November 1983 Print

Michael Davies

THE NEW CODE of Canon Law which comes into effect on the first day of Advent this year marks yet another stage in the history of Pope Paul's New Mass. The article which follows could be looked upon as Appendix VII to my book upon this topic. Canon 2 states that:

For the most part the Code does not determine the rites to be observed in the celebration of liturgical actions. Accordingly, liturgical laws which have been in effect hitherto retain their force, except those which may be contrary to the canons of the Code.

Canon 5(2) states that:

Customs apart from the law, whether universal or particular, which have been in effect hitherto, are retained.

The status of the Tridentine Mass as an immemorial custom thus remains unaffected. Every priest has the right to celebrate it, all the faithful have the right to be present.¹ These canons reflect similar legislation in the former Code.

The Eucharist as Sacrifice and Sacrament is defined in Canon 897:

The most venerable sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered, and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God's people is signified and brought about, and the building of the Body of Christ is perfected. The other sacraments and all the other apostolic works of Christ are bound up with, and directed to, the blessed Eucharist.

This is a good definition of the Eucharist, which is complemented by Canon 899:

The celebration of the Eucharist is an action of Christ Himself and of the Church. In it Christ the Lord through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, to God the Father, and gives Himself as spiritual nourishment to the faithful who are associated with Him in His offering.

This canon is clearly inspired by the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, certainly the most profound exposition of Catholic eucharistic teaching to appear during this century. I was particularly pleased to note the emphasis on the fact that the Mass is something which Christ does, and with which we have the privilege of associating ourselves. This doctrine is the very essence of the Mass, and a point upon which I laid very great emphasis on page one of my book, Pope Paul's New Mass. The entire thrust of the post-conciliar revolution is that the Mass is something that the congregation does, it is an action of the assembled people in its essence, rather than an action of Christ.

I am sure that traditional Catholics can take no little credit for the soundness of the eucharistic theology contained in the new Code. Most readers will remember that when the New Mass first appeared in 1969, it was preceded by a General Instruction which contained the notorious Article 7. This article defined the Mass in terms which would have proved acceptable to members of any Protestant sect:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them" (Mt. 18: 20).

It would be exaggerating to claim that this article was formally heretical. It does not deny specifically any dogma of the faith, but it is implicitly heretical in that it fails to state fundamental truths concerning the Eucharist. Its principal error lay in the fact that it gave the impression that the essence of the Eucharist is found in the coming together of the faithful, and not in the Real Presence of Christ Who is offered and received. It is possible to have a valid and lawful celebration of Mass without anyone present but the celebrant. Canon 906 states that although the participation of at least one of the faithful is normally required, a priest can celebrate Mass alone if there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.

Article 7 was condemned in the most forceful terms in the Ottaviani Intervention, and the reaction to this condemnation was one of the principal causes of the sad division of orthodox Catholics into conservatives and traditionalists. Conservatives and traditionalists both accept the defined teaching of the Church on faith and morals in its entirety, but they differ on the correct approach in upholding this teaching. Conservatives claim that we can never be justified in criticizing, let alone resisting, any teaching or legislation coming from the Holy See. Their reaction to the Ottaviani Intervention was to perform quite spectacular semantic and theological contortions to prove that Article 7 was a superb definition of the Mass which could have been drafted by St. Gregory the Great or St. Pius V. The traditionalist reaction was that the definition was so inadequate that it was unacceptable no matter who had drafted it, and even though the Pope had approved it.

It appears that what actually happened was that Pope Paul VI limited himself to examining the text of the New Mass and told Archbishop Bugnini, described by Dietrich von Hildebrand as "the evil spirit of the liturgical reform," to submit the General Instruction to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for examination. Archbishop (then Father) Bugnini failed to do this, and presented the Pope with a fait accompli. When the scandalous General Instruction was printed with the New Mass, and was rightly and widely condemned, Pope Paul wept with sorrow, shame, and anger. When the complete New Missal appeared in 1970, the conservative defenders of the original Instruction were somewhat disconcerted to find that it had been amended in dozens of instances. The Pope had had no alternative to ordering this, as the original Instruction had been totally indefensible. But, the conservatives did not remain disconcerted for long. These changes, they claimed, showed how right they were to express total confidence in the Holy See, which could be relied upon to defend orthodoxy. They conveniently glossed over the fact that they had claimed that the defective version of the General Instruction was satisfactory, and that, had the traditionalists not protested so vehemently, the Instruction might never have been amended. Sadly, the New Mass, drafted in the spirit of Article 7, remained virtually unchanged. As with the Instruction, the New Mass contains no formal heresies, but can be celebrated in such a manner that it fails to affirm clearly what needs to be affirmed, and is thus acceptable to Protestants. The mistake of Pope Paul VI in examining it, and the mistake of its conservative defenders, is to look for formal heresy, find none, and declare themselves satisfied. What they should do is to compare it with the Tridentine Mass, note what has been omitted, and consider the implications of these omissions.

