SELECTIONS BY PAULY FONGEMIE
Planting the Time-Bombs
... In [the] critique of the preparatory schemas, circulated in the name of
the Dutch hierarchy, there was praise only for the fifth schema - the one on the Liturgy.
This was described as "an admirable piece of work." [The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, R.
Wiltgen, New York, 1967, p. 23] Charles Davis, an English peritus who has since married and
left the Church, also found little to please him in the preparatory schemas. He explains that there was
a widespread lack of confidence in the seventy preparatory schemas with a total of nearly
three thousand pages. The only one he had a good word for was the one
on the liturgy "which fortunately was substantially satisfactory." [The Tablet, January 8, 1966, p. 33]
By an interesting coincidence, the schema
... which he found pleasing had been prepared by a commission dominated
by Rhine group bishops and periti
and, Fr. Wiltgen tells us, ''as a result, they had succeeded in
inserting their ideas in the schema
and gaining approval for what they considered a very acceptable
document." [Ibid., p. 23]
As a result of the election described in Chapter IV, the Rhine group
secured an immediate majority on the Conciliar Liturgical Commission. [Ibid., p. 18] Even the
solitary Asian representative obtained his place through the patronage
of the Rhine group as he had received his formal liturgical training
from two of its members. [Ibid.,
p. 35] In an introduction to the Liturgy Constitution in the
Abbott edition, Fr. C. J. McNaspy, S. J. remarks: "Father A. Bugnini
who had been secretary to the Commission set up by Pope Pius XII, was
happily made secretary of the Commission." [Abbott, p. 34] Fr. McNaspy did not mention the fact that
Fr. Bugnini had been dismissed from his post by Pope John XXIII, an
action this most tolerant of popes would not have taken without very
good reason (lo Specchio, June
29, 1969) [Emphasis in bold added here and infra.]
Xavier Rynne, in the best liberal tradition, is full of praise for his
fellow liberals. [Par. below]
The "model" liturgy Commission deserves all the credit possible for the
commendable way in which it handled the details of steering the measure
through. It was fortunate in having such vigorous progressives as
Cardinal Lercaro and Archbishop Hallinan of Atlanta, among its members,
and in being ably supported by a large number of equally
forward-looking experts including Father Frederick McManus of Catholic
University, Washington. D.C., and Godfrey Diekmann of the Benedictine
Abbey at Collegeville. Minn. ... the French liturgist Father Martimort
gave biblical credit to the six men who had insisted on the extensive
reforms called for by the majority of Council Fathers and rejected by
the standpatters in the Commission, saying: "Three there are who give
testimony in Heaven: Bishops Hallinan, Jenny, and Martin; and three
there are who give testimony on earth: Fathers Wagner, McManus and
Martimort." Thus neatly distinguishing between the bishops who did the
voting and the experts who prepared the texts (cf. 1 John 5:7-8). [The Second Session, X. Rynne,
London, 1964, p. 204]
Archbishop Hallinan was equally fulsome in his praise of the Commission
of which he was a member. The periti
assigned to it represented, he claimed, probably the finest
minds in the world today in terms of research, hard work, zeal,
experimentation, and - to make sure he had neglected no aspect of their
manifold talents - of "everything else"! The entire Commission "has
been open, it has been free, and it has certainly consisted of a group
of dedicated men." Open? Certainly;
to views and policies acceptable to the Rhine group. Free? Certainly;
free to implement policies acceptable to the Rhine group. Dedicated?
Certainly; but dedicated to what?
The Archbishop took particular pleasure in the fact that the
work done by the Liturgical Commission "was a real step toward the aggiornamento. This naturally is a
cause of confidence and satisfaction to us all."
The type of reform aimed at by the liberals was explained during the
debate by a German born missionary-bishop named Duschak. He wished for
an "ecumenical Mass" which should be stripped of what he termed
"historical accretions." [Wiltgen, p. 67] He wished for the rite, form,
language and gestures to be accommodated to the modern age. The
Mass should be said aloud, in the
vernacular, and facing the people.
Bishop Duschak admitted that none of
these ideas originated with the
people whom he served but he was sure that if put into practice they
would eventually accept them. [Wiltgen, pp. 38/39] In a
book written before the Council,
Archdeacon Pawley who was to be an Anglican observer, mentioned the
type of change he would like to see and which, from hints which had
been dropped, he thought quite likely to be implemented. These were:
(1) a demand for great concessions in the use of the vernacular, even
that the whole Mass may be said in it, (2) the introduction in some
form and in some circumstances of concelebration, large numbers of
priests gathered at, say, a clerical conference, and able to enjoy
together the benefits of a single Mass instead of having to celebrate
separately, (3) the abolition of the
introduction to Mass, the Judica
me, Deus, and the "Last Gospel," and (4) communion for the faithful in
both kinds. [An Anglican View
of the Varican Council, B.C. Pawley, New York, l962, p. 77]
It is worth repeating that this was written before the Council had
assembled!
