The problem of the Liturgical Reform

While this study goes to the very root of the problem with the Liturgical Reforms, the analysis will focus for reasons of clarity on the Missal of Paul VI. The Mass is after all, the very jewel in the crown of the Catholic Liturgy.

The study comprises of three theses, each of which introduces a separate section. Firstly we will show how the publication of the New Mass of 1969 constituted a liturgical rupture. Secondly we will show how that rupture is explained principally by a new theology of Redemption, which we will call the "Theology of the Pascal Mystery". This complex second part forms the very heart of our study. In the third part we will seek to evaluate the new theology in the light of the infallible teachings of the Church, and to establish what attitude one should have towards this Novus Ordo Missae. In support of this attitude, an appendix treating the canonical status and rights of the Mass of Saint Pius V is attached.

While by no means exhaustive, this work gets to the central issue at stake; the official texts show quite categorically that the "Pascal Mystery" is the key to interpreting the entire Liturgical Reform. The book itself is being published in English by Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave. Kansas City, MO 64109

Presentation by Father F. Laisney

First part

In 1969 the Ottaviani Intervention manifested how the conciliar liturgical reform “departs in a considerable manner, both in whole and in part, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, such as had been formulated in the XXII session of the Council of Trent” [1] . But where is it leading to? What were its founding guidelines?

On November 21, 1974, in his famous Declaration, Archbishop Lefebvre said that “this Reform, which comes from liberalism, from modernism, is completely poisoned; it stems from heresy and leads to heresy, even if all of its acts are not formally heretical.” [2] He thus denounced the seriousness of novelties, the danger of the potential toxicity in the reforms. But he gave us only the outline of these heresies, without being specific.

An important step in the combat for fidelity to the eternal Catholic faith has been made by the publication from the Editions Clovis of the book The Problem of the Liturgical Reform.

This book expounds the “Theology of the Paschal Mystery” as being the founding principles which inspired the entire liturgical reform. The first part describes the liturgical actions in which this is most clearly manifested. The second part returns to the founding principles themselves and exposes this new theology. The third part draws canonical conclusions.

It is a book that cannot be ignored. Because of its importance, it has been sent through the “letter to our fellow priests” to more than 17,000 French priests and to all of the French speaking bishops. It will also be published in English, German, Spanish and Italian and sent to the bishops and to numerous priests of these languages! It has caused various reactions. Some are very interested in this book, while others attack it because – as they well know – it has “hit right on”. In general, these latter concede that the “Theology of the Paschal Mystery” is admittedly underlying the conciliar liturgical reform, but they defend this theology: here they divide themselves into two camps, some pretending that this theology is in “homogenous evolution” with the theology of the past without the least opposition or contradiction, while others reject the theology of the past with sharp criticisms, approaching blasphemy. We quote as an example of these latter from the article of La Croix of April 22, presenting the traditional missal as “a sacrificial exaggeration, closer to paganism than to Christianism”! Such a blasphemy is enough to destroy everything that was said before. It is contrary to all true history of the Church when the author claims that “the new missal is upheld by the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church” whereas the Scriptures rather uphold the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice of Christ (I Jn. 2:2), and the Fathers maintain that the Mass is truly a sacrifice (as early as in the 3^rd century, in the time of  the persecutions, St. Cyprian, when describing the first eucharistic miracle in the annals of the Church said: “nobis sacrificantibus ‑ while we were offering the sacrifice”! And as you noticed in my article from the month of March, this same St. Cyprian called the Eucharist “the sacrifices of the Lord”). The author voluntarily ignores that the traditional Mass does not “date” from the Council of Trent but is substantially the same rite as that of the early Middle Ages and takes its roots in Christianity of earliest antiquity. It expresses the prayer of the Fathers, while the New Mass expresses the new spirit drawn up by the post-conciliar “experts” (how many are the “Eucharistic prayers” which are less than forty years old, not counting the “universal prayers” which are new every day!)

