Doctrina Liturgica | Supplemental Commentary on Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Rev. Anthony Cekada

In the liturgy, every word and every gesture conveys a theological idea.

— Archbishop Ferdinando Antonelli
Signatory to the 1969 Decree
promulgating the Mass of Paul VI

Missal Translation Director Praises Cekada’s Book on the Mass of Paul VI

By frcekada | Published: July 6, 2011

Msgr. Andrew R. Wadsworth, ICEL Executive Director

• “Full of interesting and credible analysis.”

• “An important contribution to the current debate.”

• “A genuinely informative work.”

• “Does not skimp on scholarly detail.”

• “A clear commitment to presenting the fullest possible narrative account of the evolution of the current Roman Missal.”

• “A legitimate claim to being the fullest account of this narrative currently available in English.”

• “Goes a long way in explaining a diminishing of an understanding of the priesthood and the sacrifice offered in the Mass.”

• “I encourage others to read it.”

REVIEWER: Msgr. Andrew R. Wadsworth is a priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster (England). He holds Masters degrees in Italian and theology, and is an accomplished musician. He has taught Latin, Greek and Italian, served as Chaplain at Harrow School and speaks Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and some German

He has taken a leading role in England “in promoting the worthy celebration of the liturgy in both the usus recentior [rite of Paul VI] and usus antiquior [traditional rite].”

Msgr. Wadsworth and Bp. Roche of ICEL present Benedict XVI with a book explaining their work.

In March 2009 the Holy See appointed him General Secretary of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and Executive Director of the ICEL Secretariat in Washington DC.

After Vatican II, ICEL was responsible for producing the official English liturgical translations that conservative Catholics regarded as pedestrian, lacking a sacred “tone” and distorting the meaning of the Latin original texts of the Mass of Paul VI.

With the advent of a neo-conservative movement among the younger clergy in the 1990s, complaints about the original ICEL translations started to be taken seriously. At the Vatican’s behest, ICEL prepared a new English translation of the Missal of Paul VI, which was then approved English-speaking bishops’ conferences. The new translation will become obligatory in Advent 2011.

Conservatives throughout English-speaking world have praised the new translation as more “sacred,” Latinists have praised its accuracy, and musicians have praised it as easier to sing. And all have praised Msgr. Wadsworth’s role in seeing this new translation through to completion.

Articles by Msgr. Wadsworth have recently appeared in The Wanderer (“The Fundamental Importance of Liturgical Chant,” June 30, 2011) and on the New Liturgical Movement website (“ICEL’s Director: New Missal Translation ‘Long Overdue’,” June 30, 2011″)

PERIODICAL: Usus Antiquior is a scholarly journal dedicated to the sacred liturgy and published twice a year by the Society of St. Catherine of Siena. Its editor is Rev. Dr. Laurence Paul Hemming, Institute of Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, England. For subscription information and rates, click here. Usus Antiquior does not post all of its content on-line, but downloads of articles and reviews may purchased at this link.

Msgr. Wadsworth’s review of Work of Human Hands appears in Usus Antiquior, Vol. 2, No. 2 (July 2011), 172–3.

THE REVIEW: Since Msgr. Wadsworth is intimately familiar with both the official Latin version of the Missal of Paul VI and the traditional Missal, and since my method in Work of Human Hands was to compare both Missals, I regard him as someone who is particularly well qualified to review my book.

By way of introduction to his comments, Msgr. Wadsworth provides a bit of biographical material about me. For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the traditionalist scene, he identifies me as “well-known sedevacantist apologist.”

I. Positive Observations. Msgr. Wadsworth was familiar with my 1991 study which compared the orations in the traditional Missal (collects, secrets and post communions) with their counterparts in the Missal of Paul VI, The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass:

Despite the polemical tone of this work, it is a highly readable and well researched essay whose thesis has subsequently been the subject of a more thorough treatment in the writings of scholars, such as Dr Lauren Pristas.

Of the parallels between Problems with the Prayers and Work of Human Hands, Msgr. Wadsworth says:

Unlike most critiques of the Novus Ordo which tend to concentrate on analysis of the Ordo Missae, Fr Cekada’s work (both in 1991 and 2010) considers the corpus of proper texts in the Missal in an attempt to assemble a comprehensive picture of the theological implications of the liturgical reform. The scarcity of this genre is testimony to the fact that forty years after the Council, we are still awaiting serious scholarship on these texts, the manner in which they were produced and the guiding principles which shaped their composition.

Like Dr. Geoffrey Hull in his review of Work of Human Hands, Msgr. Wadsworth noted the “lack of formal register” (=informal writing style) in the book, and my tendency towards autobiographical anecdotes. At first, he says, he thought this would impede serious discourse. However:

I was wrong. Although presented in a highly personal way, this book does not skimp on scholarly detail. Assertions are usually supported with documentary references and there is a clear commitment to presenting the fullest possible narrative account of the evolution of the current Roman Missal.

Msgr. Wadsworth praises the chronologies in Chapters Two and Three which trace, respectively, the theological origins of the liturgical reform and the successive steps of that reform both before and after Vatican II:

On reflection, it is the assembly of a detailed chronology that is Cekada’s most significant contribution in this study. Drawing heavily on secondary sources (majorly Bugnini, Antonelli and Bouyer), he charts the evolution of the mind of the Missal in terms of the development of the Liturgical Movement. For English readers, he also becomes a portal for a considerable amount of material not generally available in English.

Chapter Two traces the origins of the Liturgical Movement from promising beginnings through the ‘derailing’ influence of Beauduin, Jungmann, Bouyer and Casel. Cekada clearly considers that their work in liturgical studies was so patient of modernism that they sent the whole movement veering off in the wrong direction. This movement ultimately bears fruit in the Pian Reform of Holy Week (1951) which Cekada identifies as the prototype for all subsequent reform and revision. This is Cekada’s most illuminating insight.

On these points overall, Msgr. Wadsworth says:

The study certainly goes a long way in reconstructing the all-important narrative of how the liturgical reform came about. In many ways it makes a legitimate claim to being the fullest account of this narrative currently available in English.

In Chapter Two of Work of Human Hands, I subjected the two “big guns” of the Liturgical Movement, the Jesuit Josef Jungmann and the Oratorian Louis Bouyer, to rather extensive criticism:

[Cekada] explains at length his view of the shortcomings of Jungmann and Bouyer. The first he says commits the Church to archeologism with a corruption theory that advances an historically unsupported view of liturgy in Christian Antiquity. The second multiplies the falsehood by proposing an idealistic form of liturgy based on Lutheran ideals. He adds to this heady cocktail a young Montini totally shaped and formed by modernist liturgical scholarship. Many would now consider that he is right about Jungmann, but less so about Bouyer and Montini.

Fr. Louis Bouyer

On the latter point, I noticed among writers in Msgr. Wadsworth’s milieu a particular disinclination to criticize Bouyer. This I attribute to some of the highly unfavorable comments Bouyer later made about certain aspects of the liturgical reform in his short books Liturgy and Architecture (1967) and The Decomposition of Catholicism (1969).

But Bouyer’s remarks in these works, I think, merely reflected his contradictory temperament. One author opined that when Bouyer stepped up to a microphone, you never knew what he was going to say.

Despite this, Msgr. Wadsworth says that Chapter Five of Work of Human Hands, which criticizes Bouyer’s influence on the modernist ideology underlying the New Mass, offers:

A reasonably full consideration of the iconic importance of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal identifies many elements that have shaped post-conciliar liturgical culture, with its inevitable implications for ecclesiology and sacramental theology

Chapter Eleven of Work of Human Hands is devoted to analyzing the destruction of the traditional offertory rite and its replacement the Mass of Paul VI with The Preparation of the Gifts. Here:

Cekada’s identification of a paradigm shift in Why Change the Offertory? goes a long way in explaining a diminishing of an understanding of the priesthood and the sacrifice offered in the Mass, as does his inference of a deliberate wish to subvert on the part of some.

Constructing a proper bibliography is a time-consuming requirement for any writing based on many different research sources (in the case of Work of Human Hands, twenty pages covering thirty years’ worth of research) but one often feels the exercise is pointless because the results usually go unnoticed. Hence, it was encouraging to read Msgr. Wadsworth’s comment that:

A welcomed final feature of the book is an extensive bibliography which points the interested reader towards a vast amount of useful commentary.

