Anthony Cekada. Work of Human Hands: A
Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI. West Chester, OH: Philothea Press, 2010. 444pp.
Review by Dr. Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo
This book is a bold,
critical study of the ideology underlying the liturgical changes that occurred
during the second half of the Twentieth Century in the Roman Rite. Theologically
profound and well-researched, it can be seen as an important contribution to
‘traditionalist’ Catholic scholarship.
Previous full-length monographs on this subject have focused mainly on
criticizing the changes to the Ordinary of the Mass and on chronicling the
historical circumstances that led up to them.
This study, however, includes not only criticism of the changes to the
Propers (variable parts), and in particular an unprecedented account of changes
to the Lectionary, but also a ground-breaking theological analysis of the
ideological influences that underlie all the changes. Despite the author’s admittedly sedevacantist
background, his critique of the New Mass is based exclusively on sound,
traditional Catholic theology and is, thus, independent of (or at least
logically prior to) his ecclesiological views on the current status of the
Papal See.
The work is
divided into fourteen chapters of roughly equal length. After an introductory chapter that covers the
motives and scope of the work, Chapters 2-6 focus on the general history of the
recent liturgical changes to the Roman Rite, laying out the ideology behind
them. Chapter 2 focuses on the thought
of the scholars who headed the liturgical movement that brought about the
reform, with particular emphasis on Josef Jungmann and Louis Bouyer; Chapter 3 identifies
the Pre-Conciliar Pian Commission and Holy Week Reforms as being continuous in
aim and motivation with the Post-Conciliar liturgical reform; and Chapters 5
and 6 deal separately with the 1969 and 1970 versions of the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal
(or GIRM).[1] Chapters 7-13 then analyze the new Mass point
by point, from art, architecture, furnishings, and introductory rites all the
way through the dismissal, including both the Ordinary of the Mass and the
Propers. The author does this by
comparing the salient elements of the New Mass with their traditional
counterparts, and citing members of the hierarchy, ‘periti’, and other authorities
to reveal the motives behind the particular changes. The book then concludes with a summary of the
evidence and a recapitulation of the argument.
Except for this overall summary at the end, every chapter ends with a
rather helpful, if unconventional, point-by-point summary of chapter contents
that adds clarity and cogency to the general argument. The book’s appendix is also worth
mentioning: there, Cekada offers a compelling case for the use of the 1951 (or
any pre-1955) Missal, rather than the 1962 Missal, an argument that could be
well received by traditionalist groups that currently use the latter.
The
book’s main thesis is that (A) the Mass of Paul VI, said according to its
prescribed rubrics as they are found in the Editio Typica of the Missal,
is gravely irreverent and destroys Catholic doctrine in the minds of the
faithful.[2] Cekada also defends two secondary theses that
are corollaries of the first: The Mass of Paul VI, said according to prescribed
rubrics, represents (B) a rupture with tradition, and (C) a spurious
restoration of the ancient liturgy of the Church. The book can be seen as a 400-page inductive
argument to support these three theses.
Whereas I can agree entirely with theses (B) and (C), I believe that
thesis (A) needs to be qualified significantly.
I shall deal with (B) and (C) first, then (A).
The author
offers strong evidence for his second and third theses, (B) and (C). The theological foundations of Cekada’s
overall argument are found in Chapter 2, a true gem on the theological motives
behind the liturgical reform. There,
Cekada shows that the changes were intended to promote the nouvelle
theologie (‘new theology’) of men like Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Josef
Jungmann, and Louis Bouyer. As operative
theological principles of the reform, Cekada specifically singles out the
following four: (1) Josef Jungmann’s liturgical “Corruption Theory,” according to which the Roman Rite that was
in use in the early 20th Century represented a departure from, and
corruption of, primitive liturgical ideals.
