The Spirit of the Liturgy

Una Voce ^ | November 17, 2002 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[ultima ratio]

Una Voce Home News

Contact Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's The Sprit of the Liturgy Rites are not rigidly fenced off from each other. There is exchange and cross-fertilization between them. The clearest example is in the case of the two great focal points of ritual development: Byzantium and Rome. In their present form, most of the Eastern rites are very strongly marked by Byzantine influences. For its part, Rome has increasingly united the different rites of the West in the universal Roman rite. While Byzantium gave a large part of the Slavic world its special form of divine worship, Rome left its liturgical imprint on the Germanic and Latin peoples and on a part of the Slavs.

In the first millennium there was still liturgical exchange between East and West. Then, of course, the rites hardened into their definitive forms, which allowed hardly any cross-fertilization. What is important is that the great forms of rite embrace many cultures. They not only incorporate the diachronic aspect, but also create communion among different cultures and languages. They elude control by any individual, local community, or regional Church. Unspontaneity is of their essence. In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the "Divine Liturgy", expressing thereby the liturgy's independence from human control.

The West, by contrast, has felt ever more strongly the historical element, which is why Jungmann tried to sum up the Western view in the phrase "the liturgy that has come to be". He wanted to show that this coming-to-be still goes on — as an organic growth, not as a specially contrived production. The liturgy can be compared, therefore, not to a piece of technical equipment, something manufactured, but to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.

In the West there was, of course, another factor. With his Petrine authority, the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation, thus providing a juridical authority for the continuing formation of the liturgy. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.

In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. Here again, as with the questions of icons and sacred music, we come up against the special path trod by the West as opposed to the East. And here again is it true that this special path, which finds space for freedom and historical development, must not be condemned wholesale. However, it would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental intuitions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends — we shall have to repeat this frequently — on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).

Let us ask the question again: "What does 'rite' mean in the context of Christian liturgy?" The answer is: "It is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church's identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action." Rite makes concrete the liturgy's bond with that living subject which is the Church, who for her part is characterized by adherence to the form of faith that has developed in the apostolic Tradition. This bond with the subject that is the Church allows for different patterns of liturgy and includes living development, but it equally excludes spontaneous improvisation. This applies to the individual and the community, to the hierarchy and the laity. Because of the historical character of God's action, the "Divine Liturgy" (as they call it in the East) has been fashioned, in a way similar to Scripture, by human beings and their capacities. But it contains an essential exposition of the biblical legacy that goes beyond the limits of the individual rites, and thus it shares in the authority of the Church's faith in its fundamental form. The authority of the liturgy can certainly be compared to that of the great confessions of faith of the early Church. Like these, it developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000), pp. 164-167).

Posted 17 November 2002/sl

[ultima ratio]

First read Gamber. Read Ratzinger. I have said no less than they. I have never denied the new Mass is valid. But the Novus Ordo is harmful to the faith because it suppresses Catholic doctrines and weakens the faith of Catholics generally. How many times must I say this?

[ultima ratio]

Of course there's a power struggle--that's a given. We are in a war right now.

[Loyalist]

Perhaps this is the point the self-styled knee-jerk papal loyalists need to grasp:

Investing absolute power in any office actually weakens its authority, because the officeholder can not only undo any and all of the acts of his predecessor, but also have any and all of his acts undone by his successors.

Private judgment actually gives the Protestant adherent, and his pastors, more power over their traditions and doctrines than the Pope has over Catholic tradition and doctrine.

They can create all of theirs ex nihilo from the Bible or other sources without reference to anything or anyone else, if they want, because their private judgment is absolute.

In the absence of an authority with the ability to judge competing claims, it is little wonder Protestantism has experienced so many doctrinal schisms.

What the knee-jerk papal loyalists are claiming for the Pope--absolute control not only over the interpretation but also the substance of doctrine--is what every Protestant claims for himself.

While this may in the short term strengthen the power of a particular Pope, it actually weakens the authority of the office over the long term.

[ultima ratio]

To begin with, the old Mass is explicit in what is intended in the liturgy. The priest speaks to God the Father, offering up to Him the Spotless Host, about to be made Christ's own sacrifice to the Father in expiation for our sins. You should know that Luther hated the Offertory. It was the first thing he eliminated, after he had turned the altars around to face the people. It was the beginning of his destruction of the ancient Mass--just as today.

Here is part of the prayer in the Old Mass: "Accept, O Holy Father, almight and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting." It goes on to mention four times the sacrifice about to take place. We ask God to accept the sacrifice for the glory of His Name, we offer the chalice of salvation participating in Christ's redemption for our sins, and ask for the intercession of the saints.

In place of the Offertory, the Novus Ordo has placed the Jewish Berekoth, which is the Jewish grace-before-meals, word-for-word. It is a prayer of thanksgiving. There is no sense of sinfulness--on the contrary, there is the sense of entitlement--and it sets the tenor for something other than a sacrifice: the Paschal meal. The emphasis is Protestant therefore, a memorial meal service similar to the Lutheran or Methodist Lord's Supper worship service. The sacrificial features have either been disguised in some places or else eliminated altogether. The entire focus has shifted away from an offering to God of Christ's Real Body and Blood in expiation for our sins--to Christ's virtual presence in the assembly which is a virtual celebration of ourselves and the Christ in us.

[RobbyS]

And how often must I say that nothing in writing can do anything. There is nothing in Novus Ordo itself that is subversive of Catholic doctrine. The way it was implemented did confuse Catholics, did undermine their faith in their priests, who suddenly revealed themselves to be iconoclasts.

[RobbyS]

The emphasis is Protestant therefore, a memorial meal service similar to the Lutheran or Methodist Lord's Supper worship service. The average Methodist minister takes great care not to have services that are like the mass. I don't know which services you have attended, but the ones I have attended follow an order of service that has not the slightest hint of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The use of grape juice and ordinary bread seems to be the norm.