II. Criticisms and Disputed Points. There are four of these, and they offer a good opportunity for some give and take.

1. Theology vs. Preference. The introductory chapter of Work of Human Hands is entitled “Old Mass vs. New Mass: What’s the Fuss About?” First, Msgr. Wadsworth correctly notes:

Cekada sites his debate in the climate of renewed interest in traditional rites in the wake of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. He goes to considerable lengths to express his sincere view that attachment to the traditional liturgy without a through-going theological rationale, amounts to no more than personal preference based on aesthetic considerations.

Indeed, I do think this has generally been the case, and Msgr. Wadsworth is correct in adding, “Obviously, this is highly contentious.”

But apart from rejecting the new liturgy in favor of the old liturgy on the basis of a clear theological rationale, I can’t think of anything other basis for doing so, apart from aesthetics, nostalgia or simple preference. Once you get away from the theology behind the two rites, what else do you have?

Msgr. Wadsworth adds that my insistence on a theological rationale for adhering to the old rites is contentious because:

Cekada makes it clear that in his view, authentic Catholicism at the present time only admits the sedevacantist position. This would condemn the vast majority of the million or so Catholics who use traditional rites in their worship to the charge of schism and heresy.

But here Msgr. Wadsworth is simply mistaken. I do not treat these issues at all in Work of Human Hands.

2. The Eucharistic Prayers. In the Mass of Paul VI, the invariable Canon of the old Mass was replaced with multiple Eucharistic Prayers (EPs). My treatment of these in Chapter Twelve, says Msgr. Wadsworth, “renders little that is original, however, and falls below the mark in relation to many more comprehensive studies on the Ordo Missae.”

To be sure, this chapter does go over a lot of old ground: the origins and invariability of the Roman Canon, its silent recitation, the artificial structure of the new EPs and the “all vs. many” dispute over the translations of the Words of Consecration. But this was done for the benefit of those who are “new” to the old Mass.

I cheerfully concede, however, that in the case of at least one EP whose historical antecedents I was able to treat in only a summary fashion (EP2) a far more comprehensive treatment did indeed appear at about the same time that Work of Human Hands was published. This is Mathieu Smyth and Paul Bradshaw’s erudite study “The Anaphora of the So-called Apostolic Tradition and the Roman Eucharistic Prayer,” Usus Antiquior 1.1 (January 2010), 5–25.

That said, Chapter Twelve does treat a number of topics that I, as least, have not encountered in traditionalist critiques of the Mass of Paul VI: a chronology of the movement to change the Canon and the motives of its leaders, the influence of ecumenism on the new texts, the horizontal 60s theology of the six EPs for Reconciliation and for Various Needs, an a discussion of the recasting of the Words of Consecration as Words of the Lord in an “institution narrative.”

I note in passing that Msgr Wadsworth, like Dr. Hull, thought the title for the chapter on the EPs was too provocative: “Deplorable Impoverishment.” However, I merely lifted this phrase from Bugnini’s characterization of using the Roman Canon exclusively as “a deplorable impoverishment that had been a typical result of centuries of liturgical decadence.”

I was employing the expression ironically. It is likely that Msgr. Wadsworth missed this because as an Englishmen he would naturally tend to put the concept “American irony” into the same category as “German humor” — theoretically possible, but rarely encountered in the real world.

The Missal of John XXIII

3. Pre-Vatican II Changes and the New Mass. Msgr. Wadsworth seems to be of two minds about my treatment of the connection between the 1951-1967 liturgical changes and the Mass of Paul VI.

On one hand, as we have seen above, he says that my identification of the 1951 Easter Vigil as the prototype for all subsequent reform and revision is perhaps my “most illuminating insight.” On the other hand, Msgr. Wadsworth later says:

Here as at many earlier stages in the book, Cekada claims rather too much for the reforms of 1962 and 1965, giving the ludicrous impression that these revisions constitute the beginnings of the Novus Ordo.

I think, though, that a rereading of the evidence (see the quotes from Bugnini, Braga, and Paul VI on pp. 49, 57–8, 61, 67-8 of Work of Human Hands) shows that my claim is far from ludicrous. The creators of the New Mass themselves saw a straight line connection between pre- and post-Vatican II changes.

4. Theological Critique and Context. Since the threat to Catholic doctrine inherent in the Mass of Paul VI forms part of the thesis of Work of Human Hands, it seemed natural enough to denominate the book as a “theological critique.” Msgr. Wadsworth says that “author claims a lot in offering ‘a theological critique of the Mass of Paul VI’,” but that he is “not convinced that this is ultimately what is offered.” Further:

[Cekada] fails to cite his observations in a wider theological discourse, perhaps fearing a compromise of his sedevacantist position. This tends to mean that whereas he is persuasive in arguing the genesis of modern liturgical reforms, his explanation of their consequences both at the time and in our present time, is often unconvincing.

However, my explanation of the thesis of the book (pp. 7–8) explicitly lays out the theological issue that will be examined: the new rite’s treatment of the nature of the Mass, the priesthood and the Real Presence, together with the influence of ecumenism and modernisn apparent in the new rite.

These theological themes and their development throughout the whole book can be easily traced by referring to the index, which we tried to make particularly thorough and detailed precisely for this reason. (See in particular the entries under “Ecumenism” and “Modernism.”) The themes can also be found in the summaries which appear at the end of each chapter.

Finally, Chapter Fourteen offers a synthesis of the theological problems with the new rite that have been raised and criticized in the foregoing thirteen chapters.

For these reasons, I find Msgr. Wadsworth’s demurrers about Work of Human Hands as a theological critique to be a bit mystifying.

III. Conclusions. In addition to the positive comments about particular points that we have already quoted above in section I, I was very pleased that Msgr. Wadsworth added a few more general words of recommendation for Work of Human Hands:

“[T]he book is full of interesting and credible analysis.

“I remain grateful for this study which … represents a genuinely informative work and an important contribution to the current debate.

“I hope this brief review will encourage others to read it.”

Often the best one can hope for from a reviewer is that he actually reads the book and gives the author a fair hearing. A reviewer who is intimately conversant subject matter of the book, takes the time to analyze its contents carefully, praises it and then urges other to read it is every author’s dream.

I thank the Editor of Usus Antiquior, the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Paul Hemming, for his inspired choice of Msgr. Wadsworth to review Work of Human Hands, and I thank Msgr. Wadsworth for his careful consideration of my book and for his kind words.

Posted in 01 Old Mass or New Mass, 02 Liturgical Movement, 03 Liturgical Changes 1948–1969, 11 Preparation of the Gifts, 12 Eucharistic Prayer, Reviews of Work of Human Hands, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

Ordinations during the Pre-1955 Easter Vigil

By frcekada | Published: April 18, 2011

MOST OF THOSE who closely follow events on the traditionalist scene are probably aware that the church where I work in West Chester, Ohio, St. Gertrude the Great, follows the pre-1955 rites for all its liturgical services.

I have discussed the general rationale for this in my recent book on the New Mass, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI (see Chapter 2, and pp. 403–6). In previous years I have also blogged about the particular differences between the pre- and post-1955 rites for Holy Week.

The Twelve Prophecies

For several years now, the old Holy Week rites at St. Gertrude’s have been broadcast live on the Internet, providing Catholics who may be unfamiliar with these beautiful ceremonies the opportunity to view them. The schedule of services is posted in the St. Gertrude the Great church bulletin, and the video link for the webcasts can be accessed here.

This year, the Holy Saturday schedule notes that an ordination to the subdiaconate will be conferred during the Easter Vigil. A correspondent wrote to ask: (1) Was it a common practice to confer ordinations during a vigil such as Holy Saturday? (2) Was episcopal consecration also conferred during a vigil? (3) Specifically, how do the ordination ceremonies for subdiaconate fit into the Easter Vigil proper?

1. A Common Practice? In the biography of a well-known priest, prelate or saint who studied in Rome, one frequently comes across the fact that his ordination took place on an Ember Day, the Saturday before Passion Sunday (Sitientes), or Holy Saturday. This strikes most Catholics as odd, because priestly ordination is now viewed as a festive occasion, hardly one that should take place on a day of penitence.

Nevertheless, these are in fact the traditional ordination days prescribed by 1917 Code (c. 1006.2). Why?

