Barbarians Have Taken Over Part IV

Part IV

Michael Davies

- Part I -                - Part II -                - Part III -

In Part IV of his series, Michael Davies provides us with the documentation to answer the question raised in the first article which appeared in our February issue, i.e., was Msgr. Vincent Kearney of Christ the King Parish in Kansas City, Missouri, disobeying any valid Church law in refusing to remove the tabernacle from the high altar of his church? In order to evaluate the evidence, our readers will need to pay close attention to extracts from a series of documents which are sometimes confusing—intentionally so! They will find the effort well worth while.

IN THE APRIL Angelus we examined the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council to discover what mandatory legislation it incorporated concerning the rearrangement of the sanctuary. We found that the Constitution itself did not order that any change whatsoever should be made in any existing sanctuary. The possibility of Mass being celebrated facing the people is not so much as hinted at; there is thus not even a suggestion that altars should be freestanding to make such a celebration possible. Where the tabernacle is concerned, there is not even the hint of a suggestion that it should be torn from its place of honor upon the high altar and demoted to a position of lesser honor. We can thus state with absolute certainty that not one of the changes made in Catholic sanctuaries can be justified as an act of obedience to the Second Vatican Council. We also noted that Article 124 of the Constitution recommended that any new churches built should be designed with a view to encouraging the active participation of the faithful; not a word was said on the subject of adapting existing churches. But Article 128 did contain some ambiguous terminology concerning the revision of laws relating to "the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, location and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle." In view of Article 124, it could be reasonably presumed that any such revisions would be applicable only to new churches, but we must concede that it does not rule out its application to existing ones. What we can be absolutely certain of is that few if any of the Fathers would have envisaged the possibility, let alone approved of, the crude vandalism perpetrated in tens of thousands of sanctuaries as a direct result of the calculated exploitation of this ambiguous passage.

What we must now discover is whether any of this barbarism can be attributed to a mandatory law in the post-conciliar Church. What I mean by mandatory legislation is that a binding and unambiguous law exists commanding bishops to ensure that altars in their diocese are freestanding, and that tabernacles are removed from the high altar. In particular we must distinguish such a binding command from a permission to do something, or a recommendation to do something. We can thus distinguish as follows:

The Authority of Legislation

Before examining the post-conciliar liturgical legislation, we must note that in Church as in State, not all legislation carries the same degree of authority. If, for example, in the U.S.A. a law passed by a state legislature conflicted with the Constitution of the United States, then that law would have to be interpreted in the light of the Constitution, and, where necessary, reconciled with it. Where ecclesiastical law is concerned, a Conciliar Constitution holds the highest rank in the hierarchy of canonical sources. Only a pope or another council can abrogate it, obrogate it, or derogate from it.¹ Conciliar constitutions receive the specific approval of the Roman Pontiff and hence are equivalent to a Pontifical Law. However all legislation which emanates from Vatican Congregations is approved by the Pope, but—and this is a crucially important point—very little of this legislation possesses the status of Pontifical Law. In most cases this approval is a mere formality. The various Roman Congregations promulgate so much legislation that the pope could not possibly find the time to read through it all, let alone study it carefully. For this reason, even though all legislation of the Roman Congregations is approved by the Pope, it must be considered as an act of the Congregation which issued it unless the Pope has made it clear that he wishes to make it a specifically papal act.

How do we know when the Pope has decided to transform an act of a Roman Congregation into a Pontifical act?² There are certain forms of words which are normally employed, e.g., ex certa scientia, from certain knowledge; ex plenitudine potestatis apostolicae, from the fullness of Apostolic power; motu proprio, by a special motion. But the Pope is not limited to any specific form of words, what matters is that he clearly wishes to attach the full weight of his authority to the legislation, making it a Pontifical act rather than of a particular congregation.

There are two forms of pontifical confirmation of acts emanating from inferior organs of government. They are confirmatio in forma communi and confirmatio in forma specifica. In the first case, forma communi, the papal approval is no more than a legal formality; the legislation remains the legislation of the Congregation concerned and is not a Pontifical law. This is a fact which has considerable legal significance. Suppose a Congregation promulgated legislation, approved by the Pope in forma communi, which conflicted with an existing papal or conciliar law, or sought to introduce principles conflicting with such laws, what would the legal position be? In such a case the Congregation would be acting ultra vires, beyond the scope of its authority, and the existing law would retain its force. However, if papal approval is given to the new legislation in forma specifica, it must be presumed that the Pope has taken cognizance of the conflict between this legislation and the existing law, and that by making the new legislation his own, the former law has ceased to apply (it has been obrogated or derogated).