[Desdemona]

I don't know which services you have attended, but the ones I have attended follow an order of service that has not the slightest hint of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The use of grape juice and ordinary bread seems to be the norm.

True - to an extent. As I understand it, each pastor is given perogative as to the rubrics of their service. Every now and then I have to sit through it at the church where I work. There's no majesty or reverence involved and no logical order. It's all very informal. At least in the NO Mass, there is reverence (hopefully), if nothing else.

[RobbyS]

If you look at the "book" one would expect something like a low church episcopal service. I have yet to see one (My wife is Methodist, by the way).

[Desdemona]

Yet to see what, low church Episcopal?

The church where I work is Presbyterian. And very much on the liberal side of Presbyteriansim. It's really more of a social club and service can be an anything goes affair. Last week, at the children's sermon, we (three of the section leaders and the kids) did a piece called "The Daniel Jazz". I hope to heaven this never happens at Mass. I'll tell you as long as this stuff happens and I go to Mass at a church which uses more of the old than the "new", it's not confusing and I can keep the job separated from worship.

[RobbyS]

Yet to see one that looked like the low episcopal service in the Episcopal service in my home town.

[ultima ratio]

Read the text. It is identical to the Novus Ordo in great part. The care not to have services like the Mass works in only one direction, by the way. Novus Ordo liturgists take great great care to have services as much like the Protestant Lord's Supper as possible--even to the point of utilizing Protestant hymns and presenting homilies citing the spiritual wisdom of Martin Luther rather than the saints (the last Novus Ordo I ever attended did this).

[RobbyS]

If you are talking about the Methodists, their ministers generally follow an order of service that is similar to that used by Baptists and Presbyterians. I see no resemblence at all to the mass. As to the Lutherans, those who believe in the Real Presence have a service that was not much different from the old low maass, except they used the vernacular. Among those who do not, the tone is much more like a Methodist or Presbyterian service.

[ultima ratio]

Nothing in the Novus Ordo is subversive? Give me a break. Christ Himself is actually present on the altar and the rubrics eliminate genuflections and prohibit kneeling? That is not subversive of the doctrine of the Real Presence? The words "Mystery of faith" are removed from the act of Consecration and made instead to refer to something other than the change of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. This is not subversive? Christ is actually and truly present on the altar and all the priest has to say about it is, "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ WILL COME again"? He's right there on the altar, for heaven's sake--and all the priest does is deflect our attention from the IMMENSITY of this fact by inviting us to consider his Second Coming. Everything about the Mass is wrong, wrong, wrong and reeks of non-belief. The old Mass makes it clear that Christ is THERE, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and it makes it clear the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary. The new Mass has the priest consecrating the bread and wine--and then totally ignoring Our Lord's presence so that the community can proceed in its self-worship and self-praise. It's actually a Mass for non-believers, all about the assembly and how wonderful it is. Almost everybody goes to communion--because everyone is automatically deemed worthy. No one who believes in the Real Presence can bear such indifference to Christ's presence as is shown by the Novus Ordo rite. It is profoundly subversive of the Catholic faith.

[RobbyS]

You complain about "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again?" Our Lord is indeed pressnt but under the form of bread and wine. Now we see him with the eyes of faith, but then we shall see him with the eys of flesh.

[ultima ratio]

Look, if you don't see the absurdity of this, then we might as well quit right here. What is "will come" doing in this context? Why has this pronouncement become the "Mystery of Faith" instead of the change of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood--as in the old Mass where it is clearly presented as such? If you don't see the anomaly of this, you might as well admit your lack of faith in the Real Presence--as the modernists obviously do. Is it any wonder that a generation has grown up without belief in this doctrine? In the old Mass bells are rung to alert the faithful to this tremendous event. People then adore the Sacred Host as it is elevated. Which is why we once had Benedictions as well. Which was why we once had Holy Hours. Which was why we once had visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Now it is communion in the hands, no kneeling for communion, words which deflect attention, and a tabernacle that is shunted-aside. Is it any wonder that teenagers rise for the Eucharistic Prayer with their hands in their pockets, showing no more faith in the Real Presence than Protestants? This has been a systematic suppression of a major doctrine of the Catholic faith by those who no longer believe in it. If they did, they would institute rubrics which corresponded to that belief. But it is otherwise--not only in the text and in the rubrics of the New Mass, but in the overwhelming silence on the doctrine from Rome and the bishops. The Vatican showed no alarm over the Gallup poll of '92 which indicated two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believed in the Real Presence. It instituted no further studies, no special devotions, no teachings or warnings or encyclicals to pastors. Nothing. This is not a papacy that has been dutifully protective of the deposit of faith.

[St.Chuck]

Look, if you don't see the absurdity of this, then we might as well quit right here.

Yes, there is absurdity alright. Quitting is an excellent suggestion.

[ultima ratio]

Glad you agree with me.

[RobbyS]

The reason why so many Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence is because they have not been taught it by their priests. The "stripping of the altars" is only symptomatic of the change in teaching and the new teaching is not liberal Protestantism but something else entirely. I would put much more stress on the failure of the bishops and priests to support the encyclical on birth control. But how could they? They --many of them--had been telling us for ten years or more that the teaching was outdated. When Bill Brennan--that yellow bastard(may he rot in hell)--went against the abortion law, he already knew that the Catholic Church in the United States was already split on the issue and that the general anti-Catholicism of the rest of the country was enough to enable the Court to ignore what the bishops SAID.

[ultima ratio]

Catholics are not taught this doctrine by their priests because is because their priests are modernists like their bishops. The reason the bishops have gotten away with such widespread apostasy, is because Rome has not been interested in disciplining them.