The roots of the law stretch back to Christian antiquity, and Cardinal Schuster (Sacramentary 4:14ff) connects the solemn fast of the faithful during the week preceding ordinations with apostolic tradition.

At first, during the third century, ordinations took place on the Ember Saturday in December. Here the custom may be linked to the vigil that the faithful once kept from Saturday night to Sunday morning, as well as to the number of readings prescribed for Ember Saturday — seven, which naturally enough one would associate with the seven orders the bishop conferred.

In Rome, moreover, the stational church assigned for the ordination day was St. Peter’s. Every act conferring sacred authority was regarded as an extension of the authority Christ conferred on St. Peter. So, not only did the rite have to take place at his tomb, but also those ordained had to receive the insignia of their sacred office there as well.

Eventually, five other penitential Saturdays were also established as ordination days: the Ember Saturdays in Lent, Pentecost and September, together with the Saturday before Passion Sunday (Sitientes) and Holy Saturday. Nabuco (Pontificalis Romani Expositio 1:217) observes that a time of prayer and fasting is particularly appropriate for ordaining clergy.

These were then prescribed by a law of Pope Gelasius (+496), confirmed in the Decree of Gratian, and solemnly imposed by the Council of Trent.

Though the 1917 Code allowed ordination to Major Orders on a Sunday or Holy Day for “a grave reason” (1006.3) and though U.S. bishops had an indult to confer priestly ordinations on Saturdays generally, the tradition of the Church dictated that, where possible, one confer major orders on one of the six Saturdays noted.

I have no hard statistics on how closely the law was followed before Vatican II. But since the practice was both well-established in law and observed in Rome, I suspect that exceptions would not have been common.

Indeed, Nabuco says that an indult like the one the U.S. bishops received was only “rarely conceded in our days.” (2:218)

2. Episcopal Consecration during the Vigil? None of the commentaries on the Roman Pontifical that I possess envision this. Nabuco (2:238) specifically warns against consecrating a bishop on Palm Sunday or Candlemas, due to the other ceremonies prescribed for the day.

Having formulated some fairly exhaustive rubrical guides for both the Rite of Episcopal Consecration and the pre-1955 Pontifical Easter Vigil, I can assure readers that combining both rites would be ritually impossible, given the twelve prophecies, consecration of the font, examination of the elect, Litany, consecration rite, solemn Alleluia, concelebration, enthronement, Vespers, and the rest that one would have to intermix.

(The process of writing these guides, by the way, gave me new respect for Archbishop of Milwaukee’s MC, whom we as young minor seminarians used to poke fun at. Never criticize a man unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes — especially the buckled kind…)

But the law, in any case, prescribed that the rite be performed on a Sunday or the Feast of an Apostle. Nabuco observes that a Sunday in Advent or Lent would be less appropriate, since episcopal consecration is of its nature a festive rite. (2:238)

All the more so would it seem inappropriate to consecrated a bishop on a day of even partial fast, such as Holy Saturday.

3. How Does an Ordination Ceremony Fit into the Vigil? In the case of subdiaconal ordination, this is relatively simple — if one can conceive of the word “simple” be used in connection with any pontifical ceremony, still less, the pre-1955 Easter Vigil.

The changes in the usual pontifical rites for the vigil are roughly as follows:

When the bishop comes back from blessing the baptismal font and arrives at the foot of the altar, the Litany of the Saints is interrupted, and the bishop sits at a faldstool in the middle of the sanctuary.
The assistant priest reads the prescribed call of ordinands and an admonition.
Afterwards, the Litany is resumed. The bishop’s violet cope is removed and he kneels at his faldstool. The ordinand prostrates on the floor.
Meanwhile, the altar is decorated, the deacon and subdeacon go to the sacristy to change to white vestments, and when they return, they vest the bishop in white vestments.
Near the end of the Litany, the bishop rises to sing the three petitions (bless, sanctify, consecrate) over the ordinand.
The Vigil Mass proceeds as usual until after the Collect, where it is interrupted for the ordination rite (the call of the candidate, admonition and step, exhortation, delivery of chalice and paten, blessing, investiture with amice, maniple and tunic, and finally, delivery of epistolarium).
Mass continues, with the new subdeacon singing the Epistle.
The subdeacon presents a candle to the bishop at the Offertory.
Before the Last Gospel, the bishop imposes the customary penance.

The subdiaconal ordination this year will be a proverbial piece of cake compared to 2006, when we ordained a priest, Fr. Thomas LeGal, during our Vigil here. All told, the ceremony took six (6) hours, due to the concelebration and the additional rites that take place after communion.

As the rite was unfolding, it occurred to me that the world had not seen this particular ceremony take place — priestly ordination conferred during the pre-1955 Holy Saturday Vigil — for more than fifty years!

Having actually participated in such lengthy and splendid rites, one looks back with longing and admiration to the days when such events were just normal fare in the Church before the “springtime” of Vatican II.

A blessed Holy Week to you all!

Posted in 03 Liturgical Changes 1948–1969, 15 Which Missal to Use? | Comments closed

New Oxford Review, the Pre-Vatican II Reforms and the New Mass

By frcekada | Published: March 25, 2011

THE New Oxford Review, a monthly with a conservative take on many issues in the post-Vatican II church, recently reviewed Nicola Giampietro’s The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970 (Roman Catholic Books, 348 pages, $33.75).

Ferdinando Cardinal Antonelli

Antonelli was a liturgist and Vatican official who from 1948 onwards had been intimately involved with the ongoing liturgical reforms that began during the reign of Pius XII and culminated with the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI in 1969. Indeed, in his capacity as Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, Antonelli had countersigned the 1969 decree promulgating the New Mass.

The review, by Arthur C. Sippo, caught my eye for several reasons. I had consulted Giampietro’s book in researching my own book on the New Mass, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, which prominently features a quote from Antonelli’s memoirs: “In the liturgy, every word and every gesture conveys a theological idea.”

Moreover, the title of Dr. Sippo’s review, “Liturgical Reform Did Not Start with Vatican II,” expressed one of the central contentions of my book.

Dr. Sippo enlists the Pius XII reforms and Antonelli’s comments in defense of the post-Vatican liturgy and against traditionalist objectors to it:

To people who have taken a keen interest in liturgical reform and have read about it both from the perspective of those who support it and those who do not, this volume helps put everything into perspective, separating the wheat from the chaff. This is especially true with regard to the claims of “radical traditionalists,” who allege that the 1970 missal represented a Protestantization of the liturgy and a wholesale break with tradition, and that the 1570 missal was an organic outgrowth of the Church’s life. Cardinal Antonelli’s memoirs show that this was not the case, and that, for good or for ill, the reform basically achieved what it set out to do.

Dr. Sippo correctly observes:

The Novus Ordo Missae has been referred to mistakenly as one of the “fruits of the Second Vatican Council.” In fact, the history of liturgical reform that led to the promulgation of the New Mass predated Vatican II by several decades.

And on this point, I am entirely in agreement with him. Indeed, I entitled Chapter 2 of Work of Human Hands “Liturgical Changes 1948–1969: The Creation of the New Mass.”

The whole course of the reform, Dr. Sippo notes, was directed by the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Movement:

Improved historical scholarship and the patristic renaissance of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had given birth to a new consciousness of the liturgy as a dynamic participation of the faithful in the prayers and rites of the Church.

What Dr. Sippo and many others like him do not seem to realize, however, is that by the 1950s many of the principal actors in the Liturgical Movement had veered off into Modernism and false ecumenism. These charges were leveled by Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg in a 17-point memorandum he circulated among the German bishops in 1942 that detailed the errors and excesses of the Movement.

The Holy See intervened with Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), a Letter of the Secretariat of State to Cardinal Bertram (1943) and Pius XII’s Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947), all of which condemned, in one way or another, errors rampant in the Liturgical Movement.

None of this stopped the onslaught of the Modernists, however. Thus, in a 1956 Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Pius XII warned the Movement once again about prevalent theological errors concerning the Real Presence, the priesthood, and the danger of separating the tabernacle from the altar where Mass is celebrated.