The version of the General Instruction printed in the 1970 Missal was preceded by a foreword explaining exactly what the Holy See considered the Mass to be. I accented in my book, Pope Paul's New Mass, that this foreword made it absolutely clear that what the Holy See in 1970 meant by the Mass was precisely what the Council of Trent meant the Mass to be. Sadly, a number of what I would term "paranoid traditionalists" refused to accept this. They emulated their conservative counterparts and performed even more spectacular semantic and theological contortions to prove that the foreword did not do this. When he appeared before the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in January, 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre accepted that this foreword did express the teaching of the Council of Trent.

Canon 897 can thus be seen as the final chapter in this particular story. The Pope believes, teaches, and has incorporated into Canon Law the Eucharistic teaching of Trent, which is something which should make traditionalist Catholics rejoice. If the Magisterium was not teaching what Trent taught, then the promise made to St. Peter would be meaningless, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. The conflict between traditional Catholics and the Holy See is thus concerned not with what the Mass is, but whether the New Mass gives satisfactory liturgical expression to that reality. Our answer to this second question is and must remain a firm and unequivocal "no." This is certainly the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who refuses to make the slightest concession on this point. I am profoundly sorry that Volume II of the Apologia was not able to include the texts of his negotiations with the Vatican right up to 1983 when this could be made apparent, and prove the duplicity of those who claim that he is compromising. The Archbishop's fidelity to the Tridentine Mass will be made clear beyond any possible doubt in Volume III.

 

In persona Christi

One of the most insidious heresies circulating within the Church at present is the claim that, in a case of grave necessity where an ordained priest was not available, a Christian community could delegate one of its members to celebrate the Eucharist. This is the position of Father E. Schillebeeckx, and one for which we must hope that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will eventually condemn him. This Congregation has just issued a document confirming that only an ordained priest can celebrate Mass.

Some readers may have noted that Canons 897 and 899 do not include this teaching, but it is included in Canon 900: "The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a validly ordained priest."

A number of canons have clearly been prompted by abuses which are prevalent in the Conciliar Church. Canon 907 forbids deacons and laymen to say prayers reserved to the priest, particularly the Eucharistic Prayer; nor must they perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest. Canon 908 is an absolute prohibition on Catholic priests concelebrating the Eucharist with non-Catholic ministers. What a sad confirmation of the anarchy prevailing in the Church today that such a prohibition should be necessary! Similarly, Canon 909 reminds priests that they must make an adequate preparation before, and an adequate thanksgiving after, Mass. It is even found necessary to include a canon (929) instructing that clerics must wear the vestments prescribed by the rubrics when celebrating Mass!

Canons 910 and 911 will be regarded with mixed feelings by traditional Catholics. It affirms that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a bishop, priest or deacon, but confirms that a layman can act as an extraordinary minister in the case of necessity (in casu necessitatis). I have argued in my Angelus Press pamphlet, "A Privilege of the Ordained," that such a case of necessity could rarely, if ever, occur in the U.S.A. But the new Code fails lamentably to define such cases, and thus restrict the scandal of the extraordinary minister explosion in the U.S.A. In this respect, and it is a weakness in other areas of the Code, far too much is left to the discretion of the diocesan bishop. But it must be noted that in both the Latin and English texts, the term "extraordinary minister" is used, making it clear that such ministers are to be employed only under extraordinary circumstances. In the U.S.A. the term "extraordinary minister" is not used, it has been replaced by the term "lay minister," which is intended to give the impression that such ministers should be a normal feature of parish life.

 

Reverence for the Eucharist

Canon 898 states that Christ's faithful are to hold the Blessed Eucharist in the highest honor, that they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence It with the greatest adoration (summa cum adoratione). Pastors of souls are to assiduously instruct the faithful about their obligation in the this regard. Solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is recommended (c. 942), as is an outdoor Corpus Christi procession (c. 944).

The tabernacle is to be situated "in a distinguished place in the church or oratory" (c. 938). The Code does not recommend or even mention the tabernacle being on the high altar under normal circumstances; the former Code did so in canons 1268-9. This omission will delight bishops who have ordered the removal of tabernacles from the high altar, to be demoted to some obscure corner of the church. Bishop Sullivan of Kansas City, who has used armed police to ensure that this was done where parishioners objected, will certainly be delighted by this ambiguous canon. On the other hand, if this canon is interpreted strictly in accordance with Canon 2, which I have already cited, it could be argued that the tabernacle should normally be situated on the high altar.

 

Active Participation?

Those who have read my book Pope John's Council, may recollect my comments on "active participation" in the Mass (pp. 236-240). There is a Latin equivalent of the English word active, activus, but it was not used in the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II. The word it employs is actuosus. It is not easy to provide a precise English equivalent; indeed, there is no one word equivalent as actuosus denotes a concept, an attitude of mind. It implies a sincere, intense, interior participation in the Mass—which consists essentially of joining with the priest in offering the divine Victim and in offering ourselves with Him. This interior participation can be manifested appropriately by exterior gestures, joining in the prayers pertaining to the people, particularly in sung Masses. Some American traditionalists appear to believe that for the congregation to so much as sing the Credo is a manifestation of Modernism, whereas, in fact, St. Pius X wished the faithful to join the parts of the sung Mass not strictly reserved to the priest. This was the normal practice in such countries as France, Germany, and England long before Vatican II.

