|
The
Catholic Sanctuary
and the Second
Vatican
Council
by
Michael
Davies
Protestant
Hatred of the
Mass
and Smashing of
the
Altars
Before examining what Vatican II
mandated
concerning the sanctuary, reference must be made to a widespread
abandonment
of the eastward celebration of the Eucharist which took place 400 years
before this Council was convoked. This was a step taken by the
Protestant;
Reformers in the sixteenth century. The use of the word "Reformers" for
these people is certainly a misnomer. In reality, they were not
reformers,
but revolutionaries of the first order-----men
out
to overthrow the existing religion and replace it with one which they
had
fabricated themselves on the grounds that it conformed to the teaching
and practice of primitive Christianity.
The Protestant Reformers were united
in abolishing
the eastward celebration of the Eucharist because they understood,
quite
correctly, that the eastward direction signified sacrifice, and the
denial
of the sacrificial nature of the Mass was an axiom upon which the
entire
Protestant heresy was based. Martin Luther regarded the concept of any
true sacrifice in the Mass as an abomination, and he expressed his
viewpoint
in the forceful manner for which he was noted:
It is
indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built,
with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its
altars,
its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot
fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls. [Martin
Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p.
220.]
This viewpoint is
put even
more forcefully by John Hooper, the Anglican Bishop of Gloucester in
the
reign of Edward VI [1547- 1553]:
I believe and confess that the
popish Mass
is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist, and a
forsaking of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that is to say, of his
death
and passion; and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which
hideth
and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; and therefore ought the
Mass to be abolished and the holy supper of the Lord to be restored and
set in its perfection again. [J. Hooper, Later Writings (Cambridge:
Parker Society, 1852), p. 32.]
Because Protestants believed the
Mass to be
a sacrifice of Antichrist, they did indeed abolish it, replacing it
with
a communion service, a mere meal, a Lord's Supper in which Our Lord is
present only in the minds of the congregation. The Real Presence was
replaced
by a Real Absence.
In order to eradicate any memory of
the hated
Mass from the minds of the faithful, the Reformers resolved to
obliterate
every vestige of it from their communion services and from the
sanctuaries
in which the Sacrifice had been offered for centuries. The program of
Thomas
Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of the
puppet
boy-king Edward VI [1547-1553], has been summarized perfectly by Dr.
Eamon
Duffy in his recent and remarkable book, The
Stripping of the Altars. This book has been universally
acclaimed
as a classic of historical research, and all who read it have been
struck
by the fact that it could be describing what has happened throughout
the
Catholic world since the Second Vatican Council. Dr. Duffy writes:
At the heart of the Edwardine
reform
was the necessity of destroying, of cutting, hammering, scraping, or
melting
into a deserved oblivion the monuments of popery, so that the doctrines
they embodied might be forgotten. Iconoclasm was the the central
sacrament
of the reform, and, as the programme of the leaders became more radical
in the years between 1547 and 1553, they sought with greater urgency
the
celebration of that sacrament of forgetfulness in every parish in the
land.
The church wardens' accounts of the period witness a wholesale removal
of the images, vestments, and vessels which had been the wonder of
foreign
visitors to the country, and in which the collective memory of the
parishes
were, quite literally, enshrined. [E. Duffy, The Stripping of the
Altars
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 480.]
THE SMASHING OF ALTARS
The replacement of altars by tables
was the
first objective of the English Protestants, and this was fully in line
with what had taken place in continental Europe. Calvin taught that
since
Christ has accomplished His sacrifice once and for all, God "hath given
us a table at which we are to feast, not an altar upon which any victim
is to be offered: he hath not consecrated priests to offer sacrifices,
but ministers to distribute the sacred banquet." [J. Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion, Book IV, xviii, n. 12 (London, 1838),
Vol.
II, p. 526.] This was of course a direct contradiction of the
traditional
Christian teaching, handed down from the Apostles, that the Eucharist
is
a sacrifice-----the renewal of the one Sacrifice
of
Calvary-----as well as a sacred banquet. In the
New
Testament St. Paul uses the term "altar" [Heb. 13: 10] as well as the
term
"table of the Lord" [1 Cor: 1: 21] when referring to the Holy Eucharist.
On November 24, 1550, the King's
Council ordered
the destruction of all the altars throughout the kingdom. In the future
the "Lord's Supper" was to be celebrated on a table covered with a
cloth
of linen. [P. Hughes, The Reformation in England, Vol. II
(London,
1950), p. 121.] The most notorious altar-smasher in England and Wales
was
Nicholas Ridley, the Anglican Bishop of London. A letter sent to Ridley
by the Council in the name of the King included certain "Reasons why
the
Lord's Board should rather be after the form of a Table than an Altar."
Among the reasons given were the following:
First, the form of a table
shall more
move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto
the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make
sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon.
[Thomas Cranmer, Works, Vol. II (Cambridge: Parker Society,
1846),
pp. 524-525.]