In the 1940s and 1950s some supporters of the Movement had already noticed the Modernist connection and treated it as a positive development. While a Catholic in those days needed to be extremely circumspect about praising such a phenomenon — Catholic clergy, remember, still had to take the Anti-Modernist Oath before ordination and before promotion to any teaching position or higher office — a Protestant enthusiast for the Movement like Ernest Koenker could baldly state in a 1954 work, The Liturgical Renaissance in the Roman Catholic Church:

It is especially in its theological method that the Liturgical Movement evidences a relationship with the errors of Modernism as condemned by Pius X in Pascendi… There is no doubt that Heiler and Birnbaum are correct when they see the Liturgical Movement continuing certain of the tendencies of Modernism: certain of the most fruitful trends condemned by Pius X in his blanket condemnation have served to make the Liturgical Movement the great power it is today. (29, 30-1).

As I demonstrate in Chapters 2 and 3 of Work of Human Hands, there is indeed ample evidence that the liturgical changes instituted in the 1950s were the work of Modernist adepts of the Movement, engaged in a long-term program of incremental liturgical change — indeed, subversion — that would culminate in the promulgation of Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae in 1969.

So, the connection that Dr. Sippo rightly draws between the pre-Vatican II reforms and the Novus Ordo does not so much exculpate the Mass of Paul VI as incriminate it.

Posted in 02 Liturgical Movement, 03 Liturgical Changes 1948–1969 | Comments closed

WHH: “The Definitive Traditionalist Critique of the New Missal”

By frcekada | Published: March 8, 2011

IN ITS MARCH 2011 number, the Australian Catholic periodical Oriens published a combined review of three recently-published books on the post-Vatican II era, Dr. Tracey Rowland’s Benedict XVI: A Guide for the Perplexed, Dr. Geoffrey Hull’s The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church and Fr. Anthony Cekada’s Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI.

PERIODICAL: Oriens is the journal of the Oriens Foundation, which “promotes appreciation for, and understanding of, the traditional Latin liturgy as one of the foundations of Western civilisation. Oriens traces in history and culture, in language, art and aesthetics, in religious and moral norms, the influence of the classical Western liturgy, and examines its interactions with private life and public affairs.”

Dr. Stephen McInerney

REVIEWER: Stephen McInerney (b. 1976) holds a Doctorate from the University of Sydney (2006) and a Bachelor of Arts (with First Class Honours) from the Australian National University, where he was awarded the University Medal in English in 2000. In Your Absence (Indigo/Ginninderra), his collection of poems, was recommended by leading Australian poet Les Murray in the (London) Times Literary Supplement ‘Books of the Year’ in 2002. His writings have appeared in the Bulletin, the Australian, Adelaide Review, Quadrant, Who Weekly, Southerly, Critical Review, AD2000, Oriens, Best Australian Poems (2004 and 2005), the Literary Encyclopedia and the Warwick Review (UK). He is currently Lecturer in Literature at Campion College, New South Wales, Australia. A number of his articles have appeared in the U.S. publication The Remnant.

THE REVIEW: Dr. McInerney characterizes the three works under review, which bring to light “the problems of Tradition and Reform, the differences between Reform and Revolution, organic growth and corruption, and the role of the papacy in all this,” as ”thoroughly researched and eminently readable works of scholarship.”

All engage with and seek to account for the recent dramatic changes in the Catholic Church. Whereas Professor Tracey Rowland does this in the context of, and as a consequence of exploring, the theology of Benedict XVI, Professor Geoffrey Hull and Rev. Anthony Cekada do so, in quite different ways, by engaging directly with the liturgical question itself.

While Dr. Hull and Dr. Rowland trace the contemporary crisis to the first millennium and the sixteenth century respectively,

Fr. Cekada adopts (perhaps ironically!) a more mainstream traditionalist position by tracking present problems to the distortion of the liturgical movement… which was, he believes, hijacked by theological Modernists and liberals of various stripes.

This is the first time ever, I think, that the words “Cekada” and “mainstream” have appeared in the same sentence. Be that as it may, Dr. McInerney correctly observes that my interest in the liturgical reform lies primarily in its theological underpinnings:

Cekada is a thorough scholar, who has done as much as anyone to highlight the theological differences between the pre-C0nciliar Missal (codified by St. Pius V) and the Missal of Paul VI, and in so doing, to prove that these differences cannot easily be reconciled. In addition to numerous articles, he contributed the illuminating introduction to The Ottaviani Intervention and has published a fine study, The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass.

Dr. McInerney then provides a brief overview of the contents of Work of Human Hands. Doctrinal motives, he notes, prompted this study:

Cekada believes that the New Missal is opposed to authentic Catholic teaching, not only in its typical celebration in the average parish (most traditionalists would agree) but in its essence, and he marshals an impressive array of evidence to support this conclusion.

Chapter 2, on the history of the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Movement, Dr. McInerney found “quite enlightening, if at times too neat.” To counteract the latter, he recommends that the chapter be read in light of Chapter 15 of Dr. Hull’s work, which also explores aspects of the pre-Conciliar Liturgical Movement.

As regards particular strong points of the book, Dr. McInerney says:

The most outstanding and convincing aspect of Fr. Cekada’s work, extending what he achieved in the Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass, is to show how alien to one another are the spirits animating the two missals. What has been removed from the New Missal is every bit as revealing as what has been added, and it is hard not to conclude — as Cekada does — that the New Missal was calculated to change the behavior, attitudes and beliefs of the Catholic population.

Dr. McInerney then concludes his review by turning to a broader topic that a consideration of all three books suggests:

For this reviewer, these three excellent works raise as many questions as they answer. How do we know a legitimate reform when we see it, or recognize a legitimate development of doctrine? How do we know a corruption? Who has authority to argue that Thomism should not have pride of place in Catholic theology? …

How do we judge which practices are essential and which are not, which rulings to follow and which to ignore, which one harm and which protect the faith once delivered to the saints? …

Is Newman’s position on Rome’s role in guiding and guarding authentic development still valid in the liturgical sphere, however, in light of what we have seen since the Second Vatican Council, with Rome’s infamously conflicting (and impossible to reconcile) positions on altar girls and administration of communion, among a host of other practices? It has certainly been seriously tested by the experiences of many Catholics, both Eastern and Western.

Or, to put the underlying question as simply as possible: How reconcile the Church’s authority and infallibility on one hand, with the evil of the official liturgical changes on the other? It is encouraging to see that a new generation of traditionalists has begun to grasp the nature of the problem.

Work of Human Hands, Dr. McInerney says, “will surely now stand as the definitive traditionalist critique of the New Missal.”

Posted in Reviews of Work of Human Hands | Comments closed

Benedict XVI and Communion in the Hand: Put Aside Your Illusions

By frcekada | Published: November 22, 2010

"Not opposed in principle."

EVER SINCE the post-Vatican II revolution began, the liturgical change that faithful Catholics regarded as most horrifying was communion in the hand. It overthrew everything — everything — we had been taught to believe about the ineffable holiness of the Real Presence and the sacred character of the priesthood.

The 16th-century Protestant heretics who abolished communion on the tongue and introduced communion in the hand were well aware of the doctrines the old practice represented, and changed the mode of receiving communion precisely in order to overthrow these teachings.

So too, during and after Vatican II. The modernist heretics great and small (and I knew many in the latter category) who promoted errors such as transfinalization, transignification, a “transient” presence of Christ in the Eucharist, assembly theology or a “lay” priesthood inevitably also advocated communion in the hand. Denying Catholic dogmas on the Real Presence and the priesthood went together with the new ritual practice — which said “Nothing special here; just plain old bread.”

Many who now advocate more traditional liturgical practices have looked upon Benedict XVI as a sympathetic ally who seeks to restore tradition in Catholic worship. Hence, the permission given for the old Mass, the reappearance of old-style vestments at St. Peter’s, the encouragement given to worthy sacred music, etc.

Since the reception of communion on the tongue logically would seem to be part of this package, and since Benedict XVI was rumored to be opposed to communion in the hand, many were shocked to see pictures of him personally distributing communion in the hand, most recently, to the Queen of Spain.

Various explanations were offered in the pro-Benedict traditionalist camp: the poor pope had been pressured into the practice, he did not want to cause scandal (!) by refusing someone communion, pastoral prudence motivated him, etc., etc. Few, it seems, wanted to put aside the image of Benedict as the Great-but-Patient-Restorer-of-Catholic-Liturgical-Tradition

One need speculate no longer about possible explanations. In an interview just published as a book (Light of the World), Benedict XVI says:

I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion in this way myself.

