Part II
 |
A Summary by Fr. GnanaPragash Suresh.
|
THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE LITURGICAL REFORM-
"THE PASCHAL MYSTERY."
At this point in our study, we must highlight the unifying principle behind these reforms in order to understand their importance fully. The key to interpreting the reforms appeared in official documents as early as 1964. It is the Paschal Mystery. The Declaration Inter Oecumenici states that:
The changes in the liturgy which have already been introduced, or which will be introduced later, have this same end in view. The thrust of pastoral activity which is centered on the liturgy is to give expression to the Paschal Mystery in people’s lives (Inter Oecumenici, Sept. 26,1964, Nos. 5 and 6).
Chapter 1
THE PASSOVER OF THE LORD.
The expression "Paschal Mystery" appears only a few times in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In the ancient sacramentaries it appears more frequently but it is used in the plural which means: "the mysteries of the Paschal or Easter Time." Until the 20th century the expression had no special meaning in the writings of theologians. Today, however, the Paschal Mystery has become the foundation of , and the key to, the meaning of the entire Liturgy.
Is this Paschal Mystery a total innovation? Not according to the new theology. It is a fresh (liberal) look at the traditional dogma of the Redemption.
The first reason given for abandoning the expression "Redemption" is that it is too negative. In traditional theology, man’s sin, being a disordered act, merits a punishment which is necessary to restore the injured order. Of course, God’s internal glory is not diminished by our sins, but His external glory is, and divine justice demands a reparation if the honour of God is to be restored. The traditional dogma of Redemption is objective which considers God Whom sin offends. But the new theology of the Paschal Mystery is subjective which considers what sin does to man.
I. The New Theology.
A. A New Theology.
According to many contemporary theologians, sin must not be looked upon from the perspective of the divine anger, since it incurs no debt in justice with regard to God. They say that just as God gains nothing from the gifts His creatures give to Him, so He loses nothing through sin. Sin is not prejudicial at all to the nature of God, which is inaccessible. The only thing it harms is the nature of man.
The same view emerges from the 1992 New Catechism:
Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures the human solidarity. Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it (CCC ## 1849, 1850).
Since God’s love endures in spite of sin, and since His justice demands no satisfaction, it would be contrary to God’s goodness to punish us for our sins. Consequently, the need to satisfy divine justice is no longer apparent, and the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ appears scandalous. From now on satisfaction for sin is described as a purely corrective punishment and no longer in terms of God’s vengeance.
B. A New Theology of Redemption.
The Popes prior to Vatican II have often summarized the traditional doctrine of the Redemption in their encyclicals. Redemption is described as a work of love which appeases the divine justice.
From the perspective of the Paschal Mystery, the Redemption is seen quite differently. Redemption is not meant to give something back to God, but to give God back to man. Redemption is no longer the satisfaction of divine justice as wrought by Christ, but rather the supreme "revelation" of the eternal Covenant which God has made with humanity, and which has never been destroyed by sin.
Since the redemptive work of Christ is not meant to make satisfaction for the sins of man but only to reveal fully the love of the Father, the traditional doctrine of the Redemption will be consequently changed in two additional points.
Firstly, the work of Redemption must be attributed to God the Father rather than to Jesus Christ as man. Jesus Christ is no longer the Redeemer properly speaking. He is rather the arena where God the Father saves us, since the Love of the Father and even His name are revealed to us in Christ.
Christian faith in the Redemption is firstly faith in God. In Jesus Christ, His incarnate only Son, "He whim men call God"(i.e. the Father) is revealed by unveiling Himself as the only true Saviour in whom all can have faith (International Theological Commission, Selected Questions concerning God the Redeemer, 1994, Part IV, No. 14).
Secondly,the principal act of Redemption is no longer the death of Christ but His Resurrection and His Ascension. Why does the Resurrection take this primacy? Because the Resurrection manifests the fullness of the revelation for which Christ became incarnate.