A descendant of Bishop Ridley
states,
in a biography of his reforming ancestor, that the destruction of the
altars
was considered as sacrilege by the ordinary people and shocked them
into
a realization of the full extent of the revolution which had taken
place.
J. G. Ridley writes:
The removal of altars brought
home to
every subject in the kingdom that the central object which had stood in
the churches for over a thousand years, and which they had watched with
awe every Sunday since their early childhood, was condemned as
idolatrous
and thrown contemptuously away by adherents of the new religion which
had
been forced upon them. [J. G. Ridley, Nicholas Ridley (London,
1957),
pp. 218- 219.]
How sad it is that countless
Catholic
bishops in our time have emulated Nicholas Ridley and thrown away
contemptuously
the altar which the faithful of their dioceses have watched with awe
every
Sunday since their early childhood. Commenting on the destruction of
the
consecrated altars of the Christian sacrifice throughout England and
Wales,
Fr. T. E. Bridgett writes:
Wherever church
wardens' accounts
exist, we find entries similar to this of Burnham in Buckinghamshire:
"Payd
to tylars for breckynge downe forten (14) awters in the cherche." It is
only from such scraps of history that we can rebuild and repeople in
imagination
the interior of the desolate old churches where countless Masses were
once
offered. [T. E. Bridgett, C.S.S.R., A History of the Eucharist in
Great
Britain (London: Bums & Oates, 1908), p. 63.]
Is it not heartbreaking that
since the
Second Vatican Council, in countless churches and cathedrals, there are
entries in the accounts stating that vast sums of money have been spent
in destroying beautiful altars on which countless Masses have been
offered?
DESTRUCTION OF ALTARS, DESTRUCTION
OF THE
LITURGY
The rite of Mass which had once been
celebrated
in the devastated sanctuaries was destroyed by the Protestant Reformers
as ruthlessly and totally as the altars upon which it was celebrated.
The
sublime Latin prayers of the traditional Mass, which dated back to the
sixth century and beyond, into the mists of antiquity, were replaced by
an English service from which every specifically sacrificial prayer
had been removed. Because the Mass is a
solemn
sacrifice offered to God by the priest in the person of Christ, many of
the prayers----- addressed directly to God----- had been spoken inaudibly. The Protestant
Lord's Supper
was not
a mystical sacrifice, a mystery, but a meal and a service of prayers
and
instruction, so it was mandated that every word spoken was to be heard
by all the people.
Communion on the tongue was replaced by
Communion
in the hand to make it clear that the bread received was ordinary bread
and that the minister who distributed it was an ordinary man, not a
priest.
Communion under one kind was replaced by Communion under both kinds,
because
in every meal there should be both food and drink. Above all, the
never-to-be-sufficiently-execrated
eastward position of the celebrant at Mass was to be abandoned forever.
One of the most
appalling
consequences of the change from a Latin to a vernacular liturgy was
that
it cut the Catholic people off completely from the entire liturgical
and
musical heritage of Western Christendom. Dr. Eamon Duffy comments:
The
switch from Latin to English immediately rendered obsolete the entire
musical
repertoire of cathedral, chapel, and parish church. Not least of the
shocks
brought on by the Prayer Book at Whitsun 1549 must have been the
silencing
of all but a handful of choirs and the reduction of the liturgy on one
of the greatest festivals of the year to a monotone dialogue between
curate
and clerk. [Duffy, op. cit., p. 465.]
Has not this
also happened
today? At a time when young people in the West are flocking to record
shops
to buy compact discs by the million of our Gregorian musical heritage,
that heritage has been banished from almost all the Catholic churches
in
the English-speaking world-----despite the fact
that
Vatican II mandated it as the norm for sung Masses. ["Constitution on
the
Sacred Liturgy," Art. 116]. One wonders why so many bishops claiming to
be loyal to the Council do not obey it in this important matter.
The Reformation in England by
Msgr.
Philip Hughes is the most authoritative account of the English
Reformation
yet written. Msgr. Hughes proves beyond any doubt that the faith of the
Catholic people was destroyed primarily by liturgical changes, and he
insists
Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer was a prime instrument in this
destruction:
Once these new sacramental
rites had
become the habit of the English people, the substance of the doctrinal
reformation, victorious now in northern Europe, would have transformed
England also. All but insensibly, as the years went by, the beliefs
enshrined
in the old, and now disused, rites, and kept alive by these rites in
men's
minds and affections, would disappear-----without
the need of any systematic missionary effort to preach them down.
[Hughes, op. cit., p. 111.]
Monsignor
Hughes is
referring here to a principle fundamental to every form of liturgy: Lex
orandi, lex credendi-----"The law of
prayer
is the law of belief." This means that the manner in which people pray
will determine what they believe. As Msgr. Hughes has explained, when
the
traditional Latin liturgical rites were replaced by new vernacular
services,
when the altars were replaced by tables, and when the celebrant turned
to face the people, then almost imperceptibly, as the years passed by,
the people, who were praying as Protestants, began to believe as
Protestants.
HOME-------------------------------ROMAN MASS
www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/sanctuary2.htm
|