Her and share in the abundant graces of the Mass."
If that Mass were the traditional Mass of all time, how much more persuasive would our message be?
Lord Gill QC
(ARCIC's Final Report issued in September 1981 was responded to by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in May 1982. In its critique the Congregation listed a series of doctrines on which ARCIC claimed to have reached agreement, but without formulating them in a way that would safeguard Catholic teaching. It noted that:"Certain formulations in the Report are not sufficiently explicit and hence can lend themselves to a twofold interpretation, in which both parties can find unchanged the expression of their own position. This possibility of contrasting and ultimately incompatible readings of formulations which are apparently satisfactory to both sides gives rise to a question about the real consensus of the two communions, pastors and faithful alike. In effect, if a formulation which has received the agreement of experts, can be diversely interpreted, how could it serve as a basis for reconciliation on the level of Church life and practice?"
Despite the wide ranging criticisms of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith it would seem that ARCIC has not blighted the careers of certain individuals. Editor.)
[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's August 2001 Newsletter.]