The fact that Christ "was raised the third day" constitutes the final sign of the messianic mission, a sign that perfects the entire revelation of merciful love in a world that is subject to evil ... In fact, Christ, ... has revealed in His resurrection the fullness of the love that the Father has for Him and, in Him, for all people. "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (John Paul II, Dives in Misericordia, No. 8).
II. The Second Vatican Council.
The doctrine of the Paschal Mystery was very much present at Vatican II as a general atmosphere influencing the various constitutions. Throughout all the documents, only twice is it stated that sin offends God. In Sacrosanctum Concilium # 109 and Lumen Gentium # 11, while sin is described 27 times as being harmful to man and to civil and ecclesiastical society, nowhere is it stated that sin creates a debt in justice towards God, or that it is an obstacle to God’s love for us. On the contrary, the Father has never ceased to look upon man with love, despite his becoming a sinner (Lumen Gentium # 2, Gaudium et Spes ## 2, 19). In the texts concerning the works of Christ, not once do we see the notion of vicarious satisfaction. Though it is affirmed that the Church is His Body, and that the members of His Body share in the mysteries of the Head (Lumen Gentium # 7), not once is it stated that the Head suffers the punishments deserved by the members of His Body.
If the heart of the doctrine concerning the Paschal Mystery, i.e. the putting aside of the vicarious satisfaction, was not explicitly declared by the Council, this was later done in a document of the International Theological Commission:
The death of Jesus is not the act of a merciless God glorifying supreme sacrifice; it is not the "price of redemption" paid to some repressive alien power. It is the time and place where God who is love and who loves us, is made visible. Jesus crucified declares how God loves us and proclaims through this gesture of love that one man has unconditionally consented to the ways of God (International Theological Commission, op. cit., Part II, No. 14).
III. The Application of this Doctrine to the Liturgical
Reform.
The theology of the Paschal Mystery has been the soul of the liturgical reform. In this new doctrinal perspective, almost all the rites have been subject to change:
· Since God no longer regards sin as an injustice towards Himself and since He never breaks His side of the covenant with man, He is no longer asked to remit punishments due to sin, nor to appease His just anger against the sinner. Thus all references to these punishments, or those that show fear of God, have been removed by the liturgical reform.
· Since the Redemption is seen as a full revelation of the Father’s free and superabundant love for us, the response which the celebration of the liturgy embodies can only be one that of thanksgiving and petition. The vicarious satisfaction of Christ and His mediation are no longer absolutely necessary. The Father, rather than the Son, brings about universal salvation by pure love, the fruits of which are obtained by commemorating this mystery of love.
IV. Conclusion.
We can, therefore, see that the differences between the two missals are nothing other than a reflection of two divergent doctrines. One is that of the Traditional Dogma of the Redemption, the other is that of a theological opinion invented by the modern Theologians.
Chapter 2
THE SACRAMENT AS MYSTERY
The doctrine of the Paschal Mystery not only attempts to correct the negative aspects of the traditional theology of the Redemption, it also means to bring about a synthesis of certain truths previously perceived as being too fragmented. The new notion of "mystery" takes pains to suppress the distinction which the traditional theology makes between "objective Redemption" - salvation wrought historically by Christ, and "subjective Redemption" - an act by which we participate in the process of salvation.
I. The Notion of Mystery.
A. The New Theology.
The new theological vision of the Paschal Mystery finds its origin in the works of
Dom Odo Casel, a German Benedictine monk. Despite certain controversies caused by his writings, the new theology considers the "doctrine of mysteries" to be "the most fertile theological idea of our century."
The New Theology refashions or redefines the theology of the sacraments in order to impart to the word "sacrament" all the associations of the original Greek word, mysterion (mystery). We must not see, say the new theologians, the sacrament simply as an instrument that produces grace. In reality the sacrament is a symbolic image which renders the sanctifying reality really present, which "re-presents" it. They speak of the "presence of the saving act under the veil of symbols."