The second part of this book is difficult for the average reader, from its theological consistency, and also because it endeavours to expound the very subtle new theology of our neo-modernists. We will therefore endeavour in several articles to explain point by point the main ideas of this second part. To help the reader, we will also, step by step, explain the truths opposed to the errors which we denounce.

The Tactic of the Modernists

1/ To give a new meaning to traditional expressions

First and foremost, we must speak of the tactics of the modernists. Already St. Pius X denounced their craftiness. They use traditional Catholic words, but giving them a new meaning. Thus, when a bishop-theologian wrote: “The only-begotten Son of God was not created and therefore is not a creature. He was therefore born of the Father before all ages, and for this reason He is one with Him”, his thinking seems Catholic. Don’t be fooled, these are nothing but Catholic expressions to which he gives a new meaning. Thus, he explains on the following page that through “a complex process of a deepening in the faith” of the “New Testament Community” through which “at the beginning, when Jesus was called the Son of God, this filiation was considered an adoption, … according to this primitive expression, it was at the moment of the Resurrection that Christ was established as Son of God. But according to a later tradition, the adoption was produced at the baptism of Jesus… (and later) when the virginal birth of Jesus was recognised, the moment of the divine filiation was set even earlier, that is, from the historical birth of Jesus… (and later) Christ could from then on be compared to a divine pre-existent being.” We see clearly that for him, when he speaks of “the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages”, its not a question of the “historical Jesus”, but rather of Jesus in the Faith, a simple subjective concept, produced from the evolution of thoughts of the “New Testament Community.” [3] If I have cited this author it is because, as you have just seen, he considers the Resurrection as the moment when Jesus became the Son of God. This is a heresy which is also found amongst numerous modern theologians, [4] and which we will speak about later, since it particularly clarifies their false notion of the Paschal Mystery. Conclusion: we have to beware of the modernists even when they use traditional expressions. And do they give them the same meaning? For even the word resurrection is also used by them as a synonym of glorification, that is to say, of growing in the esteem of the apostles: they esteemed that Jesus was the Son of God, He became the Lord of glory; there is no question of a true corporal resurrection.

2/ Planned silence, lack of profession of Faith

Another important aspect in the tactics of the modernists is to never openly deny a dogma, but rather to speak as if it didn’t exist. It was not by openly denying Catholic dogma that the innovators have succeeded in causing the crisis which we all deplore, it was rather in silencing it, in putting it aside, in shifting the emphasis to other things, to that which pleases the world. In this there is a lack of the spirit of Faith, according to what St. Paul says: “possessing this same spirit of Faith, according to that which was written: I have believed, that is why I have spoken; we also, we believe, and that is why we speak” (2 Cor. 4:13). The spirit of Faith leads to an open profession of the Faith; that is why Holy Mother the Church has always reacted to heretics by more clearly proclaiming Her Faith and particularly by proclaiming it in the Liturgy. Thus the Faith was more clearly professed in the divinity of Christ at the time of the Arian heresy, and later at the Nestorian heresy, both which were rejected. This Faith was not new, but the profession of it was more open and more solemn. At the rising of those who denied the Real Presence (Beranger), the Church introduced into the liturgy the solemn Processions of the Blessed Sacrament in reparation for these denials. The traditional liturgy, the result of this spirit of faith, has therefore become throughout the ages an admirable profession of the Catholic Faith of all times and an “impassable barrier against heresies” as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci declared.

Look at what the modernists have done: they have not denied the Real Presence, they have put it to the side: how many (or how few) are the altars which have the tabernacle enthroned in their centre? The communion in the hand is also a manifestation of this. Without denying the Real Presence, it does not profess it. It was also in turning the altar around that the attention was no longer placed on the offering to God, but rather on the community of the faithful.