An obvious application of this principle is the position of the tabernacle. All the legislation which will be considered in this article was promulgated under the old Code of Canon Law, the New Code not having been promulgated until 1983. The old Code stated that the tabernacle should be placed in the center of the high altar (in media parte altaris posito) except in cathedral or conventual churches where the office is chanted in the sanctuary, when it would be placed on a side altar (see Canons 1268 and 1269). In such cases, Canon Law prescribed "the altar at which the Most Blessed Sacrament is kept must be more beautifully adorned than any other, so that by its very appointments, it may the more effectively move the faithful to piety and devotion." The ruling given in the Canon Law of the Church was reinforced on 3 September 1965, when Pope Paul VI published his encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei, which was a papal act, and hence of superior status to any of the post-conciliar legislation. Pope Paul felt it his duty to write this encyclical because, before the Council had even ended, dangerous views concerning the Holy Eucharist were circulating, doing "great harm to belief in the Divine Eucharist and its worship." Pope Paul reminded the faithful of the entire world that: "Liturgical laws prescribe that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in churches with the greatest honor and in the most distinguished position."³ The dangerous views condemned by Pope Paul VI had been evident even before the Council. In 1956 Pope Pius XII commanded that the prescriptions of Canons 1268 and 1269 to be "most faithfully observed." He did so in an address to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, 22 September 1956. In the same address he warned of those wishing to lessen the esteem for the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, particularly through removing the tabernacle from the altar where Mass is celebrated: "To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united."

The Tabernacle in Post-conciliar Legislation

We shall consider legislation affecting the tabernacle and the altar separately, dealing with the tabernacle first. The first, and perhaps most authoritative of the relevant documents is the Instruction on Putting into Effect the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, usually referred to as Inter oecumenici, dated 26 September 1964. The relevant paragraphs are nn. 90-99. It has been claimed that these paragraphs were originally intended to form part of the Council's Liturgy Constitution itself. Even if this is correct, the fact is that these paragraphs did not appear in the Constitution and thus come to us only with the authority of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and not with that of the Council itself. From a legal standpoint, this is absolutely indisputable. Well, what does Inter oecumenici have to say about the tabernacle? The answer can be found in n. 95 of the Instruction:

Well, then, what action was Monsignor Vincent Kearney of Christ the King Parish in Kansas City, Missouri, obliged to take concerning his tabernacle in order to conform to this Instruction? The answer is clear, he was obliged to leave it upon the high altar. The Instruction contains no command that the tabernacle must be moved; it contains no recommendation that it should be moved; it simply grants a permission that it may be situated in some other place where a lawful custom existed, but no such custom existed in Kansas City, Missouri. What the Instruction does, in fact, is to confirm the legislation in Canon Law that, as a general rule, the tabernacle must be situated in the center of the high altar.

Keeping to a chronological sequence, the next relevant document is one that has already been cited, the encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei of Pope Paul VI, dated 3 September 1965. This document is, as we have noted, a Pontifical Act and also restates the traditional legalization concerning the tabernacle.

The Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium

The Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Eucharisticum mysterium, which was published on 25 May 1967, is a key document in this investigation. It is, once again, an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. In n. 54 it repeats n. 95 of Inter oecumenici, which has just been cited. This paragraph makes it clear that, as a general rule, the tabernacle must be sited in the center of the high altar. However, in n. 53 it states that the place where the tabernacle is situated "ought to be suitable for private prayer" and "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently, and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures." In other words n. 53 contradicts n. 54!

The suspect nature of this Instruction is made even clearer in n. 55, where, in a statement without precedent in any official document of the Catholic Church, it actually suggests that Mass should not be celebrated on an altar with a tabernacle as "it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration, and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle." In other words, a suggestion which Pope Pius XII had condemned in 1956 as lessening esteem for the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, i.e., separating tabernacle and altar, is included in an official Church document just over a decade later.

It might be pertinent here to remember that although the post-conciliar legislation was promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, it had been drawn up by the Consilium, the committee which had the sinister Father Bugnini as its secretary. Father Bugnini had been dismissed from the Liturgical Preparatory Commission of Vatican II by Pope John XXIII for reasons which were never disclosed. He was reappointed as Secretary to the Consilium by Pope Paul VI in 1964, and eventually became Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in 1969. He was dismissed by Pope Paul VI under very abrupt and very mysterious circumstances in 1975. Once again the reasons were never disclosed, but very strong grounds exist for believing that it was because information was given to the Pope proving that Archbishop Bugnini as he then was, had been enrolled as a member of a masonic lodge. Archbishop Bugnini denied this emphatically, and it is not a matter upon which I wish to insist as part of the case I am presenting here, but the fact that the principal architect of the liturgical reform was dismissed by two popes for reasons they would not disclose gives us every reason to be uneasy about the reform itself.⁴ It is also alarming to reflect that six Protestants played a very active part in the work of the Consilium. It seems impossible to believe that six heretics were asked to advise the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church on the reform of its liturgy, but nonetheless it is a fact. Archbishop Bugnini denied emphatically that the Observers had played an active role, a denial which was refuted by one of the Observers in his reply to a letter I had written to him asking for clarification on this matter.⁵