According to this new theology, the sacrament becomes a symbol which makes the invisible sacred thing visible, not only because it signifies it in the order of knowledge, but because it contains it and makes it objectively present. Therefore, a sacrament is no longer a sign which produces grace, but a symbol which contains what it signifies, namely, the invisible sacred thing. In place of the definition of a sacrament by its efficacy - a visible sign that produces invisible grace- a new definition is substituted: "(It is the) presence beneath the veil of symbols of the divine act which brings salvation."( Odo Casel, Jahrbuch fur Liturgieswissenschaft,VIII, p.145).
Applying this new notion of the word "sacrament" in the liturgy, from now on Our Lord becomes the sacrament of the Father, the Church becomes the sacrament of Christ, the Liturgy becomes the sacrament of Christ’s mysteris and the assembly of the people becomes the sacrament of the Church. The meaning of sacrament is reduced to a vague presence of any visible sacred reality, belonging to the world of experience.
B. The Second Vatican Council.
Official acceptance of this new notion of the word "sacrament" dates from Vatican II. Starting with the Constitution on the Liturgy, it plays a vital role. Without actually using the word, the idea that Christ is the sacrament of God and the liturgy as the sacrament of the Church is expressed in the documents of the Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium ## 5, 7). This notion of sacrament also guides the conciliar ecclesiology. The Church becomes a sacrament by making Christ present for us (Lumen Gentium, ## 1, 14).
II. The Mystery as The Arena of Revelation.
A. The New Theology.
The new theology gives much importance to the word "mysterion" in the theology of the liturgy because it believes this notion enables it to solve the issues raised by modern thought. Contemporary thinking, conditioned largely by the Idealism of Emmanuel Kant, has abandoned the principles of realist philosophy, and questions the value of speculative knowledge. Modern man, made dizzy by the abyss of idealism, attaches himself all the more to the value of experience which seems to enable him to make direct contact with reality. He is tempted by scepticism and avid to see and touch, and moreover appears disappointed with traditional Christian doctrine. This doctrine asserts that the Church is founded on a unique experience, i.e., the visit of God to His people. It states that Jesus Christ shared our human existence, and revealed His doctrine of salvation in both words and deeds. At the same time the Church teaches that this fundamental experience was the exclusive privilege of the first Christians who spoke with Christ. Other Christians do this only through the testimony of the Apostles. Revelation is, therefore, a doctrine transmitted by preaching. Faith comes from hearing and hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). This concept seems to be a difficult one for the modern mind to accept. The new theology, therefore, wants to present Revelation in a way that better meets the expectations of modern man. It maintains that God does not reveal Himself in a doctrine but rather in an experience of His presence.
According to the new theology, Revelation comes about especially through a living contact with the mystery of divinity. By rejecting the natural realism of the human mind, idealist philosophies have endangered man’s access to realities which transcend the order of pure phenomenon. The new theology presents the phenomenon as a "symbol" which, by means of a suitable interpretation, enables man to have objective contact with the transcendental realities it "symbolizes."
By questioning the realist perspective, the new theology profoundly changes the sacramental theology, and this change takes the form of a re-interpretation of the traditional definition of a sacrament. Though the expression "efficacious sign of sanctification" is kept, it acquires another value. Instead of looking upon a sacrament as an instrumental, efficient cause of grace sanctifying the soul, the new theology will henceforth look upon a sacrament from the perspective of human knowledge and making it a "manifestation" or a "revelation" of the living presence of God. The theory is that if man enters thus into contact with God, his sanctification will thereby be wrought. Looked upon this way, both the Liturgy and Tradition become the arena of continual revelation.
B. The Second Vatican Council.
If Vatican II did not explicitly declare the liturgy to be the arena of Revelation, it nevertheless ratified the principle behind it, namely, the new understanding of Revelation being accomplished through "words and deeds" in the history of God’s relations with man (Dei Verbum, ## 2, 4).
