Ever in Search of the New Synthesis

by John Vennari

            More Latin in the New Mass, tabernacle in central location in churches, inculturation, limited intercommunion with Protestants, these are some of the proposals Pope Benedict XVI offers in Sacramentum Caritatis, the newly released Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist.

Continuous Aggiornamento through the Synod

            On September 15, 1965, ten weeks before the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI released his moto proprio Apostolica Solicitudo, in which he announced the establishment of the Synod as a permanent institution in the Church.
            Prior to the Council of Trent, a Synod was comparable to a General Council, but to a lesser degree. After Trent, a Synod was merely a local gathering of bishops and priests, called occasionally to meet a specific need or problem. Vatican II̓s establishment of the Synod is something quite different.
            The progressive National Catholic Reporter rejoiced that the establishment of the Synod “seemed the culmination of the council̓s rediscovery of Collegiality”.¹ Hence, the Synod as a permanent institution, was to be a follow-through of the Council̓s commitment to collegiality. The Synod would subsequently receive favorable mention in the seldom quoted Council document Christus Dominus, #5.²
            The Synod, as envisioned by Vatican II, was to be a consultative, not a decision-making body. The Jesuit magazine America describes it as:

            Paul VI’s 1965 moto proprio also stated that the Synod “may also have deliberative power when such power is conferred on it by the sovereign pontiff, who will, in such cases, confirm the decisions of the Synod.”
            In other words, the Pope is still in charge of this collegial gathering, because the Pope is free to later decide whether or not he will take notice of the various discussions. But the establishment of the Synod, more or less, compels the Pope to play according to the collegial code, even if he hasn’t completely sacrificed primacy.
            Ultimately, the Synod has been established to advance the implementation of Vatican II throughout the world. That is how it was defined by Father Kenneth Boyak, who works with the NCCB.⁴
            Likewise, Tad Szulc, in his biography of Pope John Paul II, explained that the Synod is a “permanent organ to implement the decisions of the Second Vatican Council”.⁵
            Thus, the purpose of the Synod is to keep the aggiornamento alive through the collegial method. The Synod is an ever-present extension of Vatican II into the future.
            Pope Benedict XVI is truly a man of the Council, which the progressivist Marcel Prelot celebrated as a triumph of liberal Catholicism. Vatican II is central to Pope Benedict XVI’s world view and to his view of Tradition. Thus it is not surprising that he utilized the Synod as a means to introduce his long-cherished plan for a reform of the reform – a program that hopes to restore a measure of Catholic sanity into the Church. This reform of the reform, despite some good points, seems doomed to failure since its central point of reference is not the anti-Modernism of Pope Pius X, nor the anti-liberalism of Pope Pius IX, but the Second Vatican Council which produced the upheaval in the first place.

Cardinal Ratzinger and the Liturgical Reform

            Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, did not hide his dissatisfaction with the results of Vatican II’s liturgical revolution. While the Cardinal’s words always fell short of the doctrinal pointedness of Cardinal Ottaviani, he nonetheless recognize that liturgically, something had gone wrong.
            In the Preface to the French edition of Msgr. Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, Cardinal Ratzinger lamented that the post-conciliar liturgical revolution did not go as he had envisioned it. He wrote, “...in place of liturgy as the fruit of devolvement came a fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”⁶
            Cardinal Ratzinger voiced similar sentiments in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, and also in God in the World, the 460 page transcription of Peter Seewald’s three-day interview with the Cardinal in early 2000. Here Cardinal Ratzinger said, “I myself have talked in this sense of a reform of the reform. But in my opinion this ought in the first place to be above all an educative process, which would put a stop to this trampling all over the liturgy with one’s own inventions.” ⁷
            To the question: Should Masses be said in Latin again?, the Cardinal responded, “That is no longer going to be possible as a general practice, and perhaps it is not desirable as such. At least it is clear, I would say, that the Liturgy of the Word should be in people’s mother tongue. But otherwise I would be in favor of a new openness toward the use of Latin.”⁸
            Cardinal Ratzinger also said in God in the World that he favored the lifting of the proscription on the “form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 .”⁹
            However, as mentioned, Pope Benedict XVI is firmly a man of Vatican II. He rules out bypassing the Council’s destructive liberalism, since he himself favors the two key modernist tenets of the Council: ecumenism and religious liberty. His proposed solution has been, and still is, an attempt to go back and discover the “true” Vatican II. “The only way Vatican II can be made plausible”, he says, “is to present it as it is: one part of the unbroken, the unique tradition of the Church, and of her Faith.”
            In this he has set for himself a virtually impossible task, since central elements of the Council, (i.e. ecumenism and religious liberty) are clear departures from the perennial Catholic magisterium.¹⁰ Nonetheless his entire ecclesiastical career, and his program now as Pope, is to form a new synthesis between the traditional Catholic teaching before the Council, and the progressivist novelties of the Council – a synthesis an inch or two more conservative than that of Pope John Paul II. The new Apostolic Exhortation is a demonstration of this search for the new synthesis. 

31,790 Words!

            Brevity and efficiency of words is not the mark of post-conciliar documents. On the contrary, they tend to be great piles of verbiage, often full of airy meditations, that take a great deal of stamina to persevere with to the end.
            The new Apostolic Exhortation is no exception. Including footnotes, the document weighs in at 31,790 words. One wonders who will actually take the time to read the entire text.¹¹
            What follows is not intended to be an exhaustive study of the document, but will treat some of its more central points, starting with the most positive elements and moving into its more troubling aspects. The document:
            • Encourages more Latin and Gregorian Chant in Masses in general, and in International Masses in particular;
            • Calls for the tabernacle to be placed in a central location in churches;.
            • Confirms the Church’s discipline on priestly celibacy;
            • Reaffirms the non-admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to the Eucharist;
            • Encourages Eucharistic adoration, including perpetual adoration;
            • Calls for a general improvement of homilies.
            The sacrilege of Communion in the hand and “lay-ministers” of the Eucharist are nowhere mentioned in Sacramentum Caritatis, which is an odd omission in a document intended to increase reverence for the Eucharist. Few practices have fostered irreverence for the Blessed Sacrament more than Communion in the hand and lay “Eucharistic Ministers”.
            The secular press was particularly interested in what Pope Benedict XVI said regarding Catholic politicians. The Associated Press headlined its report, “Pope Refuses to Relent on Remarried Catholics, Tells Catholic Politicians to toe Church Line”.¹²
            Unfortunately, the document contains no threat of penalty against Catholic politicians who do not toe the Church’s line, and merely leaves it up to the local bishop to decide whether to refuse Communion to the wayward politician.
            Regarding Catholic politicians, the Pope wrote that public witness to one’s faith was especially required of politicians who decide matters such as abortion, euthanasia, “the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman. And the promotion of the common good in all its values. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.”
            The document goes on to say “bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them.”
            When questioned if that meant Catholic politicians could be refused Communion, Cardinal Angelo Scola, who presented the document in a Vatican press conference, said it “doesn’t say what it doesn’t want to say”.¹³ In other words, the Pope does not insist that pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual, “Catholic” politicians be refused Communion. The decision is left to the local bishop.
            “Referring to Benedict’s leaving the matter to bishops,” wrote the Associated Press, “Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said liberals might be ‘grateful he’s not more aggressively insisting that pastoral flexibility be curtailed’.”¹⁴
            In other words, pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians such as Nancy Polosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, as well as compromising prelates such as Washington’s Archbishop Wuerl, have nothing to fear from the latest Apostolic Exhortation. The Pope’s statement about “non-negotiable” values loses all its force. Catholics around the world will continue to witness the scandal and sacrilege of free admission to the sacraments by “Catholic” politicians who flout Church doctrine and champion anti-Christ causes.
            In fact, none of the Apostolic Exhortation’s “exhortations” appear to be binding, since the document contains no threat of penalty against Catholic laity, priests or bishops who do not comply. An exhortation without a penalty is no law, it is merely a suggestion likely to be ignored. Already Archbishop Adrian Doyle of Hobart, Tasmania, who attended the bishops’ synod, said the Pope’s preference for Latin prayers “would be unlikely to change the celebration of Mass at parish level.”¹⁵ For the most part, it will be business as usual.

Inculturation and Intercommunion

            Part of the new synthesis includes an attempt to dignify trendy abuses that have cropped up since the Council. The Apostolic Exhortation says that the Kiss of Peace at Mass should remain, but it should be a dignified kiss of peace – keep the hand-shaking to those in your immediate area instead of rollicking around the church for a mini hug-fest. Likewise, the lay “offering of the gifts” is to remain, but should be a dignified lay offering of the gifts. God grant that we someday be given a Pope who abolishes these silly practices altogether.
            Some of the more troubling aspects of the document are its perpetuation of the abuse of “inculturation”, which is the incorporation of pagan and cultural elements into the liturgy – a favorite novelty of Pope John Paul II. Even more troubling is the extended permission for intercommunion with Protestants, albeit in an alleged “limited” manner.
            This is not  surprising, since Cardinal Ratzinger scandalized many when he administered Communion to the Protestant Roger Schutz of Taize at Pope John Paul II’s funeral Mass. This action was applauded by various Protestants, one of whom was a Lutheran who told United Press International that he too had received Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger.¹⁶ Nowhere in the document is found the solid Catholic teaching on this matter contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is forbidden to give Sacraments to heretics or schismatics who ask for them, even if they err in good faith, unless they first reject their errors and are reconciled to the Church” (Canon 731,2).¹⁷ This sound Catholic principle is eclipsed by Vatican II’s ecumenism.
            Again, we see the Hegelian “new synthesis” at work in the Apostolic Exhortation.