So there we have it in Benedict’s own words: he believes that there is nothing wrong in itself with communion in the hand.

But if there is no principle to oppose, why the widely-publicized business of communicants in St. Peter’s being made to kneel and receive on the tongue?

The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the Real Presence with an exclamation point. One important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving Communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir.

The return to the traditional practice was, in other words, merely a practical expediency to forestall the incidental, by-the-way, regrettable problems of superficiality and souvenir hunting.

In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive Communion — everyone else is going up, so I will, too—I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention!

This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.

A question of "context."

In the foregoing passage and those which preceded it, we find more of the convolution so typical of modernist theological discourse. A few bones are thrown towards Catholics who hunger for tradition and the old dogmas (thus: “underscoring the Real Presence,” “something special,” “not just some social ritual”), while the larger and more fundamental issue at stake is rendered completely relative (“in this context,” “danger” of superficiality).

We have seen this before in Ratztinger/Benedict’s pronouncements on the liturgy. He comes out in favor of some traditional practice: the old Mass, facing “east” for the Eucharistic prayer, more Latin, traditional vestments, high-quality music, etc. Beleaguered conservatives and traditionalists rejoice: the restoration has begun!

But upon closer examination, one quickly discovers that Ratzinger/Benedict’s starting point for arriving at these conclusions is often located in another theological universe: e.g., attractive “sacrality,” culture, sensibilities, the Teilhardian cosmos, richness. (See Work of Human Hands, 5–6, 170–72)

This should come as no surprise, because the young Josef Ratzinger was himself formed in the mid-20th century modernist theological universe that rejected the methods and principles of Thomist (i.e. Catholic) theology.

So the traditional tone of Benedict’s practical conclusions should not divert us from the poisonous principles behind them. The modernist George Tyrrell (1861–1909), after all, was likewise a great fan of the Latin High Mass, “with all its suggestion of mystery, faith and reverence.” (Through Scylla and Charybdis, 34)

Courtesy of Benedict XVI, conservatives and advocates of officially-sanctioned celebrations of the old Mass are thus left without a fixed theological principle upon which to hang their opposition to communion in the hand. It’s all “context” now — the Holy Father says so!

As for sending what Benedict called “a clear signal,” ever since the advent of the Protestant and Modernist heresies on the nature of the Eucharist, the signal communion in the hand has sent is very clear indeed: I repudiate the dogma of transubstantiation.

So too, the signal Benedict XVI’s recent statement should send to conservatives: It is time to put aside your illusions.

Posted in 01 Old Mass or New Mass, 13 Communion Rite, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

Dr. Hull on WHH: “Well Documented,” “Original and Worthy of Attention”

By frcekada | Published: November 6, 2010

I AM PLEASED to report that Work of Human Hands has received its first formal review in a periodical. This came in a lengthy piece by Dr. Geoffrey Hull in the October 2010 issue of Christian Order. One advantage of the Internet age is the opportunity it offers an author to engage with and respond to points raised by reviewers. In the case of Dr. Hull’s lengthy and thoughtful review, this will be a pleasure.

PERIODICAL: Christian Order was founded in England in 1959 by Father Paul Crane SJ. In the years following Vatican II, Christian Order promoted resistance to the liturgical changes and fidelity to the old Mass, and described its mission as battling the efforts “of the Modernist revolutionaries and their manic efforts to protestanize the faith anew” in the “the liturgical, doctrinal, moral, catechetical and ecumenical fields.”

Apart from editorials, Christian Order does not put its content on-line. For information on ordering the number which contains Dr. Hull’s review, or to subscribe to Christian Order (for U.S., $50 for ten editions per year) click here.

REVIEWER: Dr. Geoffrey Hull is an Australian linguist, ethnologist, historian and professor at Macquarie University, Sydney.

Dr. Geoffrey Hull

Professor Hull is also the author of The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church, a study of the historical causes and socio-cultural impact of church reforms of the 1960s in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic traditions. A second edition of Banished Heart was published in 2010 by T&T Clark (London) as part of its series Studies in Fundamental Liturgy.

THE REVIEW: Dr. Hull’s review is rather extensive (11 pages). He takes his duty as a reviewer seriously: he strives to represent the content of WHH concisely, accurately and fairly, and to balance positive and the negative parts of his analysis. His tone is academic, rather than polemic, a refreshing contrast to so much traditionalist writing.

The first obstacle that many traditionalists must overcome before reading almost anything I have written is that I am a sedevacantist. I begin Work of Human Hands with this very point, and Dr. Hull addresses it in his opening paragraph.

When I agreed to review Rev. Anthony Cekada’s latest study Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, I was aware that many readers of Christian Order would hesitate to open a book written by a sedevacantist… And as the reviewer of this book I wish to state for the record that I am no supporter of the sedevacantist thesis or of the mission of its proponents.

Nevertheless, in his preface Fr Cekada states that his topic is not sedevacantism but the Roman liturgical reform, and although latter-day traditionalist cynicism might make it hard to suspend the judgement that the two subjects can hardly be unrelated in the mind of a writer so given to systematic thought, I think it only fair to evaluate the work more for what it purports to be rather than for what it might seem to imply…

I. Positive Observations. From this Dr. Hull proceeds to a number of positive general observations about Work of Human Hands:

Cekada’s latest offering is well documented and based on an impressive amount of background reading evidenced by its extensive bibliography.…

Both parts naturally go over ground already covered by other writers and scholars who have attempted to assess the extent to which the new liturgy has departed from organic ritual development and compromised Catholic doctrine in the interests of ecumenical convergence with Protestantism: the thought of Louis Salleron, Michael Davies, Klaus Gamber, Didier Bonneterre and others has been well pondered and economically synthesized by the author. But what makes Anthony Cekada’s study original and worthy of attention are those pages where he goes into a deeper analysis of particular aspects of the liturgical revolution that have so far been dealt with in only a cursory fashion.

Dr. Hull points out and sums up for the reader the two key chapters in which I analyze the theological underpinnings for the Mass of Paul VI:

Particular cases in point are his excellent Chapters 5 and 6, examining the protestantizing doctrinal innovations that informed the 1969 General Instruction on the New Mass, and the skullduggery resorted to by Vatican officials in their attempt to salvage and repackage the document after its orthodoxy was brought into question by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. The author’s reflections on the expunging of references to the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation in the Instruction are most interesting, as is his analysis of the new interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, and of the roles of priest and congregation…

Of the Chapter 4, which deals with the vernacular translations of the New Mass that conservatives have so severely criticized over the years, Dr. Hull says:

Another valuable insight provided by this book (pp. 92–9) is evidence that in several instances, for example, the foisting of poor and erroneous vernacular translation of Latin liturgical texts on local churches, responsibility lay with the Vatican bureaucracies working under the Pope, not with the episcopal conferences who usually get the blame in polemic literature…

In Chapter 1 of Work of Human Hands and again in my conclusions, I point out the dangers of reducing the question of old Mass vs. New Mass to one of aesthetics, nostalgia or a vague “hunger for mystery” in religion. I argue that the main reasons for rejecting the New Mass and embracing the old must be Catholic doctrine and piety.

On this point Dr. Hull is in complete accord.

I could not agree more with [Fr. Cekada’s] criticism of the modern Vatican’s plainly dishonest endorsement of the immemorial rite on primarily aesthetic grounds. Such grounds are diametrically opposed to (and designed to sweep under the carpet) the weighty doctrinal considerations that have motivated intelligent traditionalist dissent from the reform ever since the 1960s.

Another important observation, made on pp. 5–7, concerns the gagging of traditionalist opinion demanded by a conscientious acceptance of the terms of the indults of 1988 and 2007. The Vatican strategy of subjectively portraying fidelity to the immemorial rite “as mere personal preference or sentiment” was, Cekada writes, “ extremely clever. It sidestepped the doctrinal question — it’s all just choice and options. And if you suspect there may be a problem, please don’t be so ungrateful to the Holy Father as to mention it…”

Here Dr. Hull offers a personal anecdote about priests who had had begun to celebrate the traditional Mass under the auspices of the new, Vatican-approved priestly societies established under John Paul II in 1988:

This reminds me of a conversation I had in the late 1980s with the superior of the newly-formed Fraternity of St. Peter. I asked the priest in question whether [it] was true that accepting the terms of the Ecclesia Dei decree [of John Paul II] meant being unable to criticize the liturgical revolution still approved by the Vatican. “Oh, enfin…” [“Oh, well…”] was his evasive reply, and after a short, embarrassed silence he changed the subject.

