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