III. Application of This Doctrine to The Liturgical
Reform.
A. The Sacrament of Faith.
According to this new understanding, the sacraments, the arenas of Divine Revelation, will demand faith from the assembly in a different way. Since the sacrament is considered from the perspective of human knowledge, it must be interpreted - through the faith- to make the signified reality present to the participants. Only an act of faith in the course of the rite seems to enable one to penetrate the symbolism of the sacrament and reach the mystery, thus ensuring the action of the mystery on the soul. But, the traditional theology teaches that the sacraments produce grace ex opere operato (by its own operation) in the soul. Although the supernatural faith is necessary for someone to receive the sacraments fruitfully, this faith only need bring the soul to submit to the action of the Church; a full understanding of the meaning of the sacramental sign is by no means absolutely necessary.
This understanding of sacrament seems to be the origin of the profound, liturgical changes relating to the sacrificial offering as analyzed in Part One. If we look upon a sacrament primarily as the actuation of faith, it is logical to speak no longer of the act of the Sovereign Priest who offers Himself to His Father in the person of His minister, and to lay emphasis on the act whereby the assembly offers the Body and Blood of Christ present on the altar.
The Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy greatly insists on the role of faith: "(The Sacraments) not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called sacraments of faith" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, # 59). The 1992 New Catechism also reflects the same vision (Ref. CCC ## 1122-1129).
B. A New Place for the Word of God.
If the new theology has neglected the power of the sacraments and emphasized instead their meaning as nourishment for faith, the opposite has happened as regards Sacred Scripture. The emphasis here is now laid on its power rather than on its meaning. In fact the Constitution on the Liturgy even went as far as to apply to Scripture the new notion of sacramental mystery: "He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when holy scriptures are read in the Church" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, # 7). Henceforth the Word of God is classed among those visible sacred signs that sanctify the soul. According to this new vision the Scripture is no longer meant for the instruction of faith but to produce mystical experience, an experience which is supposed to nourish knowledge of the faith. This new way of looking at Sacred Scripture explains the parallel the New Missal draws between the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy and the lessening of the worship of the Real Presence. It also explains the greater emphasis laid on the common priesthood of the faithful.
IV. Conclusion.
This new concept of mysterion (mystery) has changed the true notion of sacrament and, consequently, has given it a new meaning: "a sacrament is a visible reality that makes present the divine(things) again and gives them to man to nourish his faith."
Chapter 3
THE MEMORIAL
The doctrine of the Paschal Mystery glorifies the actions of Christ as revelation more than as propitiation (Chapter 1). It, therefore, considers the sacraments as means of making the actions of Christ present rather than an efficacious means of salvation (Chapter 2). This new perspective of "Memorial" renders obsolete the clearly sacrificial character of the Mass. The liturgical celebration from now on becomes a proclamation of thanksgiving, and a declaration and revelation of the mysteries which are commemorated.
I. The Mass as a Memorial.
The new theology is wary of intellectual systematization and prefers to consider the revealed mysteries from a historical point of view, i.e., as living realities which operate and develop through the history of salvation. Thus it analyses the New Testament in the light of the Old. Returning to the Jewish Passover is, therefore, necessary in order to understand the essential nature of the Eucharist. Now, we are told that the ritual of the Passover was essentially a memorial. This memorial, however, was not purely subjective, i.e. Israel remembering Yahweh and His salvation, but the memorial was mainly objective, i.e. Yahweh remembering Israel and actualizing the Covenant before Him and man.
Since Christ adopted the rite of the old Passover when He instituted the Eucharist during the paschal meal, and given that only the memorial aspect of this rite is described (in the Gospels), the Mass is considered firstly as the "memorial of the Lord." This is the reason why the words of consecration have been changed. The Jewish memorial was able to make God present again and renew the effects of His salvation; it was an objective memorial and not simply calling to mind of the past. Now, this also applies to the Eucharist.
