Disobedience to Vatican II

Thus, if a congregation objects to the removal of the tabernacle from the high altar, to be thrust into some obscure corner where it will not offend Protestant visitors who drop in for the occasional ecumenical sing-song, they will be told that they are "disobedient to the Council," when, in fact, there is not one word in any document of Vatican II which so much as hints that such an outrage should be perpetrated.

Time will permit me to discuss only the changes in the rite of Mass, not the changes in the entire complex of services which we describe as the Roman Rite. The Council Fathers ordered no more than a moderate revision of the rite of Mass, one which would have left it largely as it was before, and to which no reasonable person could have taken exception. Archbishop Dwyer of Portland admitted that when the Council Fathers voted for the Liturgy Constitution they had no idea of the manner in which it would actually be interpreted: "The thought of it would have horrified us," he remarked, "but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off." The good Archbishop had ceased laughing long before he died.

What, then, did the Liturgy Constitution actually order? We need to be clear about this if we are going to discuss disobedience to the Council. The Council ordered that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." Here is something I would like you to do. Take a missal containing the Tridentine Mass. Read through the Order of Mass and compare it with the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Look at the innovations, examine carefully what has been removed, what has been added-----then, at each change, ask yourself this question: "Did the good of the Church genuinely and certainly require this innovation?" Remember, we are considering at this moment one thing and one thing only-----disobedience to the Council. I am not concerned here whether such and such an innovation was eventually made official by receiving Vatican approval. Let us fix our minds upon one point and one point only-----that the Council ordered that no innovations must be made unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.

Let me put a few questions to you which might be helpful in the examination I have suggested. Read through the psalm Judica me at the beginning of Mass. The psalm Judica me-----those words mean something to every adult here. What memories they bring back, what associations they revive of piety and devotion. For many years I served the early morning Mass in my parish church. "Introibo ad altare Dei," said the priest. "Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam," I answered, as servers were answering all over Britain, and would answer that day in countless churches throughout the world as the sun rose, from the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe to the most humble mission station in the jungle of Burma; as servers had answered at the beginning of each new day throughout the centuries, long before Columbus discovered your country. "Introibo ad altare Dei," said the priest: "I will go to the altar of God." That was what being a priest was all about, going to the altar of God each day to offer a solemn Sacrifice for the living and for the dead, for himself and for his people. If you had asked a priest to define his vocation before the Second Vatican Council he would almost certainly have done so within the context of the Mass. On the day of  his Ordination, the bishop had said to him, "Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass for the living and dead in the name of the Lord." There is now a new rite of Ordination which does not contain these words. And the priest no longer begins Mass by telling us that he is going to the altar of God, which is, perhaps, only fitting as usually all he will do is stand behind what the great Welsh martyr, St. Richard Gwynn, called in his own language, a "trestyl trist"-----a "miserable table." I will return to the subject of this miserable table later, but for the moment I must try not to digress too far from the one point upon which I have asked you to fix your minds, the fact that the Second Vatican Council commanded that no innovations must be made unless genuinely and certainly required by the good of the Church.

Well, do you think that the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required that we should break with a tradition of a thousand years or more and cease beginning Mass with the beautiful psalm Judica me? Has it made Catholics today more devout than their parents were? Are their children more committed to the Faith than young Catholics were before the changes? I wonder, I just wonder. If you do not think that the good of the Church certainly required the abolition of this psalm then someone has been disobedient to the Council. Who is it? The Council ordered that any changes should express more clearly the holy things which the rite of Mass signifies. I cannot think of a single innovation, no, not one, that does this. The Mass is a Sacrifice, a solemn and awesome Sacrifice, one which should fill us with reverence, holy fear, and wonder. If anyone thinks that the innovations to which we have been subjected really make this more clear than the Old Mass did, then I would like them to explain just how!