As a result, the liturgical reform—claims Jungmann—must recover this
primitive ideal. Jungmann thus promoted
a sort of resourcement in
the area of the liturgy. (2) Jungmann’s “Pastoral Liturgy” view, which
advocated refashioning the Mass in order to meet the perceived needs of
contemporary man—a position that could also be characterized as a sort of liturgical
aggiornamento. (3) Louis Bouyer’s
“Assembly Theology,” according
to which the essence of the Mass consists in an assembly of the ‘People
of God’ that, together, celebrates the gathering, the priest merely acting as
‘presider’—a Protestantizing view that bypasses the traditional Catholic
doctrine of the Mass as essentially a Sacrifice offered by the priest alone to
God, to which the people unite themselves.
(4) Bouyer’s theory of “Other
‘Real’ Presences,” which inflates Christ’s presence in the congregation
and in Scripture in order to de-emphasize the faith in the Real Presence
of Christ under the Eucharistic species—a technique of the reformers that
pervades the New Mass and which Cekada calls ‘devaluation-by-inflation’. Whereas resourcement and aggiornamento
characterize Jungmann’s principles, a strong ecumenical motivation is evident
behind Bouyer’s views.
Cekada meticulously
shows that these principles are at work in the recent liturgical changes. In Chapters 5 and 6, he shows how Bouyer’s “Assembly Theology” and his
theory of “Other ‘Real’ Presences” are the central motifs in the New Missal and the GIRM. He also shows that, for
every change that is a supposed to represent a ‘return to the ancient ideal’
(cf., Jungmann’s “Corruption Theory”), the real motive is not a fidelity to
antiquity but a desire to abolish a rubric that is doctrinally unacceptable to
‘modern man’ (or to these new theologians).
Hence the need ‘modernize’ the liturgy and make it acceptable to
‘contemporary sensibilities’ (cf., “Pastoral Liturgy”). Take, for instance, the “Prayer of the
Faithful” or “Universal Prayer”: such prayers did exist in some ancient
liturgies, and so the re-establishing of these prayers in the New Mass was
presented as a return to antiquity. Yet
the original text of these prayers, which the traditional Missal still
prescribes for the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, is emphatically un-ecumenical
and offensive to ‘modern man’ and to new theology; moreover, they are
invariable. The new “Universal Prayer,”
on the other hand, is systematically de-Christianized, de-spiritualized, and
de-supernaturalized, primarily to placate liturgists who complained that the
original prayers had been written “in the direction of a devout and
conventional religion, utterly foreign to the pastoral needs of today” (p.
256). In the end, even the
de-supernaturalized prayers became optional, and their content is ultimately
de-regularized and left up to the discretion of the priest, commercial
liturgical publisher, local liturgical planning committee, or director of
worship. The result is something that
superficially resembles an ancient liturgical prayer (cf. “Corruption Theory”),
but which was established to meet the ‘needs of contemporary man’ (cf. “Pastoral
Liturgy”) and is, as Gamber puts it, “a novelty which stands completely against
liturgical tradition” (p. 257).
Another extensive
example of antiquity-as-an-excuse-for-novelty is given in Chapter 10, which
concerns the changes to the Lectionary.
Here—Cekada argues—despite the fact that, thanks to its three-year
cycle, the New Lectionary contains more Scripture readings than the old Missal,
nonetheless, through ‘adroit choices’ some important Scriptural texts—often a
verse or two in the middle of a feast day or Sunday Gospel reading—are
bracketed off as optional or altogether omitted, because of their ‘negative
theology’, i.e., they doctrinally run afoul of the nouvelle theologie or
of ecumenism. Thanks to these omissions,
the average Catholic can attend Mass every Sunday for an entire Lectionary
Cycle (three years) and never hear theologically ‘negative’ Scriptural passages
such as Our Lord’s warnings against hell, St. Paul’s warning against receiving
the Body of Our Lord unworthily, his teaching on heresy, heretics and their
fate, or his command that women be submissive to their husbands, that they
cover their heads, and remain silent in Church.
In practical terms, this chapter is perhaps the most devastating for the
defenders of the liturgical reform, and it alone, in
my opinion, is worth the price of the entire book.