Vatican II: An Intended Break with Tradition

            In the present scheme of things, it is unrealistic to expect to receive a true assessment of the New Mass from today’s hierarchy. While any sincere step toward restoring sanity in liturgy, discipline and doctrine is welcome, the new synthesis that attempts to rescue Vatican II can only lead to further chaos and confusion. It is simply not accurate to regard Vatican II as “part of the unbroken .... unique tradition of the Church, and of her Faith,” since the whole purpose of the Council, in the minds of the progressivists who drafted the documents, was to wrench Catholics from a number of the Church’s perennial teachings, particularly the truth that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church established by Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation. The Protestantized new Mass, as well as Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, are based on this new ecumenical construct of Vatican II.
             Even Lumen Gentium, considered by many to be the most “orthodox” of all Vatican II documents, was purposely structured to house the Council’s new teachings on ecumenism. The Council’s Dei Verbum (along with all of the documents) deliberately avoided the “anti-Modernist” approach of St. Pius X. And the drafters of the Council texts deliberately avoided using scholastic terminology because it would have prevented them from giving Vatican II an ecumenical dimension. All of this was gleefully admitted by a young Father Joseph Ratzinger in 1966, who expressed full support of the new ecumenical approach.¹⁸
            Thus, while present-day Church leaders continue to search for their Hegelian new synthesis of modernism and Catholicism, we will adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has always been taught “in the same meaning and in the same explanation.”, as both Vatican I and the Oath Against Modernism command. We will likewise hold to the “received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments” to which all Catholics are bound to adhere.¹⁹

An Honest Look at the New Mass

            One of the means of staying grounded in the face of the destructive revolution is to recall the Ottaviani Intervention, the clear-sighted Critical Study of the New Mass by Cardinal Ottaviani and a group of Roman theologians. Here Cardinal Ottaviani rightly told Pope Paul VI that the New Order of Mass “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.”²⁰
            The Critical Study went on to explain that due to its point-for-point mirroring of the Protestant service, the New Mass “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.”
            As is repeatedly in CFN, Cardinal Ottaviani and the Roman Theologians were critiquing the New Order of Mass in the original Latin, that is, in its “purest form”; at its "best"! The Latinized Novus Ordo Mass that the new Apostolic Exhortation proposes is still the same Protestantized liturgy justly denounced by the Ottaviani Intervention.
            In fact, even before the Council, the “Liturgical Renewal” had taken a Protestant turn. In 1956, the progressivist liturgist Gerard Ellard S.J. wrote, ‘Now that Mass modifications are being rigorously studied by the scholars it becomes clear that the reform inevitably entails making some external aspects of the Mass more closely resemble non-Catholic worship; such changes will be hailed by our non-Catholic brethren.”²¹
            This Protestantization of the Mass was Paul VI’s intention. As quoted elsewhere in this issue, Jean Guitton, a close friend of Paul VI, said in a mid-1990 radio interview, “The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy — but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord's supper.... there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass – and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”²²
            In light of this Protestantization of the liturgy, Cardinal Ottaviani’s Critical Study reiterates the Catholic’s duty to adhere to Tradition:

“It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.”

            The choice for the Roman-Rite Catholic can only be the true Catholic liturgy that most perfectly expresses the Catholic Faith: the Latin Tridentine Mass.
            Finally, there is the observation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre whose single paragraph on the dangers of the New Mass is worth 100 times more than the Apostolic Exhortation’s ponderous 31,790 words.
            “Psychologically, pastorally, and theologically,” said Archbishop Lefebvre, “it is impossible for Catholics to give up a liturgy which is the true expression and stay of their faith, and adopt new rites conceived by heretics without exposing their faith to the gravest danger. It is not possible to imitate Protestants indefinitely without becoming one. How many of the faithful, how many young priests, how many bishops have lost their faith since these reforms were adopted? One cannot flout nature and faith and escape their vengeance.”²³