Let us call to mind briefly a few more of the innovations. Was that impressive double Confiteor which followed the Judica me a cause of spiritual atrophy? Did kneeling at the Incarnatus est in the Creed harm the cause of doctrinal orthodoxy at a time when the dogma of the Incarnation is under attack from a resurgent and all pervasive Modernism? Were those sublime and specifically sacrificial Offertory prayers causing millions to lapse? Was the Last Gospel alienating youth? If you answer "no" to these questions you must ask yourselves, just who is disobedient to the Council?
The Council ordered that Latin should remain the norm in the Latin Rite. Has it? Of course it hasn't! Who then is disobedient to the Council? The Council ordered that the treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and cultivated with great care. Has it been? Of course it hasn't! Is much Palestrina, Monteverdi, Lassus, Schubert or Mozart heard in the average parish church today? Of course it isn't! Do the words Panis Angelicus, Adora te, Lauda Sion, Dies Irae, Tantum ergo, or even Dominus vobiscum, mean anything at all to the children in your local Catholic high school? Of course they don't-----if you doubt my word, go out and ask some of them. Look at the blank expressions you will see upon their faces, the bewilderment in their eyes. They would probably take a step away from you, afraid that you are some sort of kook using obscene words in a foreign language. It is these children who are the real victims of the revolution. You are all suffering from it, you feel deprived of the incomparable spiritual heritage of the Latin liturgy which you once knew, but at least you once knew it. You are unhappy because of what you have lost. The Catholic teenager today cannot regret what he has never known, but would you change places with him? Of course you wouldn't. These young people have been deprived of the birthright bequeathed to them not simply by immemorial tradition but by the Second Vatican Council itself. Who then is disobedient to the Council? I suggest that it is those who have defied the Council and deprived them of this birthright. I am sure that you will agree with me.

The Council ordered that Gregorian Chant should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Is it given pride of place in your parish, or the next parish, or the next parish to that? I doubt it. If it is, then your pastor is an heroic exception to the norm today. Thank God for him and pray that the good Lord will prolong his days. Search the documents of Vatican II as diligently as you can. I challenge anyone to find one word suggesting that altars should be replaced by tables, Mass should be said facing the people, Communion given in the hand, or that extraordinary ministers of Communion should be used. Bear this in mind when you hear your bishop fulminate about a priest who says the Tridentine Mass for a group of Catholics who have had as much of the liturgical revolution as they can take. Bear it in mind, particularly when such a bishop allows the use of altar breads which are not of the traditional round host shape, as the Vatican demands they should be, or, worst of all, allows altar breads to be made from material which makes them cake rather than bread, and means that the Masses in which they are used are invalid. ³ And to cap it all, Mass stipends are taken from the faithful for such celebrations where, in fact, no Mass takes place. If we are going to talk about disobedience, let's set the question in its proper context.

Here's a particularly interesting instruction of the Council. Has this command been obeyed? See what you think.

In faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve and foster them in every way.

Well, do you think that the Roman Rite has been preserved and fostered in every way? If you answer "no" then someone has definitely been disobedient to the Council. Let me quote a French priest, a man whose credentials would be considered as good as they possibly could be within the context of the Conciliar Church. I am talking about Father Joseph Gelineau, S.J. He was one of the experts who advised the Council Fathers on the liturgy. He remained in Rome to advise the committee which concocted the New Mass, and since its promulgation has been in the vanguard of the corps of liturgical commissars charged with its enforcement. Many of those in authority in the Church today claim that there is no significant difference between the Tridentine Mass and the New Mass. I hope that you learn more about British history in America than we in Britain learn about American history, and that you will therefore have heard about the Duke of Wellington who won the Battle of Waterloo. The Iron Duke, as he was called, was approached by a man one day who said; "Mr. Smith, I believe," "If you believe that," replied the Iron Duke, "you will believe anything." That is the reply that I would give to someone like the Canadian Cardinal, Emmet G. Carter, who claimed that there is virtually no difference at all between the pre-and post-conciliar rites of Mass, and challenged anyone to debate him on the subject. I wrote him a very polite letter accepting his challenge, but he didn't reply. I have noticed that bad theology and bad manners often go together. But let us return to Father Gelineau. He is a different kettle of fish who, if I may mix my metaphors, does not beat about the bush but gets right down to the "nitty -gritty." He makes no attempt to hide the true nature of the New Mass from us. I quote:

To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.

The rite of Mass as you knew it until the post-conciliar revolution began in about 1965 was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the influence of the Holy Ghost which lasted for fifteen hundred and seventy years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, it had reached as near perfection as anything upon this earth can ever be. Father Faber described it as "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven."