Periti and Council - Holy Ghost

Rev. Rama Coomaraswamy

CREED AND CULT IN THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH
A STUDY IN AGGIORNAMENTO (part 7)

We knew that ultimately the Holy Ghost is the author of the traditional Mans; 'The most beautiful thing this side of heaven' as St. Alphonsus Liguori called it. According to the Council of Trent, the central part or Canon was composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs. Its current form, apart from two minor additions, dates back at least to the middle of the fourth century. Before that time historical records are sparse, for the Church was under persecution. However, as the Anglican historian Sir William Palmer states, 'there are good reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic age'. It was considered so sacred that early sacramentaries printed it in gold ink; mediaeval theologians referred to it as the 'Holy of Holies'. No wonder that Louis Bouyer once said that 'to jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the part of the Roman Church to represent the true Catholic Church'.

When we came to the Novus Ordo Missae, we also know its authors. Whole Paul VI was formally responsible, it was a Concilium of some two hundred individuals mostly drawn from the conciliar periti (or the periti were drawn from members of the Concilium which predated the Council) and headed by Archbishop Bugnini. And he was helped by six Protestant 'observers'whom Paul VI publicly thanked for their assistance in 're-editing in a new manner liturgical texts... so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi.. ' Are we to understand that in the old mass the lex orandi did not adequately conform to the lex credendi, or that the latter has been changed? Since when did the Church need the help or Protestants in formulating its rites? Considering the nature of those responsible, and despite its use of bland Scriptural phraseology, one can certainly question whether the Holy Ghost had anything to do with it.

According to the statements of Paul VI, it was created:
1) to bring the Church's liturgy into line with the modern mentality;
2) in obedience to the mandate of Vatican II;
3) to take cognizance of progress in liturgical studies;
4) for 'Pastoral' reasons.

1 and 2 are essentially the same. They are but ways of expressing the principle of 'Aggornaniamento', of bringing into the bosom of the Church the false and pseudo-intellectual concepts of Progress and Evolution and the Modern Scientist Outlook. As Paul VI said, 'if the world changes, should not religion also change... it is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the Council, undertaken so many reforms... (Gen. Audience July 2,1969). John Paul II also admits that the new rite 'is different from the one known before the Council' (D.C.). S w h statements alone would make the Novus Ordo Missae suspect for traditional Catholics.

As to 'progress' in liturgical studies, this is nothing but pure hypocrisy. The only liturgical document that has come to light since the time of Pius V is the Apostolic Traditions or Hippolytus. Now apart from the fact that we only have a reconstructed and partial version of the original document, this man was both a schismatic and an anti-Pope at the time he wrote. At the suggestion of Hans Kung, the Second Eucharistic Prayer was taken from this source, but it was rephrased to bring it into line with Protestant theology, and to such a degree that Father John Barry Ryan calls the result a 'new creation'. The only other ancient prayer incorporated into the Novus Ordo Missae is what Father Jungmann calls a 'reconstruction...' probably the very words used at the blessing of bread and wine in a Jewish meal at the time of Christ. It is indeed such, for anyone who has had the privilege of attending a Jewish Banquet is familiar with the phrase 'Blessed art thou O Lord, God of all creation...'

Paul VI's fourth reason for its introduction was 'Pastoral'. As far as I know, he never personally defined this term. In the 'double-speak' of the post-Conciliar Church just what does 'pastoral' mean? The answer can be found in a 'Letter to the Presidents of National Councils or Bishops concerning Eucharistic Prayers' sent out by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship: 'The reason why such a variety of texts has been offered (in the Novus Ordo), and the end result such new formularies were meant to achieve, are PASTORAL in nature: namely to reflect the unity and diversity of liturgical prayer. By using the various texts contained in the new Roman Missal, various Christian communities, as they gather together to celebrate the Eucharist, are able to sense that they themselves form the one Church, praying with the same faith, using the same prayer.' In other words, the 'pastoral intent' was and is to create a service that any Christian body can use - to foster that 'ecumenism' and 'unity' which it is the 'Internal Mission' of the new Church to foster.

Now the real issue is not whether the Novus Ordo Missae retained enough of its Catholic character to be acceptable to the faithful, but whether or not it satisfied its ecumenical intent - was it acceptable to the Protestants? Here the answer must be a resounding yes! Let us listen to the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Loraine, a major Lutheran authority. On December 8, 1973 they publicly acknowledged their willingness to take part 'in the Catholic Eucharistic celebration' because it allowed them to 'use these new Eucharistic prayers with which they felt at home'. And why did they feel at home with them? Because they had 'the advantage of giving a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION to the theology of the sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism.' In a similar manner, to mention but some, the Anglicans, the community at Taize, and the united Protestants of South India all find the new rite acceptable. As a French Protestant Theologian wrote:

'If one takes account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic liturgy or the Catholic Church, of the option or substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice and or the possibility of receiving Communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.'(Le Monde Sept.. 1970, quoted by Michael Davies in 'Liturgical Revolution')

Now there is something a little surprising in all this. Let us recall that the Anglicans officially consider the Catholic teaching on the Mass a 'blasphemous fable', and that the Lutherans clearly hold it as a point of doctrine that 'the Mass is not a Sacrifice' and that 'it is not the act of a Sacrificing priest.' Indeed Luther went so far as to say that 'all brothels, murders, robberies, crimes, adulteries are less wicked than this abomination of the Popish Mass' and that the Canon which many conservative Novus Ordo Catholics falsely believe to have been kept intact was 'a confluence of puddles of slimy water'.. Even more to the point, Luther said of his Novus Ordo 'call it benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's table, the Lord's supper, memory of the Lord, or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a sacrifice or an action.' How acceptable these alternative names for the Mass have become.

The 'Ottaviani Intervention' explains just why the new Mass is so acceptable to those who reject all belief in an immolative Sacrifices:

'The position of both priest and people is falsified and the celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister... By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary... The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated... It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.'

Periti Council

Hans Kung Holy Ghost