The Barbarians Have Taken Over (Final)

Conclusion

Michael Davies

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

I happen to have lived in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in the years 1962-63, when my wife was training as a teacher in the Sacred Heart Sisters' College. I have two very vivid memories of Newcastle. My first is its celebrated Brown Ale, which I sampled frequently while working as a part-time barman in an effort to supplement our meagre income—I was also a student at the tme. My second vivid memory is of the Catholic cathedral, particularly of its sanctuary which was among the most beautiful in any Catholic church in England. The sanctuary was separated from the nave by a delicately carved rood screen, surmounted by a life-sized crucifix with statues of our Lady and St. John.[1] In the place of honor upon the noble and dignified high altar, as prescribed by Canon Law, was the tabernacle containing God the Son Himself. The years I spent in Newcastle were, from a material standpoint, among the most difficult in my life. But to step into the Cathedral was such a joy, such a consolation, that the problems of this world seemed of no consequence whatsoever. Things human were mingled with things divine; it was the ante-room of heaven, the mind was lifted beyond the cares of this world to the delights of the world to come. "Respicite volatilia caeli—Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?" (Mt. VII, 26).

The consolation evoked by this heavenly sanctuary was mingled with a sense of continuity with the Catholic heritage of my country. Just such an altar and just such a screen would have been found in countless medieval churches until, in all too many cases, the fury of the Protestant Reformers was vented upon them. A clearly defined sanctuary, a rood screen, even an altar rail were too poignant a reminder that in the sanctuary took place mysteries celebrated by men who were not as other men, men who were priests according to the Order of Melchisedech, each one another Christ, an alter Christus, who made our Savior present upon the altar, and offered Him as our Divine Victim each time that Mass was celebrated.

But for the Protestant there was no divinely instituted priesthood ordained to offer sacrifice.The faithful were all equally priests, and they chose one of their number to distribute bread and wine in a commemorative communion meal. There must be no majestic sanctuary, no sacral language which the people did not understand, and the host should face his guests across the table, not face the east as a papist priest did when offering the Mass. And since what took place upon the table was a meal, the guests should receive both food and drink, the bread and the wine. What kind of host partakes of the wine and does not offer it to his guests? And since the bread is ordinary bread, and the minister is an ordinary man, he should place it in the hands of his guests. If he placed it upon their tongues it might appear that he had some power which they did not, it might appear that the bread they were given was not ordinary bread. The first Protestants correctly sensed that if they were to triumph they must destroy the Mass; if the Mass was to be destroyed they must repudiate the priesthood and without the Mass and without a priesthood what possible need was there for a sanctuary? A sanctuary is for offering a sacrifice, and there was no sacrifice now beyond one of praise, and no one part of the church was more sacred than another for the offering of this sacrifice. So let the sanctuaries be smashed, let their destruction signify the repudiation of the sacrifice they had been built to enshrine. The first Protestant Communion Service was celebrated by the German Reformer Carlstadt in Wittenberg on Christmas Day 1521. He wore no priestly vestments, used the vernacular, omitted the Canon and any prayers referring to sacrifice, invited the entire congregation to receive the Lord's Supper under both kinds with the bread taken in the hand. Luther himself felt that Carlstadt had gone too far, or at least had gone too quickly, but he eventually adopted all his innovations and added one of his own—a celebration facing the people.

History Repeats Itself

In February 1981, I received one of the most unpleasant shocks of my life. A friend in Newcastle sent me a copy of the Northern Cross, the official monthly journal of the Diocese of Hexam and Newcastle. On the front page there were two photographs of the Cathedral sanctuary; one of the sanctuary I had known and loved, and another depicting a scene of such devastation and desolation that it might well have been a joint effort of Thomas Cranmer and Attila the Hun. Whenever I visit one of the ancient parish church or cathedrals of England, and witness the destruction which was wrought by Protestants, I invariably think: "Inimicus homo hoc fecit—An enemy hath done this" (Mt. 13:28). The same thought came to my mind at once on seeing the "bare ruined choir" of Newcastle Cathedral. Of the beautiful rood-screen not a trace remained; the altar had been torn from the east wall and the tabernacle had been torn from the altar. It was nowhere to be seen in the new arrangement. "The new St. Mary's" read the caption accompanying the pictures—no one could argue with this. A comment beneath the caption stated that there was a striking contrast between the two photographs. This was certainly indisputable. One depicted what was evidently the sanctuary of a Catholic church, the other might have been the meditation room in the headquarters of the U.N. It was also stated that the changes were "in line with the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council." This statement was totally false, because, as I have shown in previous articles in this series, the Council itself did not recommend, still less command, that tabernacles should be thrust aside from their position of honor, or that altars should be moved forward so that Mass could be offered facing the people.