In order that the memorial prayer of the Church be "a real prayer which signifies and makes something real, it must not express a memory recalled at the subjective level. It must rather convey an objective memory by means of an action." (Dom Odo Casel, Do this in memory of me, the italics are from the text). Moreover, if this action should not be interpreted as the outward expression of a subjective memory, it should by nature be an action of the community, i.e. a social action. But what communal action will be the setting for the objective memorial in the case of the Mass? It will be a meal, since it was the principle behind the Passover of the Old Testament and the Eucharist of the New Testament. Therefore, the Mass is a prayer only in as mush as it recalls the Last Supper by means of a communal meal.
This way of looking at the memorial of the Mass made its way into the official texts of the Church at Vatican II. From the first lines of the Constitution on the Liturgy, we find the sacrificial aspect and the memorial aspect of the Mass juxtaposed without a clear link (Sacrosanctum Concilium, ## 47, 106). Afterwards the Council was happy to refer to the Mass simply as " the memorial of the Lord’s death and resurrection." (Ad Gentes Divinitus, # 14).
II. The Mass as the Passover of the Lord.
In the new theology the Mass becomes the memorial of Christ’s Passover: "The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action." (CCC # 1409). Not only are past mysteries made present, but the prophetic dimension of the Eucharist enables future mysteries to be made present also.
Since Christ is considered firstly as the sacrament of God revealing to man the unchanged love of the Father Who wishes to share His glory, the central point in the life of Christ becomes the Resurrection and Ascension - (Ref. CCC # 648). The memorial of the Mass, therefore, must admittedly recall the death of Christ, but it must above all focus on His Resurrection.
These new ideas are profoundly opposed to the traditional theology which sees the sacrificial death of the Crucified Christ as the heart of the work of Redemption. In His death the Word Incarnate achieves His mission both with regard to God and man. Now of all Christ’s human actions the one which showed the greatest love for the Father - by glorifying Him the most - was His obedient death on the Cross. If we consider Christ’s work insofar as it benefits men, the death on the Cross is the most important of His actions. The Resurrection certainly contributes to our salvation but the traditional theology maintains that only the death of Christ - and not His Resurrection - has a meritorious and satisfactory value.
III. The Mass as a Sacrifice.
The traditional theology and the new theology also disagree profoundly on the question of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. In accordance with the Council of Trent and its definitions, traditional theology thinks of the mass as a sacrificial action in its own right. The Mass is a sacrifice in which the victim is offered in an unbloody manner. This definition was clarified and reconfirmed by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei: "At the altar, there is an unbloody immolation per externa signa quae sunt mortis indices - by external signs which are symbols of His death. For by the transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present. Now the Eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood." Pius XII shows that the sacrifice of the Mass is memorial insofar as it represents the death of the Cross. (Mediator Dei, # 70).
The new theology abandons this definition and teaching. For the new theology, the sacrifice is not found in the exterior rite but in the re-presentative role of the memorial. "The Mass is not, therefore, a sacrifice of its own nature, but is identical to the sacrifice of the Cross because it is its memorial; its sacrificial character consequently depends upon its nature as a memorial; it is essentially a sacrifice insofar as it is a memorial."(Dom Odo Casel, Jahrbuch fur Liturgieswissenschaft, VIII, p.176). According to the new theology, therefore, the Mass is primarily a memorial (CCC # 1362); it is a sacrifice only secondarily and only insofar as it is a memorial (CCC # 1365); the Mass is a sacrifice only because the memorial "makes the sacrifice of the Cross present" beneath the veil of mystery (CCC # 1366).
IV. Conclusion.
By introducing the "the theology of mysteries" the new theology excludes the expiatory nature of the Mass. This way of explaining the Mass was already condemned by Pope Pius XII. In Part Three, a close examination of the teaching of the Council of Trent will enable us to judge the doctrinal value of this new explanation.