Now, Cekada’s
main thesis (A), in my view, is not sufficiently nuanced. There are doctrinal problems with the new
Missal and GIRM, to be sure; yet,
contrary to what Cekada suggests, there is nothing in the Missal or GIRM that could explicitly be identified
as heretical. In the 444 pages of the
work, Cekada never successfully points to a single explicit heretical
proposition in the text of the New Mass, whether in the Propers or the
Ordinary. All of the doctrinal problems
that he points out consist in omissions, ambiguous phrases,
‘devaluation-by-inflation’, or deficiencies in the many rubrics, expressions,
and gestures that make up the Missal and GIRM. Nowhere is a dogma explicitly denied. As far as I could tell, there are only two places
in the book where Cekada tries to identify a specific heresy that he thinks is present
in the new liturgical reform. One of
these is his discussion of the GIRM’s
doctrine that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Last Supper. He claims that this is opposed to the Council
of Trent’s dogma that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the
Cross. Yet Cekada does not
sufficiently discuss or explain why these two notions contradict each other or
are mutually incompatible. I do not see
why someone who thinks that the Mass is in some sense a representation of the Last
Supper must necessarily deny the dogma that the Mass is a representation of
the Sacrifice of Calvary. While I
do not defend the idea that the Mass consists in a representation of the Last
Supper, I would not go so far as to claim it is necessarily a denial of a Tridentine
dogma. A doctrinal novelty does not ipso
facto involve
heresy. There are different levels of
theological error—and Cekada is well aware of this—yet he does not discuss
whether the doctrinal problems of the new Mass could be categorized as otherwise
than heresy.
Rather than state that the Mass contains heresies,
I would admit that it was clearly motivated
by novel doctrines, some of which are obviously dangerous. One could even admit that, in the context of
current theological trends, the New Rite may indirectly promote these
novel doctrines, and in the minds of most
of the faithful these novel doctrines involve a denial of the traditional
faith, yet this in no way means that the new Missal contains any proposition or
gesture that inherently asserts heresy.
Take, for example, the changes to the offertory prayers. The traditional prayers at the offering of
the paten and chalice eloquently summarize the Catholic doctrine on the
Sacrifice of the Mass, and offer the bread and wine already under the aspect of
an ‘Immaculate Victim’ (Immaculatam Hostiam) that will be
sacrificed later on, thus making an allusion to the future Consecration. The new prayers, however, do not make
reference to the ‘Victim’ or to the Sacrifice.
Instead, they are pervaded by a naturalistic tone, as they speak of offering
of (mere) bread and wine, which are being considered as the ‘work of human
hands’ and which will become ‘bread of life’ and ‘spiritual drink’. This is where Cekada makes his second
accusation of heresy: he suggests that calling the bread and wine ‘the work of
human hands’ amounts to stating that the matter of the Sacrament of the
Eucharist consists in human work, and that this is heretical. Yet, the New Missal in no way states that the
matter of the Holy Eucharist is human work.
That some theologians read the Missal this way is one thing, but that
the Mass itself says so explicitly is quite another. A more reasonable criticism of the new
offertory prayers would be that, though not heretical, they simply fail to
communicate the Catholic theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Perhaps the change was motivated by a
novel theology that differed from the traditional theology of the Sacrifice of
the Mass, yet no denial of the traditional doctrine is present in the rite
itself.
Similarly, in the context of current
theological trends (e.g., the ecumenical requirement of making the Mass less
offensive to Protestants, and the desire of many to abandon the traditional
Catholic theology of the Mass), the now-allowed gesture of receiving Holy
Communion in the hand may be seen as an indirect attack on our faith in the
Real Presence. Yet it is not inherently
wrong or heretical in itself to receive Holy Communion in the Hand. Even the old De defectibus prescribes
it in certain irregular situations. In
itself, this change only amounts to an omitted profession of faith in
the Real Presence—an omission that does not in itself imply a denial. So it is in context only, and not in itself,
that this new concession can be seen as doctrinally problematic.