Unfortunately, the word actuosus has invariably been translated as "active," which has given the impression that the faithful must participate in the Mass in precisely the same way that they participate in a football match. They must leap up and down at frequent intervals, be as vocal as possible, and respond to the prompting of their liturgical cheerleaders. Canon 898 recommends that the faithful "actuosam in celebratione augustissimi Sacrificii partem habentes." This is translated in the official English version as the faithful "should take an active part in the celebration of the most august Sacrifice of the Mass." It is significant that the Vatican should have retained the term actuosus, but it seems inevitable that it will be translated invariably as "active."

Canon 909 reminds priests that he must not "omit dutifully to prepare himself by prayer before the celebration of the Eucharist, nor afterwards to omit to make a thanksgiving to God."

Canon 914 gives legal force to the regulation that First Confession must precede First Communion.

Canon 919 confirms the present discipline of a minimum abstention from food and drink before Holy Communion of one hour, except for water and medicine. Some traditionalist priests state that we must observe a three hour, or even a twelve hour abstention. They have no right whatsoever to do this. They can recommend these practices, indeed, it is to be hoped that they would do so. Canon 919 states that we must abstain for "at least" one hour, implying that a longer period is to be recommended. Canon 919 also ratifies the very strange ruling that not only the elderly and the sick are excused from fasting for one hour before receiving Holy Communion, but that those who care for them are accorded the same privilege.

Canon 528(20) commands that parish priests should be on their guard against abuses, another reflection of the state of the Church today.

Canon 933 makes very sad reading. It states that a priest can celebrate Mass in a non-Catholic Church "for a good reason, with the express permission of the ordinary, and provided scandal has been eliminated." I cannot understand what the purpose of this canon is, or what we are to understand by it. I know that in some places in England, Anglican ministers have allowed Catholic priests to use their churches for Mass in places where there was a significant number of Catholics but no Catholic church. In my own village in the sixties, I assisted at Mass in the Anglican vicarage, and the vicar eventually made his church available. I saw no harm in taking advantage of this offer as, in any case, these old churches rightfully belong to Catholics, having been stolen from us during the Protestant Reformation. The Masses were not ecumenical in any way, and only Catholics were present for them. I presume that eventually an official interpretation of this canon will be available. The greatest problem concerning the new Code is that there are no commentaries available, and pending authoritative interpretations, each canon lawyer must make his own interpretation.

The canon which disturbs me most is Canon 844. It begins by stating: (1) Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers. But this is qualified in (2) by permission to receive the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick from ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid "whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provide the danger of error of indifferentism is avoided, and it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister." Catholic priests are also permitted (3) to reciprocate in similar circumstances to members of churches where these sacraments are valid.

I could envisage such cases occuring only in danger of death. After all, under such circumstances we can have recourse to, say, a married ex-priest; and Orthodox priests are certainly validly ordained and capable of administering these sacraments validly. It is to be hoped that an authoritative and very restrictive interpretation of this canon will not be long in appearing. At present the question is entirely academic as the Orthodox Churches have refused to reciprocate in any way. They will not allow the Orthodox faithful to receive the sacraments from any one but an Orthodox priest, and they will not allow anyone who is not a full member of the Orthodox Church to receive the sacraments from their priests.

Even more disturbing is (4) of this canon. It authorizes these three sacraments to be administered even to Protestants in danger of death, or in the case of some other "grave and pressing need," providing they cannot approach a minister of their own communion, that they ask for them spontaneously, that they demonstrate the Catholic Faith in respect to these sacraments, and are properly disposed. It is certainly hard to see how these circumstances could ever apply in the U.S.A., even in danger of death it would be very strange if a Protestant could not ask for a minister of his own denomination, and stranger still if he asked for a Catholic priest to be brought to him to administer the three sacraments in question. If our hypothetical Protestant believes in these sacraments, why had he never asked to be a Catholic? My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that these sacraments can only be administered to someone outside the Church if he expresses a desire to become a Catholic, as King Charles II, England's "merry monarch," did upon his deathbed.

This has been no more than a preliminary look at the place of the Eucharist in the new Code of Canon Law. First impression are not always the most reliable. Mine is that it could have been very much better, but also that it could have been very much worse. Where we find it unsatisfactory or would like to have an authoritative ruling, the Code itself gives us this right to make our views known. Canon 212 (2) states:

Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

It also states in (3):

They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make known their views to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence the Pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

Thus, while we have no alternative but to accept the new Code as the official law of the Church, we have every right to ask that it should be amended or interpreted clearly where the good of the Church demands it. It is interesting to note that Canon 212 (3) can be considered as a charter for the existence and work of The Angelus!

 

---

1. See the Angelus Press pamphlet, "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass" for an explanation of the status of the Tridentine Mass as an immemorial custom.