Returning to the subject of the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, what action did it oblige Monsignor Kearney to take concerning the position of the tabernacle? Well, n. 54 is quite explicit: the tabernacle is to be situated in the center of the high altar, which is precisely where Msgr. Kearney's tabernacle was sited. He was therefore in full conformity with the law of the Church, which was, in any case, as stated in Canons 1268 and 1269 of the Code of Canon Law. However, the Instruction also contained two recommendations contradicting its own n. 54; in n. 53 it recommended placing the tabernacle in a chapel distinct from the central part of the church, and in n. 55, it recommended that Mass should not be celebrated on an altar where there was a tabernacle. But these were only recommendations and in no way mandatory. It is very significant that this Instruction contains 121 references for its teaching and recommendations, but no reference whatsoever could be given for either of these recommendations as they are without precedent in the entire history of the Church, and represent a grave breach with Tradition.

The General Instruction on The Roman Missal

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal was promulgated together with the New Order of Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 6 April 1969. This Instruction was to replace the preliminary material in the existing Missal of St. Pius V, i.e., rubrics, defects to be avoided, etc. The General Instruction, like the other documents we have been examining, had been approved by Pope Paul VI in forma communi, but subsequent events made it clear that the Pope either had not seen the Instruction, or had done no more than glance through it, before approving its publication. It seems that he had ordered Father Bugnini to submit it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for examination, but that Father Bugnini had disobeyed him.⁶ The Instruction contained 341 articles, some of which were so flagrantly opposed to Tradition that they provoked immediate scandal among the faithful, and were condemned in a document endorsed by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.⁷ This criticism was so well-founded that the Pope had no option but to order an immediate and thorough revision of the Instruction. The document listing the corrections and amendments needed over thirty pages to include them all.⁸ The deficiencies of the Instruction lie outside the scope of this article, but the fact that it had to be corrected so quickly and so radically provides a salutary lesson for those who claim that it is disloyal to criticize any document approved by the Pope. Such people, particularly bishops who are aware of the fact that approval in forma communi does not even guarantee that the Pope has read the document, invoke the emotive concept of papal authority as a dishonest ploy to divert the attention of the faithful from the un-catholic nature of much post-conciliar legislation.

We shall consider the General Instruction here only insofar as it refers to the position of the tabernacle. It does so in n. 276. The official ICEL translation of the original article contained two sentences:

The words "and adoration" were added to the first sentence in the revised version published in 1970. A reference is provided for both these sentences. The reference for the first sentence is, of course, n. 53 of Eucharisticum mysterium, which has just been cited, recommending that the tabernacle should be placed in a separate chapel. The man responsible for Eucharisticum mysterium and the General Instruction was, of course. Father Bugnini. He introduced his recommendation that the tabernacle should be in a chapel separate from the high altar without a reference in the first document, because there was no precedent for such an outrageous suggestion. In the second document he had the temerity to quote himself as his own authority. As I explained earlier, an instruction contrary to existing legislation in a document which the Pope has approved only in forma communi can be regarded as ultra vires and disregarded. However there is no need to take this step as once again there is no command. Article 276 of the General Instruction does not command that the Blessed Sacrament must be reserved in a private chapel, it only recommends that it should be. It was thus unnecessary for Msgr. Kearney even to cite Canon Law, Mysterium Fidei, or Inter oecumenici to justify retaining the tabernacle on the high altar as the General Instruction did not command that it should be removed.

Sentence two contains two references in the footnotes. Sadly, very few priests would even have taken the trouble to glance at these footnotes, let alone verify them. The references mention two documents, Eucharisticum mysterium n. 54, and Inter oecumenici n. 95. Inter Oecumenici n. 95 has already been quoted in full, and it has also been explained that it is reproduced exactly in Eucharisticum mysterium n. 54, so in point of fact we are referred twice to the same statement. When we compare sentence two with the text to which the footnote refers us, the temerity of Father Bugnini can only be described as breathtaking. It might be more appropriate to describe the manner in which he has manipulated the text as the most arrogant form of insolence. He has, in fact, made sentence two of Article 276 say the opposite of Inter oecumenici n. 95, which he cites as his authority! This article states, as the reader can plainly see, that the tabernacle must be in the center of the high altar unless local custom dictates otherwise. Father Bugnini reverses this to state that it should only be placed on an altar if the structure of the church or local custom makes it impossible to locate it in a separate chapel. What is most depressing is the fact that not only did he think that he could get away with this, he actually did!