Interestingly, Cekada
also offers two arguments for the invalidity of the New Mass. First, he gives the well-known ‘pro multis’–‘for
all’ argument. To my disappointment,
Cekada never addresses any of the detailed defenses of the validity of the ‘for
all’ translation offered by scholars such as John McCarthy and Manfred Hauke,
or even as much as mentions the Vatican pronouncement on this issue. His second argument, however, is more
interesting: it is based on one of the criticisms in the Ottaviani
Intervention regarding the requisite ministerial intention for saying a
valid Mass. The traditional Mass left no
room for the priest to be lacking in his requisite intention to change bread
and wine into the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord: the texts made clear
what was going on, and what ought to be the intention of the celebrant. The priest who pronounced those words
meaningfully and assertively would automatically have the requisite
intention. The New Mass, however, together
with the 1969 GIRM, present what used
to be called the ‘Consecration’ as a mere ‘Institution Narrative’,[3]
such that a priest is able to pronounce the new ‘Institution Narrative’ as a
mere historical account of the Last Supper without the intention of effecting
the Transubstantiation. This would
result in an invalid Mass—as Cekada dramatically puts it: “No Body, no Blood,
no Mass.” This, in my view, is a
theologically sound criticism of the new ‘Institution Narrative’
terminology. Yet this criticism should
be tempered by one important clarification that Cekada never makes: this
argument applies only to individual Masses where the priest lacks the requisite
intention—something that is also possible, though significantly more difficult,
in the context of the Old Mass. The
criticism does not apply to every Mass said according to the New Missal, for
even in the New Rite, a priest who, despite the vague, new ‘Institution
Narrative’ language, manages to pronounce the words of consecration
meaningfully and assertively, with the requisite intention, bypasses this
problem and truly brings about the Transubstantiation.[4]
Cekada’s research is, overall,
scholarly and profound, eye-opening and convincing. He leaves no room to doubt in the reader’s
mind that the creators of the New Mass were seeking to promote doctrines in
line with the ecumenical and nouelle theologie movements. Even though Cekada’s main thesis is not simpliciter
warranted, the book successfully shows that the New Mass represents a
theological novelty, a doctrinal rupture with tradition and a spurious return
to primitive liturgy. Inevitably, the
book will have to be taken seriously by contemporary theology scholars of all
camps.
Notes:
[1]
Cekada
abbreviates it as “GI,” but I shall
follow the general convention in abbreviating it as “GIRM.”
[2]
It must be
noted that Cekada does not intend to criticize mere liturgical
‘abuses’—violations of the New Missal’s rubrics—that frequently take place in
the context of the New Mass. Rather, he
explicitly criticizes the new Missal itself as doctrinally problematic.
According to Cekada, his view distinguishes him from other traditionalist
authors who, he claims, have only criticized ‘abuses’ or who argue in favor of
the traditional Mass on the basis of mere aesthetic preference or individual
sentiment, and if they ever criticize the New Missal itself, they have merely
held it is ‘ambiguous’, instead of acknowledging that it is inherently
problematic in its doctrine. I think
Cekada exaggerates a bit, however; there are plenty of other works that are
critical of the doctrine contained implicitly and explicitly in the New
Mass and the new liturgical laws, and not just its aesthetical problems or its
‘abuses’. To name a few of these works:
Davies’ monumental, three-volume Liturgical Revolution, the SSPX’s The
Problem of the Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study, and
of course, A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass by Cardinals
Ottaviani and Bacci, commonly known as The
Ottavianni Intervention.
[3] The 1970 GIRM saw itself forced to change the
expression to ‘Institution Narrative or Consecration’.
[4] Oddly enough, although
Cekada thinks the New Mass is invalid, he still thinks it is a sacrilege! Yet, if “no Body, no Blood, no Mass,” then
how can it be sacrilege? Cekada appears
never to make this connection.
No comments:
Post a Comment