It hardly needs pointing out how closely the suggestions made by Bishop
Duschak and Archdeacon Pawley coincide not simply with the liturgical
policies of the Protestant Reformers but with those enunciated by the
Masonic spokesmen cited in Chapter XII. They also accord very closely
with the suggestions for liturgical reform proposed by the Jansenist
Synod of Pistoia in 1786, and condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Bull
Auctorem fidei of 1794.
[Enchiridion Symbolorum,
Denzinger, pp. 1531-1533] The demand
for the liturgy to be adapted to
different ages and different peoples is one of the Modernist
propositions condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Gregis. He explains
that the Modernist concept of the evolution of worship - and for the
Modernist everything must be continually evolving - "consists in the
need
of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the
need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired
by usage." [p. 32] Dom Prosper Gueranger was possibly the
greatest of all
liturgists and in his book, Liturgical
Institutions, which appeared in
1840, he described what he termed as the "anti-liturgical heresy,"
certain characteristics which are common to all those who have tried to
undermine the Catholic faith by liturgical change. The type of change
suggested by Bishop Duschak, which has been implemented throughout the
Roman rite since the Council, has a great deal in common with this
"anti-liturgical heresy"- as will be made clear in a synopsis of the
relevant chapter in Dom Gueranger's book which is provided as Appendix
VII.
The progressive case was argued in the debates by such Cardinals
as
Frings, Dopfner, Lercaro, and, during the First Session, Cardinal
Montini. Any drastic changes in the structure or language of the Mass
were opposed by such conservatives as Cardinals Ottaviani, Browne,
Godfrey, Bacci, McIntyre, and Spellman and such prelates as Archbishop
Dante, Papal Master of Ceremonies, McQuaid, and de Castro Mayer.
Cardinal Godfrey, Cardinal Heenan's
predecessor as Archbishop of
Westminster, is deserving of special mention. He was far more
conservative than Cardinal Heenan and not only made his views known but
insisted on their being complied with. Had he not died in the winter
following the first session but remained to supervise the
implementation of the conciliar decrees he would certainly have
interpreted them strictly according to the letter of the Council rather
than its alleged "spirit." While, as this book has made clear, Cardinal
Heenan was well able to analyze a situation and detect what was wrong,
he tended to lack firmness in ensuring that it was put right. Cardinal
Godfrey "viewed the Vatican Council with great misgiving, and when his
auxiliary, Bishop Cashman, asked his leave to return to England, he
told him to stay because I need your 'non
placets' ("No" votes)." [The Tablet, February 21, 1976,
p. 184]
The question of Latin became a kind of shibboleth
separating conservatives and liberals. Cardinal Spellman wanted the
entire Mass as then celebrated in the Roman rite to be retained intact.
Cardinal Godfrey wanted the importance given to Latin increased. [Letters from Vatican City, X.
Rynne, New York, 1963, p. 101]
Cardinal Siri warned that it was
dangerous to multiply rites as this
left the door open to abuses and constituted a threat to unity. Even
the liberal Cardinal Montini was opposed to those parts of the Mass
pertaining to the priest in his capacity as celebrant (now known as the
"presidential prayers") ever being said in the vernacular. "When it is
a matter of the language used in public worship," he said, "think
seriously before you decide that those parts of the liturgy which
belong to the priest as such should be in any other language than that
handed down to us by our forebears; for, only thus will the unity of
the Mystical Body at prayer and the accuracy of sacred formularies
be maintained." [The Tablet, January 11, 1964, pp. 35/36] The Bishop of Leeds, in a broadcast over
Vatican
radio, urged "that no violent change be wantonly made which would cut
the Catholic people off from the immense heritage bound up with the
Roman liturgy. When you talk about the liturgy of the Mass, the
actions, gestures, words, you are touching the most sensitive and
vibrant nerve in the Catholic religion. We shall have to go very
carefully if we do make changes. So much of our personal life is bound
up with the Mass and with the Mass as we know it." [ Ibid., December 1, 1962, p.1167]
An argument upon which the
progressives set great store, and which they
have used frequently since the Councils is that as the Last Supper was
a vernacular celebration the Mass should be the same. ...