This double tactic of the modernists has caused good priests to fail to see the danger of the New Mass; they say to themselves: this Mass comes to us from the Pope, our bishop asks us to say it, admittedly we lament certain things that are omitted, but we do not see in it any heresy, therefore we must accept it. However, this lack of the profession of Faith makes the new liturgy resemble a diet in which the important elements needed to sustain life are lacking: it causes scurvy, it makes the spiritual health anaemic and causes its ruin. Some have tried to compensate for this by their personal devotion, and God has often rewarded their efforts, but it remains nevertheless that the new liturgy is not in itself and has not been for them what a truly Catholic liturgy ought to be, a source of abundant graces.

3/ Rejection of the Thomistic philosophy and theology and of the scholastic method

When an author denigrates the saints and above all the doctors of the Church, he should always be mistrusted. When he denigrates St. Thomas, we should even more mistrust him since the Popes have recommended, over and over again – the doctrine and the principles of St. Thomas as a remedy to modern errors.

It is consistent among modern authors to often criticise the classical theology, accusing it 1/ of  “legalism” (the Redemption was the payment of a price for a debt, etc.), 2/ of fragmentation (separating the different mysteries of Christ, the acquisition of merits on the Cross and their application through the sacraments, etc.), 3/ of not being biblical enough (expressing doctrine with theological and not biblical expressions, for example, transubstantiation), 4/ of being outdated: “in our times, other philosophies have replaced that of Aristotle” [5]

It is a fact that classical theology is mindful of the Rights of God and of Divine Justice, while the new theology speaks often of the rights of man, neglecting the Rights of God, and deforming divine Justice by making it meaningless: “a justice which is love requires neither merit to be rewarded, nor fault to be punished” [6] . Such affirmations are in contradiction with the Scriptures and all the Fathers of the Church, for Christ “will render to each one according to his works” (Mt. 16:27 and numerous similar passages). But it is false to claim that classical theology reduces the Redemption to a question of purely juridical importance.

It is true that through a profound and accurate analysis, classical theology defines and explains the notions with clearness, but it is also capable of making a synthesis, thereby manifesting an admirable order in the truths of the Faith: St. Thomas has excelled in this and his Summa Theologica has been and continues to be the admiration of every true theologian through the loftiness of his manner of synthesising where each element is not isolated but forms a part of an admirably ordered unity. In contrast to this, the modernists fear precise thoughts, have a horror of clear definitions and love to remain in ambiguity. However, it is true that IF one keeps to the Catholic sense of the words, and if one remains faithful to the unchanging doctrines, one could prepare a synthesis of the Redemption on the theme of the Paschal Mystery, but it would be necessary to clearly define the terms and to know how to analyse the elements with fidelity to the deposit of the Faith.

The modernists often claim to return to concepts that are more biblical, but their reading of the Scriptures is strongly influenced by the modern exegeses or interpretations which are in themselves filled with false modern philosophies. Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote: “(they) turn to the exegesis to justify their destruction of christology: the exegesis would have proven that Jesus did not consider Himself as the Son of God, as God incarnate, but that it was only later that His disciples would have made Him so… I think that the problem of the exegesis and of the limits and the possibilities of our reason, that is, the philosophical premises of the faith, constitute the sore point of actual theology by which also more and more the faith of the ordinary people becomes endangered.” [7] On the contrary, the Fathers of the Church have explained with a strong faith the signification of the Holy Scriptures and the scholastical Doctors have regrouped and ordered the teachings of the Fathers in their Summas: in reading the Fathers one sees how profound are the scriptural roots of the scholastical teachings, A St. Thomas could resume in an article of his Summa that which St. Augustine developed in twenty pages or more: the language is more concise and precise, but it is the same doctrine, which respects all of Holy Scripture.