However, in reaching our final conclusion on legislation concerning the situation of the tabernacle, let us disregard the dubious background of Father Bugnini, let us disregard the fact that he was assisted by Protestant advisers, let us forget the fact that the documents we have cited are not Pontifical Laws, involving the fullness of papal authority. Let us take the General Instruction at its face value, let us presume that it is a binding papal document. In this case would it oblige Msgr. Kearney to remove his tabernacle from the high altar? By no means. As we have seen, sentence one of n. 276 does no more than recommend placing the tabernacle in a separate chapel; and as regards sentence two, Msgr. Kearney could claim without any possible fear of contradiction that the local custom in his parish was to keep the tabernacle in the place of honor upon the high altar as demanded by Canon Law, and in conformity with the clearly expressed wishes of Pope Pius XII in his address to the Liturgical Congress in 1956, and of Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei in 1965.

It should also be noted that n. 95 of Inter oecumenici instructed that if the tabernacle is not situated in the center of the high altar, it must be situated in "a very special place, having nobility about, and it must be suitably decorated." If Bishops Sullivan and Fitzsimmons of Kansas City claim that the squalid brick pedestal upon which the tabernacle has been placed in the Church of Christ the King fits this description, then their talent for manipulating texts is equivalent to that of Archbishop Bugnini.

An Objection Answered

Before leaving the subject of the tabernacle I would like to answer an argument which is sometimes used to justify demoting it from its position of honor on the high altar. When the faithful complain about the perpetration of such an outrage in their own parish, they will often be referred to a well-known church such as Westminster Cathedral in London, where the Blessed Sacrament has always been reserved in a separate chapel. As we have seen, such a situation was allowed for in Canon Law, and was normally due to the fact that the sanctuary was used regularly for the choral office. But there is no valid comparison between a situation where there has always been a Blessed Sacrament Chapel to the demotion of the Blessed Sacrament from what Pope Paul described as "the most distinguished position" in Mysterium Fidei. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "demote" as "reduce to a lower rank or class." There is thus every justification for using the verb "demote" to describe the removal of the tabernacle from the high altar to a separate chapel, let alone to a squalid brick pedestal. What we can say about the priest, cited in the February Angelus, who claimed that this act of barbarism in the Church of Christ the King represented placing the tabernacle in "a clearer place of honor," I cannot imagine. It is probably more charitable not to say anything.

Conclusion Concerning the Tabernacle

We are now in a position to pass a balanced judgment on the startling claim by Msgr. Kearney which was cited in the February Angelus. His reason for refusing to remove his tabernacle from the high altar in the Church of Christ the King was as follows:

A spokesman for the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph attempted to refute Msgr. Kearney by pointing out that he was in a minority of one among the priests of the diocese. This may well have been true, but although in a minority of one, Msgr. Kearney was correct, and his detractors wrong. He thus finds himself in the excellent company of St. Athanasius and St. John Fisher. We can state with absolute certainty that, even in the confused atmosphere of the Conciliar Church, there is no mandatory legislation emanating from Rome at any level commanding parish priests to remove the tabernacle from the high altar of his church. How ironic it is that priests who refuse to remove their tabernacles from the high altar are themselves removed from their parishes. Thus speaks the Conciliar Church!

1. For the meaning of these terms see "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass," available from The Angelus Press at $2.00 post paid.

2. By a "congregation" is meant the equivalent of a ministry in the British government, e.g., the Ministry of Health, the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Education. In the Vatican, we have the Congregation for the Clergy, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, the Congregation for Religious, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

3. Unfortunately the New Code, published in 1983, is less specific, and is clearly a case of the law being modified to conform to its non-observance. The tabernacle is now rarely located in the most distinguished place in the church, and so the law has been changed to specify only a distinguished place. Canon 938(2) states: "The tabernacle in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned, and conducive to prayer." However, as the sanctuary changes to which we are referring were made before the promulgation of the New Code it is irrelevant to the discussion. But, if we take the New Code into account, in how many churches today is the tabernacle in a distinguished place, which is suitably adorned, and conducive to prayer?

4. The full story of Archbishop Bugnini can be found in Chapter XXIV of my book Pope Paul's New Mass.

5. The facts concerning the Protestant Observers can be found in Appendix III of Pope Paul's New Mass.

6. See Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 5 06.

7. See Pope Paul's New Mass, Chapter XXIII.

8. See Pope Paul's New Mass, Chapter XIII.