“The elephant which I had led into the room,” Dr. Hull continues, was that the New Mass was a “dangerous aberration,” and that putting it on the same level as the traditional Mass “in the interests of a spurious unity of faith based on post-conciliar, Anglicanoid pluralism is totally unacceptable,” because “in the orthodox universe there are no such things as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ forms of the Roman rite.”

Summing up on this issue, Dr. Hull concludes:

Fr. Cekada rightly recognizes that just as truth and error cannot be wed, no convergence of authentic worship and an artificial cult is possible, and talk of a “reform of the reform” is a mere delusion, whether it come from the lips of the Supreme Pontiff or from someone lower down the chain of command. That the Pauline liturgy needs to be officially repudiated and abolished in the Roman rite is the logical — and impeccably orthodox — conclusion of the book,

Dr. Hull’s review appeared in Christian Order immediately after an editorial on the New Mass that concluded with the phrase delenda est — it must be destroyed. This, as it happens, was also the title for the final section in my conclusions at the end of Work of Human Hands.

II. Criticisms: Some of the offenses alleged fall into the venial category. Work of Human Hands, Dr. Hull concedes, “certainly never suffers from dullness.” That said,

Anthony Cekada is an engaging and entertaining writer, but his penchant for the witty aside is somewhat over-indulged in what sets out to be a work of objective scholarship. This sometimes leads him to descend into populist rhetoric…

In a purely academic context, Dr. Hull is of course quite correct. Work of Human Hands, however, was also aimed at a broader audience — not only the intellectual or the liturgy buff, but also the average Joe in the pew at a traditionalist chapel, who tends not to read many books and who (my experience as a parish priest tells me) appreciates a few extra rhetorical flourishes here and there when he does. It is for his benefit that Father Chuck and Ms. Gauleiter make an occasional appearance.

Dr. Hull points out three instances of inaccurate terminology in a footnote (p. 88, n. 16) discussing various liturgical languages. Two of the three instances are based on my source (De Marco, Rome and the Vernacular, 45, 81), but since Dr. Hull is eminent linguist in the field of Romance, Celtic, Slavonic, Semitic, Austronesian and Papuan languages, one must naturally defer to his expertise.

Other points in the book to which Dr. Hull takes exception touch upon more complex issues:

(1) Invalidity?. The thesis of Work of Human Hands deals with the disastrous effects of the New Mass on Catholic doctrine and piety. The issue of the validity or invalidity of the new rite I treat in a somewhat ancillary fashion at the end of Chapter 12 (see pp. 346–8)

Put roughly, my argument is this: (a) According to the traditionally accepted principles of Catholic sacramental theology, to recite the Words of Consecration (or “sacramental form”) at Mass in a narrative mode manifests a defect of intention that would render the consecration invalid. (b) In the official liturgical text of the New Mass itself, the Words of Consecration (Verba Consecrationis) have been changed from a true sacramental form into a quote (Verba Domini, as the new rubrics and Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution say) in a historical narrative. (c) The conclusion based on (a) and (b) is invalidity.

Dr. Hull is of the opinion that, to arrive at this conclusion, I would need to prove that modern priests habitually and deliberately read the Words of Consecration this way.

But the problem I see lies not with the individual priest, but with the official liturgical text itself. The priest just takes what the official rite gives him, and as I demonstrate by examining this rite, it gives him a narrative with a quote. (See pp. 337–45) Applying the major principle (a) leaves only one conclusion.

Deliberately abandoning the traditional principles of sacramental theology in the formulation of a new rite, as the reformers did, was bound to have terrible consequences, and this, I contend, is one of them.

(2) Modernist or ‘modernist’? While Dr. Hull acknowledges the subversive activities of the New Theology (an anti-Thomist movement which emerged in the 1930s and which would triumph at Vatican II), he believes that I have not clearly set “terminological parameters” in applying the term “modernist” to its adherents. In some cases (Küng and Schillebeeckx), he believes, it applies; in others, he believes it does not — notably that of Father Louis Bouyer.

His exception for the case of Bouyer, I think, is rooted in the general inclination among traditionalists (e.g. Michael Davies, and many who are now promoting the old Mass under the banner of Summorum Pontificum) to claim Bouyer as an ally of their cause, due to his caustic comments after the Council about how some of the liturgical reforms actually turned out. (These are found in Liturgy and Architecture and The Decomposition of Catholicism.)

The perception needs to be revised. He who undertakes a reading of Bouyer’s 1954 Liturgical Piety while keeping one eye on Pascendi will see all the usual modernist sleight-of-hand: brutal dismissal of the ages of faith, praise for heretics (Brilioth, Jubé, Anglicans), “surpassing” standard Catholic theological terminology, attacks on the Real Presence, hatred for Thomism, and everywhere, endless rhetorical zigzagging to camouflage his real ideas from too close a scrutiny. All of this, I contend, I have amply documented on pp. 32–40 of Work of Human Hands.

As regards Dr. Hull’s more general terminological objection to my characterizing adherents of the New Theology as “modernists,” I respond that the label was employed not only by their own more orthodox contemporaries (to the question “Where is the New Theology leading us?” the great Dominican neo-Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange replied, “back to modernism”) but also by their latter-day sympathizers (Jürgen Mettepenningen’s recently-published study, for instance, is entitled Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II.)

In light of the foregoing, it would seem that my “application of the damning label ‘modernist’ to most of the post-scholastic Latin liturgists and theologians” may be far less hasty than Dr. Hull seems to think.

(3) Contempt for the Catholic East. This, Dr. Hull contends, is my attitude towards Uniate Catholics. I will let the charge pass, and ask the reader of Work of Human Hands to form his own conclusions.

(4) Sedevacantist Shortcomings. Dr. Hull devotes only two paragraphs to this point. My “rough handling of non-Roman theological and liturgical traditions” seems to be “intimately bound up the general outlook of sedevacantists, which is excessively prone to abstraction in thought.” This results in

an exaggerated conception of papal power that makes grave errors of naturally fallible pontiffs outside the strict bound of guaranteed infallibility seem inconceivable, an attitude hardly supported by the evidence of Church history.

On the issue of whether my conception of papal power is exaggerated, or whether it indeed constitutes an excess forming part of what Dr. Hull calls “the author’s latinocentric sedevacantist baggage,” I will take a pass as well. This topic would take us far beyond what is, strictly speaking, the subject matter of Work of Human Hands.

III. Conclusion. Dr. Hull observes that no reviewer who, like himself, is also an author assumes that writing the perfect book is an easy task.

And while any thoroughgoing review of a book will inevitably appear more negative that positive because of the very nature of criticism, my concluding opinion is that there is much to commend in Work of Human Hands — a work I have found enlightening in many respects, in spite of the reservations I have expressed.

There is no doubt that a good deal of what Anthony Cekada has painstakingly chronicled and lucidly argued will make a very useful contribution the question that faces all orthodox Catholics today: how to restore integrity and holiness to the sanctuaries of our devastated churches.

I thank Dr. Hull and Christian Order for the opportunity to present and discuss these issues.

NOTE: Christian Order has since posted Dr. Hull’s review on line as its October Feature.

Posted in 02 Liturgical Movement, 12 Eucharistic Prayer, Reviews of Work of Human Hands, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

Bugnini Collaborator: “Work of Human Hands” Defames Paul VI’s Reform

By frcekada | Published: October 31, 2010

Rev. Matias Augé

MUCH TO my surprise, the first non-traditionalist writer to weigh in with a review of Work of Human Hands (albeit brief) was a liturgist who actually had a hand in creating the New Mass.

Rev. Mathias Augé, a Claretian priest and liturgical scholar, worked in the 1960s for Consilium, the Vatican agency headed by Rev. Annibale Bugnini that was charged with the task of overhauling the liturgy. Fr. Augé assisted Consilium Study Group 18b, which revised the orations — the variable prayers in the Missal that change according to the liturgical feasts and seasons.

In particular, Fr. Augé was responsible for rewriting the collects (opening prayers) for the temporal cycle of the liturgical year (the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, etc.).