In rejecting the philosophy used by the scholastics, it is the “common sense philosophy” which our modernists reject. If the Doctors of the Church have utilised certain philosophical notions coming from Greece, it was above all because they are true. They have rejected the errors of these philosophies and have perfected the true notions received from them. Thus, St. Thomas establishes in the distinction between “essence” and “existence” all the distance between the created and the Uncreated (Who is His own existence: “I am Who am!” Exo. 3:14). But in rejecting the scholastical philosophy, it is above all the logic that our modernists have rejected. They contradict themselves and are not even troubled. Recall what Cardinal Ratzinger has said: “Since sin is a contradiction, one cannot, in the last analysis, completely resolve from a logical standpoint this difference between ‘subsistit’ and ‘est’.” [8] This rejection of the “eternal philosophy” may even lead certain modern theologians into heresy: thus Fr. Durwell affirms, as did Karl Rahner: “there exists in Christ a human ‘I’ which is a part of the integral entity of his human nature.” [9]

4/ Primacy of the action over the truth, with regard to religious experience

This technique of the modernists can be understood even more because, for them, it is not the objective truth that counts, but rather the action. It is not a question of  “adoring God in spirit and in truth”, but of feeling this “presence” through an action of the community which arouses the “faith”, a religious feeling produced from the religious experience. Words in themselves have no importance for the truth (if they express objective truth and particularly the truths of the Faith), but they have an importance for the action if they arouse this religious feeling. Thus one hears them say something one day in full conformity with the faith, and the next day act as if this truth didn’t exist: we should not be surprised at this. As we have already stated in this Bulletin, it was not so much the “common declaration on justification” of itself which counted for them, rather it was the very act of making a common declaration: it was the action that counted.

The Liturgy thus becomes for them an action in which the aim is to nourish this religious sentiment, and so that which nourishes it the most will be emphasised and that which is displeasing will be put aside. The Cross has always displeased the world.

Rejection of the Expiation

We can easily understand now the first error denounced by this book of which we speak: the rejection of the expiatory character of the Sacrifice of the Cross and consequently of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To recognise this character is to recognise that our sins deserve a punishment, but this intensely displeases the “world”. It was therefore systematically set aside by our “experts on the liturgy”.

Let us give an example of this rejection: “God of vengeance? Or God of Love? We do not represent God as a king concerned about his personal glory more than the happiness of others; angry because His honour has been offended, experiencing the need to seek revenge for this outraged honour, the need to assuage His wrath, to vent His anger upon the guilty for the pleasure of punishing, to make those who had irritated Him suffer in their turn, and finally accepting to strike, not at the guilty ones, but at His innocent Son, because He is the representative and the Head responsible for the entire human race. No, Christ, the Head of humanity, does not have to ‘expiate’ in place of the guilty ones, but He must ‘repair’ in the name of His brothers, because they are incapable of doing so worthily.” [10] Such caricatural representations of the traditional doctrine are routine, because they have no other arguments to reject it.

In the first place, if there is a concept very much in the Scriptures it is surely that of the “wrath of God”; it is frequent in the Old Testament, and our Lord Jesus Christ Himself doesn’t hesitate to portray the Kingdom of God likened to an angry king: “in his wrath his lord delivered him to the torturers, until he had paid all his debt” (Matt. 18:34). And St. Paul warns us: “Oh! What a frightful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” (Heb. 10:31). “Be not deceived, God is not mocked!” (Gal. 6:7). It is greatly to be feared that those who mock the divine Justice, by ridiculing it in such manner, have serious accounts to render to the “Tribunal of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10). The Fathers have always explained that the expressions “anger”, and “wrath” signify the divine Justice inflicting a just chastisement on sinners while remaining perfectly calm, without the excitement of human passion.