For all their much vaunted Biblical
scholarship it seems that there are at least some liberals who are
unaware that a major part of the Paschal liturgy was celebrated in
Hebrew, a language that was no more comprehensible to the ordinary Jew
in the time of Our Lord than is Latin to a contemporary Frenchman. This
is a fact which can be confirmed by referring to any competent exegetes
- not excluding Protestants. [J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 3rd
edition (SCM Press, 1966), pp. 85, 86, 196] Hebrew was also used
extensively in
the Synagogue service - in point of
fact Our Lord never attended a wholly
vernacular service in His life.". .. the Essène texts have shown us how
much Hebrew was in use as a lingua
Sacra.' " [Ibid.,
p. 197] Hebrew is still
used as
a liturgical language in Jewish worship. It is also worth noting that,
as He died, Our Lord was praying in a liturgical language - "Eli, Eli,
lamma sabacthani?" - The first words of Psalm 21, "not a cry of
despair
but, on the contrary, a hymn of supreme confidence in God despite
profound suffering." [Catholic
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures , London, 1953, p. 403 col.
1] As St. Matthew makes clear, some of the
bystanders did not understand Him and thought that He was calling upon
Elias (Matt. 27:47).
Xavier Rynne concedes that probably the majority of western prelates
thought that they were only authorizing the vernacular for the
catechetical or dialogue portion at the beginning of the Mass while the
principal parts would remain in Latin. [[Letters from Vatican City, X.
Rynne, New York, 1963, pp. 11/12] Indeed, the Fathers were
assured that this would be the case and it was on this understanding
that many of them voted for the Constitution. Fr. Clifford Howell,
probably England's best known progressive liturgist, has gone as far as
admitting that "it is known that the Council did not intend to include
the presidential prayers within the meaning of the phrase partes ad
populum spectantes (parts which
pertain to the people)." It was for
the "readings and prayers of the faithful and also, as local conditions
may warrant, for those items of the liturgy which pertain to the
people" that an optional concession allowing the use of the vernacular
was granted in article 54. The priest's (presidential) prayers were
excluded from the terms of article 54. "Those who drew up the
Constitution thought it wiser to make this exception as a concession to
conservative opinion." [The Tablet,
June 13, 1964, p. 660] But, as the next chapter will make clear, the
Constitution did not explicitly state that the priest's prayers,
including the Canon, could not be said in the vernacular. Cardinal
Heenan testifies that when the Fathers voted for the Constitution they
did not foresee "that Latin would virtually disappear from Catholic
churches." [The Tablet,
September 16, 1972, p. 893] He
further states that in the debate on the liturgy the
bishops were given the opportunity of discussing "only general
principles. Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by
Pope John
and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the
end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was
being planned by the liturgical experts." [A Crown of Thorns, Cardinal J.
Heenan, London, 1974, p. 367]
Archbishop R. J. Dwyer, writing of the euphoric spirit of the Fathers
on the day they voted in favor of the Constitution by 2,147 votes to 4,
comments with the sadness and wisdom of hindsight:
Who dreamed on that day that within a
few years, far less than a
decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it
would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought
of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of
the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off. [Cited
by Mgr. Dominico Celada, lo Specchio,
June 29, 1969]
Sufficient has now been written on
this particular point to justify a
claim that the Council Fathers were tricked on at least this one
particular point and that, for example, the vernacular Canon
constitutes a gross violation of their wishes. One prelate, who
fulfilled important functions during the Council, has expressed himself
very strongly on this matter:
I regret having voted in favor of the
Council Constitution in whose
name (but in what a manner!) this heretical pseudo-reform has been
carried out, a triumph of arrogance and ignorance. If it were possible,
I would take back my vote, and attest before a magistrate that my
assent had been obtained through trickery."
Fr. Louis Bouyer, an outstanding figure in the pre-conciliar
Liturgical Movement, claims that
in no other area is there a greater
distance (and even formal
opposition) between what the Council worked out and what we actually
have ... I now have the impression, and I am not alone, that those who
took it upon themselves to apply(?) the Council's directives on this
point have turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and
Pius Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add
some small contribution of my own. I do not wish to vouch for the
truth, or seem to, at any greater length of this denial and imposture.
If any are still interested, they may read the books I wrote on the
subject; there are only too many of these! Or better, they might read
the books of the experts I have just mentioned, on whom they have been
able to turn their backs ... [The
Decomposition of Catholicism, L. Bouyer, London, 1970, p. 99]
The examples cited in Chapter VI should indicate the type of "trickery"
used to induce all but four of the Council Fathers to cast their votes
in favor of the Liturgy Constitution.
Sufficient well concealed
"time-bombs" were inserted into the text to make possible precisely the
type of ecumenical Mass advocated by Bishop Duschak, a type of Mass
which would be more than warmly welcomed by Protestants. A selection of
their comments will be provided in the third book in this series. The
task of unearthing the time-bombs themselves will be undertaken in the
next chapter.
... The one ray of comfort as regards the Liturgy Constitution, and an
indication that the Holy Ghost has not abandoned the Church, lies in
the fact that "this promulgation would be disciplinary not doctrinal in
character, and as a consequence would not involve the Church's
infallibility." [The
Second Session, X. Rynne,
London, 1964, p. 297]
HOME
---------------------- TRADITION
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/v2-citations16.htm