In Chapter 9 of Work of Human Hands, I cite Fr. Augé’s own commentary on his work, “Le Collete del Proprio del Tempo nel Nuovo Messale” (Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 [1970], 275-98) in which he explains how the reformers sought to eliminate from the collects various concepts “of little relevance to the mentality of modern man.” These concepts, he explained, included punishment for sin, divine anger or wrath, damnation, eternal punishment, etc. — a category he and the other reformers referred to as “negative theology.”

I used his article, and that of Bugnini’s assistant, Rev. Carlo Braga CM, as a starting point for analyzing how Fr. Augé and his collaborators at Consilium applied this principle to the liturgical texts they created for the Missal of Paul VI.

I was therefore very interested to read Fr. Augé’s commentary on Work of Human Hands. It is entitled “A Polemic against the Missal of Paul VI,” and was posted on his blog, Liturgia Opus Trinitatis, on October 27, 2010:

In 1982 those who had worked on the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms with Archbishop A. Bugnini presented the bishop with a collection of studies on the reform entitled Liturgy: A Divine and Human Work. Nearly thirty years later, the Rev. Anthony Cekada has published a book critical of the Mass of Paul VI entitled Work of Human Hands. The title itself is an open polemic against the Pauline reform — as if it were nothing more than the product of human scheming.

I thank the publishers who have sent me this hefty volume of 445 pages with notes and references. I started leafing through it with interest, but I realized very quickly that the book is more than a “Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI,” as the subtitle says. It is a voluminous polemic [un voluminoso pamphlet] that aggressively defames the Pauline reform. It takes just a few examples to understand this:

“The changes made in the prayers of the Missal of Paul VI have been made to destroy Catholic doctrine” (p. 245).

“The Lectionary of the Mass of Paul VI is a gigantic fraud” (p. 274).

“The only victim offered in the new presentation of the gifts is the Catholic doctrine — a ‘living sacrifice’ to ecumenism in a rite reeking not of oblation, but of Luther and Teilhard de Chardin” (p. 304).

The title of Chapter 12 reads: “The Eucharistic Prayer: Deplorable Impoverishment” (p. 305).

The title of Chapter 13: “The Communion Rite: Impiety in Action.”

The author shows himself a true disciple of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who ordained him a priest in 1977. I thank him anyway for the four times that he deigned to mention one of my studies (in a critical way, of course). Bear in mind, though, that I do not belong to [the Masonic lodges] P2 or P3, as the author suggests when he writes of “Augé and company” (p. 222); I have my way of evaluating things, and I express it sincerely. Works like this sadden me because they show the arrogance with which some set themselves up as defenders of tradition (theirs) and teachers of doctrine in the Church of God.

In response, I posted on Fr. Augé’s blog the following comments:

Please excuse me for writing in English, rather that in your sonorous and poetic language.

First of all, the English phrase “Augé and company” is merely an American colloquialism, and did not suggest any Masonic affiliation.

I wish that Fr. Augé had not merely denounced my conclusions, but instead addressed the evidence I presented for them.

In the matter of the orations in the Missal of Paul VI, for instance, I cited several hundred passages where the language had been changed in order to eliminate references to miracles, the true Church, heresy, the merits of the saints and what Fr. Augé himself called “negative theology” — Catholic teachings that modern man finds offensive: hell, contempt for the world, punishments for sin, divine wrath, etc.

Surely the elimination of such concepts from the lex orandi [law of praying] harms Catholic doctrine.

Similar procedures were followed with the new lectionary. It was presented by the reformers as “more Scripture.” But the revisers eliminated, passed over, relocated, or made optional many verses “modern man” would find “difficult.” I provide many citations to the new lectionary to demonstrate this.

If one disputes my conclusion that the lectionary is a “gigantic fraud,” one should at least deal with my evidence.

As for “deplorable impoverishment,” the expression comes not from me, but from Mgr. Bugnini, who used it to describe the unvarying use of the Roman Canon throughout the centuries, rather than multiple Eucharistic Prayers (p. 313).

Fr. Augé (understandably) disagrees with my conclusion that the reform was a bad thing. But leaving that aside, he and others should at least give a fair hearing to my evidence that the changes in the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass introduced by Paul VI and Consilium represent a substantial theological shift for the lex orandi.

After all, even a liturgical scholar on the “progressive” side of the reform like Jesuit Father John Baldovin has stated that “the reformed liturgy does represent a radical shift in Catholic theology and piety” (p. 4). If Father Baldovin and I draw the same conclusion from the examining the new rite, perhaps there is more to my argument than just polemics.

Thank you, Father and readers, for your patience!

Those who reformed the Mass told us they were changing its “doctrinal content.” That they actually did so is verified by comparing the texts and rites of the old Mass with the new.

It is therefore unreasonable for the reformers to claim that Catholics who discover this years later and object to the results are merely engaging in “polemic.”

Posted in 03 Liturgical Changes 1948–1969, 09 Revised Orations, Reviews of Work of Human Hands, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

WHH: Some Positive Reactions

By frcekada | Published: October 6, 2010

Well, maybe not just yet…

OVER THE past few months since the publication of Work of Human Hands, we’ve received a great number of positive comments about the book. Below is a representative sample taken from short reviews posted on Amazon, as well as from e-mails we’ve received.

A traditional Catholic priest: Nowhere have I seen such an exhaustive and well-researched analysis of just exactly what the Modernists did to the Catholic Mass, step by step.

A university professor: The work of a scholar… An outstanding example of scholarly research… the most informative and comprehensive study I have seen of the post-Vatican II Mass.… knife-sharp logic… a must for seminarians and Church historians.

A Catholic priest: I was a student of liturgy at the “Catho” [the Catholic university] in Paris from 1973 to 1975. My professors are frequently mentioned by the author. There is much in his analysis that squares with my experience. The Jungmann-Bouyer-Bugnini troika stands behind much of the Mass of Paul VI. His thesis is systematically argued. For me, it was a satisfying visit to a liturgical “whodunit.”

A Catholic wife: A wealth of information and enjoyable to read… I’ve been a traditional Catholic for 15 years and I thought I’d read and learned all there was to know about “what happened and why” but this book really opened my eyes.

A “former litnik”: Outstanding. Highly readable, fascinating, humor, scary realities, Father Cekada pulls it all together. A book that could not have been written until now. Extensive interesting research. Very convincing. This is going to be a quotable book and I bet is being read by every Vaticanist who can get his hands on it. Probably every seminarian as well. Willing to bet it will be widely discussed and debated. In some modernist seminaries will be cause for dismissal if found on your bookshelf. Great job Father, I am not a sede but you hit the nail on the head, over and over and over and…

A traditional Catholic priest: … a masterpiece of research and a detailed exposé of the plots and scheming of the modernists.… clear and concise with a bit of humor added to help the reader travel more easily through deep theological issues.

A Catholic father: If you are new to the traditional movement, or are just curious about the traditional Mass, this book is for you. It sticks to the topic at hand, the problems with the Novus Ordo Mass, and does not dwell on any of the topics that divide traditionalists.

A traditionalist “from way back.” When I learned that Fr. Cekada was writing a book on the New Mass, the thought kept recurring, “After forty years, what could Fr. Cekada say on this subject that hasn’t already been said?” Well, as Paul Harvey used to say, “Now we’ll hear the REST of the story!” A glance at the Table of Contents or the Index ALONE go a long way toward answering the question above, not to mention the handy chapter summaries. By the end of the second chapter, you will KNOW.

A former chapel coordinator: .… a well researched book that takes from the Holy Week changes in the 1950′s and all the frequent changes that followed until the Novus Ordo Mass in 1969. At the time these frequent alterations in the liturgy left us confused and discouraged. His book gives us a clear picture of what happened and why.

A Catholic author: Full of new findings… Virtually every important theological and historical consideration is represented… immense scholarly apparatus.… an ideal gift for friends and family who are beginning to think seriously about the issues… sober erudition and elegance of style.… a work of history and Thomistic philosophy all rolled into one.… a natural and easy-to-read complement to Dom Guéranger’s Liturgical Year.

A Catholic couple: Thank you for this fine work. We have often wished for a history of how our wonderful faith could have been destroyed.

A former Novus Ordo priest: Everything you describe is exactly like what I was taught and saw in my Novus Ordo seminary and parish. I hope it gets into the hands of many of the “conservative priests” in the New Church.