God is just, and cannot not be just. He would be neither God, nor good, if He was not Just. His Justice is good, and rejoices the Saints of Heaven: “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart (Ps. 18:9). Here we touch upon a great difference between hell and purgatory: in hell the damned love their sins and hate the divine Justice which chastises them justly, in purgatory the souls being in a state of grace hate their past sins and love the divine Justice which purifies them. To love the Justice of God and to hate sin go hand in hand. If God has chosen a Redemption which satisfies both His Mercy and His Justice, it is surely to teach us to hate sin. We cannot love God if we do not hate sin. In resolutely excluding the divine Justice which exacts a chastisement for sin, one no longer teaches the faithful to hate sin. [11]

Now let us take note of the difference between expiation and reparation. Reparation is due to the objective damage caused by the sin; expiation is due to the voluntary aspect of the sin. Sin is a wilful evil; the sinner has chosen his will contrary to the will of God, and he deserves to be subjected to something contrary to his will, for order to be restored. We will give an example: a little girl helps her mother dry the dishes. While not paying attention, she lets a dish fall, which had come from the great-grandmother. Another pulls her little sister’s hair. The objective damage in the first case is much greater than in the second; the dish cannot be replaced. But the evil is practically involuntary as it was committed inadvertently. The objective evil in the second case is minimum and is repaired with two or three strokes of the comb, but there was much more of a bad will. The reparation that must be made in the first case is greater than in the second, but the chastisement due is greater in the second case than in the first. (Here we remark that good parents and teachers must measure the punishments rather in the evil of the children’s faults rather than in the hurt which they feel in themselves). To consider only the reparation and to reject the expiation is to put aside the voluntary element of the sin; it is to ignore the responsibility of man for his sin, i.e. the culpability, in the strict sense of the word. In fact, it is a tendency that we find in civil tribunals, where the criminals are often excused, being considered as sick, and soon given their freedom, while the victims are ignored.

Furthermore, the reparation of the damage is done through good, a positive act, it does not demand in itself suffering. Only the punishment of the fault demands suffering (to be subjected to something against its will). From the time one excludes the punishment, one no longer understands why “it behoved Christ to suffer” (Luke 24:46), and why God permits so much suffering in this world. If Adam had not sinned, there would not have been suffering in the world: suffering and death are the consequence of sin, they are the punishments due to the sin of man. Christ has taken upon Himself the punishment due to our sins: if we reject that, all other reasons for suffering become empty, inadequate; it becomes a sort of fate. The same author tells us: “(Jesus) showed us how much and to what extent God merited to be obeyed, and to be loved. He merits it always, even when His will is dreadful and brings fear to our human nature.” [12] It is true, once we admit the Justice of God. But if we eliminate the Justice of God according to which the fault deserves the punishment, then this “dreadful will” is extremely cruel, to cause suffering without any other reason than to prove just to what extent we must obey Him! Then the sarcasms of the author would be much more justifiable! No, if we reject the demands of the divine Justice for the expiation of sin, than all suffering loses its true reason to exist, and above all else the Cross of Christ.

In conclusion, God is infinitely above His creatures, and man is and will always be a creature. God cannot love His creature more than His glory as a last end. A king must desire the common good of his kingdom more than the particular good of his individual subjects. Now, as St. Thomas of Aquinas says, the common good of all the universe is the Glory of God! Therefore God is necessarily more “concerned for His glory than the individual happiness of His subjects”: for God, we remain a means to obtain His glory. This does not at all diminish His love for us: He loves us more and better than we love ourselves. He has given us His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us on the Cross: he loved us that much! But this extraordinary love will never procure that our happiness will come before the glory of God. If we must not love ourselves for ourselves, but rather only for God, if it’s a mortal sin for us to put our final goal in creatures, with how much greater reason can God not love us for ourselves but only for His glory, and that is how it should be. Who does he pretend to be, he who would have God love him for himself? To be the final goal of God? It is our joy to live for God; it is the joy of the saints in heaven to be everything for God, to admire Him and to love Him above all else. To want that God love us for ourselves is a hideous pride: “God resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble.”

In the next issue, we will look at the Mass as a Sacrifice, the true summit of the Christian life, the way and the gate of Heaven!

May Our Lady of Compassion, who stood at the foot of the Cross and who more than anyone else understood the immense riches of the Sacrifice of the Cross, help us to know and love Our Lord Jesus Christ more and more and so to suffer with Him, so that we may be also glorified with Him” (Rom. 8:17).

Home | Contents