A Dutch traditionalist priest: A tremendous achievement.

It seems we are regularly getting orders from across a wide spectrum — not only from traditionalists, but also from priests in the Novus Ordo milieu, as well as from Catholic seminary and university libraries.

This is very encouraging on several counts: First, we have done very little in the way of publicity thus far, so it appears that people are finding out about the book by word of mouth, always a good sign.

Second, one of the main considerations which prompted me to finish Work of Human Hands was the interest a younger generation of clergy has taken in the pre-Vatican II liturgy, and the problems many of them sense in the Mass of Paul VI. WHH, I hope, will aid in enlightening them on both counts.

Posted in Reviews of Work of Human Hands | Comments closed

The Meaning of “Work of Human Hands”

By frcekada | Published: October 2, 2010

RECENTLY I CAME across the musings of a young Jesuit, Father Mark Mossa, about the phrase “work of human hands” which occurs in the Preparation of Gifts (= Offertory) in the New Mass. This prompted a brief correspondence the meaning of the phrase.

Fruit of the vine…

The full text of the priest’s blog posting is here, and the pertinent excerpts were the following:

This past weekend I joined the nearby parish where I help out for their patronal feast. It was a wonderful celebration. The church was packed. One of the bishops came and presided at mass (doing so both in English and Spanish—I was impressed). Everyone was well-dressed. At the offertory, representatives of various different countries came forward dressed in ethnic costume to present some native foods. Then came the offering of the bread and the wine…

I’ve been taking a class on Eucharist and social justice, where we discuss the meaning and implications of our Eucharistic celebrations, like the Mass we had this night. At every Mass I speak the words “the work of human hands,” often not really thinking about what that means. This class is pushing me to be attentive to such things. What we are saying at that point in the mass, in fact, is that our Eucharist is possible because the work of so many brings the bread and wine to us so that we can offer it as a gift to each other… So, when we hear “the work of human hands” we are reminded that our Eucharistic food depends on the work of… many of those rough-handed people who come to church each Sunday.

My comment was as follows.

Dear Father: You may find the following information interesting.

I recently published a critique of the Mass of Paul VI entititled “Work of Human Hands,” which is available from philotheapress.com

I explain that the phrase in the post-Vatican II rite for the Preparation of the Gifts in the modern Mass originates in the writings of the pantheist/evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin, silenced by Rome in 1925 for his modernist ideas and therafter forbidden to publish.

It reflects Teilhard’s theory that human labor becomes the “matter” for the Eucharist. Bad theology, of course!

This is in addition, of course, to Scripture’s denunciation of idols as merely “the work of human hands.”

Best wishes.

This prompted the following response from Fr. Mossa

Thanks for your reply. I don’t understand that phrase from the Mass as saying that human labor itself becomes the matter of the Eucharist. That’s an interesting notion, but, probably, as you say, bad theology. I think, however, it is good to be reminded that the matter of the Eucharist, at least in terms of the bread and wine we use, does come to us from the work of human hands.

In any case, I’m sure you know more about the history of the liturgy than I do. I just use the words as they have been given to us by the Church, and assume that they contain wisdom for us, even if “the work of human hands” (or brains) might, as you suggest, have resulted in some flaws. God seems to “fill in the blanks” in various ways despite the limits of our understanding, thankfully!

Can’t say I’m sure about the logic of your scriptural reference. The two might be confused, I suppose. But I don’t think the implication is that everything we speak of as “the work of human hands” is therefore an idol. And I expect that you are warning against the former danger, rather than the latter conclusion, right?

And my response:

In my book (pp. 287-88) I cite the evidence for the phrase’s Teilhardian roots, and give a few quotes from Teilhard’s (rather creepy) essay “Mass on the World.”

The use of the phrase in Scripture to refer to idols is more easily seen in the Latin Vulgate (opera manuum hominum), and it appears in 4 Kings 19:18, 2 Paralipomenon 32:19, Psalms 113:12, Psalms 134:15, Wisdom 13:10, Isaias 37:19, Baruch 6:50, and Baruch 6:51. The overtones conveyed by such an expression in the successor rite for the Offertory seem, at the very least, incongruous.

Many thanks for your considerate reply!

Finally, one idea in Fr. Mossa’s original post is particularly noteworthy:

What we are saying at that point in the Mass, in fact, is that our Eucharist is possible because the work of so many brings the bread and wine to us so that we can offer it as a gift to each other.

This is a total inversion of the ultimate purpose of the Mass as it is traditionally understood — a sacrifice of praise offered to the Most Holy Trinity. But such theological confusion is the natural consequence of the indeterminate expressions in the prayers the modernists formulated to replace the traditional texts. They could mean anything.

Posted in 11 Preparation of the Gifts, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

ICEL Mistranslations: Who’s to Blame?

By frcekada | Published: September 29, 2010

AN ARTICLE in a recent issue of The Wanderer resurrected the old accusation, often heard in the 1960s and 1970s, that ICEL (the International Committee for English in the Liturgy), bore almost exclusive responsibility for the post-Vatican II mistranslations of the Mass of Paul VI. English-speaking Catholics, we were repeatedly told, never had the opportunity to assist at the real Mass of Paul VI, because the wicked modernists in ICEL had manipulated the English translation in such a way as to undermine what our beloved Holy Father had intended for the new rite.

Il pesce puzza…

The following is a letter to the Editor that I wrote in response to the article.

* * * * *

Paul Likoudis’s “Liturgy Wars are Over” (The Wanderer, September 16, 2010, p. 4) brought back memories of the anger and outrage we conservatives felt during the ‘60s and ‘70s when ICEL shoved their mistranslations and kindergarten style down the throats of the English-speaking Catholics everywhere. Their work was a particular trial for those of us church musicians who still believed in maintaining a sacred style for music at Catholic worship.

Mr. Likoudis, however, leaves the impression that blame for those mistranslations is to be laid almost exclusively at the feet of ICEL. Most of us certainly believed this during those years after the Council, and we undertook various initiatives to bring the problem to the attention of those who would surely correct it — “If the Pope only knew about this deception,” etc. etc.

However, now that so much documentation about the history of the liturgical reform has become readily available, and so many members of Consilium have written their own accounts about their work, it is clear that ICEL was merely putting into practice principles enunciated in various Roman documents.

Three documents from Consilium (Inter Oecumenici, 1964; “Conventus de Popularibus Interpretationibus Textuum Liturgicorum,” 1965; Aussitôt après, 1967) progressively allowed translators more and more freedom to “adapt” translations.

The final blow to any pretense of accuracy came with the Roman Instruction Comme le Prévoit (25 January 1969). This document (denounced several years ago in The Wanderer, if memory serves) laid down the general principles that would produce the distortions, omissions and outright errors we conservatives complained about in the ICEL translations.

Its probably author, Father Antoine Dumas, wrote a commentary on Comme le Prévoit the following year. (Notitiae 6, 194-213) Here, he amplified the principles laid down in such a way as to further the modernist theological agenda of removing from translations “negative” theology and allusions to doctrines that Protestants could find offensive. (Thus “victim” would disappear from the translation of the Eucharistic Prayer 1.)

Nor, it appears, could one maintain that ICEL and Consilium were operating a cabal (as some of us thought) “to frustrate the will of the Holy Father.”

The real blame, it turns out, rested with Paul VI himself. He carefully examined both the French and Italian drafts of Comme le prévoit; he made 47 notations on the draft in his own handwriting; he made changes both in its style and substance, and he even corrected the printer’s page-proofs. (See Bugnini, La Riforma, 236-7)

So, the awful ICEL mistranslations, it seems, were nothing more than an implementation of official policy handed down from the top.

* * * * *

Readers can find a more detailed discussion of this issue, including citations, in Chapter 4 of Work of Human Hands.

So, ICEL should not be made the whipping boy for the awful post-Vatican II mistranslations. Ultimately Paul VI laid down the principles that ICEL followed.

If the translations stank, it was because (as the Italians say) Il pesce puzza dalla testa — the fish rots from the head.

Posted in 04 Latin to the Vernacular, WHH Chapter Topics | Comments closed

Buy the Book

Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI
Categories
Archives

Links
RSS Links
- All posts
- All comments

Supplemental Commentary on Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Rev. Anthony Cekada

Buy the Book

Categories

Archives

Links

RSS Links