The protest evoked the wrath of the man responsible for obliterating the Catholic ethos of St. Mary's Cathedral, Bishop Hugh Lindsay. Mrs. Elizabeth Brown, who had written the letter, alleged the Bishop "does not seem to like the Second Vatican Council and she's on very dangerous ground there." He did not, of course, explain how objecting to the vandalization of Catholic sanctuaries constituted not liking the Second Vatican Council, since the Council itself did not command or recommend such vandalization, but let that pass. The Bishop then made an interesting admission, that what he had done "follows a strong recommendation made at least twice in recent years in documents approved by the Pope." Note carefully the admission that there is no command, no requirement that such changes should be made, only a recommendation. I found it somewhat puzzling that this particular bishop should show the remotest interest in anything recommended by the Pope in view of the extent to which the wishes of successive Pontiffs have been ignored in his diocese, but let that pass too. His reply to Mrs. Brown appeared in the May issue of Northern Cross. In the June issue a letter appeared from a Mr. A. Turnbull, pointing out that although the documents in question may have strongly recommended the changes, it did not follow that the Pope himself endorsed this strong recommendation. All that Pope Paul VI had done was to approve the publication of these documents. Mr. Turnbull pointed out that in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965), Pope Paul VI "had written 'liturgical laws prescribing that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in churches with the greatest honor and in the most distinguished position. The Cathedral authorities are spending a fortune on these changes because they wish to, not because they have to."

Mr. Turnbull was, of course, totally correct in this opinion. As I explained in the May Angelus, the papal approval given to these documents does not so much as signify that the Pope had actually read them.

The July issue of Northern Cross contained a petulant reply by the Bishop in which he appeared to have undergone a radical change of attitude. What had been a "recommendation" in his May letter had become an "obligation" by July: "His [Mr. Turnbull's] statement that there is no obligation to change is incorrect. Pope Paul VI commissioned, approved and published an Instruction on sanctuary changes in 1970. He ordered all concerned to observe it."

Well, if words mean anything, the Bishop is stating clearly that there is an obligation to change sanctuaries in the way he had done in St. Mary's Cathedral: If Mr. Turnbull was incorrect in stating that there is no obligation to change, then evidently there must be an obligation. Let us examine the evidence.

Must Altars be Freestanding?

I have already shown beyond any possible doubt that no mandatory legislation exists commanding that the tabernacle must be removed from the main altar (May Angelus). We shall examine legislation concerning a freestanding altar in the same way, i.e., whether it constitutes a permission, a recommendation, or a command. The relevant legislation will be examined in chronological order.

Sacrosanctum Concilium,
The Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II
4 December 1963

This Constitution does not recommend that Mass should ever be celebrated facing the people; it does not even mention the practice, and hence it does not refer to the need for a freestanding altar. Article 124 states that when churches are to be built care should be taken that they are suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and the active participation of the faithful. Note that it refers only to the building of new churches and not the adaptation of existing ones. As Mass facing the people is in no way necessary for, or in any way conducive to, the active participation of the faithful, it is evident that this article did not envisage freestanding altars even in new churches.

There is a reference to the altar in No. 128, but it simply states that new liturgical laws should refer to the worthy and well-planned construction of sacred buildings, and the shape and construction of altars. Once again, there is no reference to their being freestanding. No. 127 requires bishops to ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not destroyed as they are ornaments in God's house. Sadly, this requirement has had no effect on prelates such as Bishop Lindsay who have had no hesitation in destroying such works of art as the rood-screen in St. Mary's Cathedral.

Before the Council had ended some priests had begun to place tables in front of their altars upon which they celebrated Mass facing the people. This is an example of the celebrated "Spirit of Vatican II," in which practices which can find no sanction in the official documents of the Council are presented as in accordance with its spirit.

Inter Oecumenici,
the First Instruction on Putting into Effect the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy
26 September 1964

In March of the same year, the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had been established, the notorious Consilium, with Cardinal Lercaro as the President and Father Annibale Bugnini as the Secretary. Father Bugnini was described by Dietrich von Hildebrand as "the evil spirit of the liturgical reform." The manner in which the Consilium did its work is made very clear in this document, which, although promulgated under the auspices of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, was also signed by Cardinal Lercaro in his capacity as President of the Consilium. The Consilium did not have the authority to promulgate legislation, and so the changes it wished to impose were promulgated by the Sacred Congregation. The late Archbishop R. J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, remarked, with the benefit of hindsight, that "the great mistake in the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was to let it fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent. This is the so-called 'Liturgical Establishment,' a Sacred Cow which acts more like a White Elephant as it tramples the shards of a shattered liturgy with ponderous abandon."

As I have just stated, the manner in which the Consilium did its work is made very clear in Inter Oecumenici. No. 90 reads:

However, No. 124 of the Liturgy Constitution does not state this. The words in italic do not occur in it. No. 124 mentions new churches only. But how many of those who read Inter Oecumenici would have taken the trouble to verify the reference? Throughout this century Catholics had taken it for granted that any document coming from the Vatican would be beyond reproach. It would have appeared almost uncatholic to so much as think of verifying a reference in a Vatican document.

No. 91 contains the first reference to a celebration facing the people in the conciliar or post-conciliar legislation:

Note very carefully that Inter Oecumenici does no more than recommend the construction of altars away from the wall to make possible a celebration facing the people. It does not actually recommend celebrating Mass in this way, nor does it command that new altars must be freestanding, or that existing altars must be moved forward from the east wall. No reference is given for No .91, which is not surprising since at no time in the history of the Church have altars ever been constructed specifically to facilitate a celebration facing the people. As I showed in the March Angelus, there is no precedent in the entire history of the Church for celebrating Mass facing the people as an act of conscious pastoral policy. The practice constitutes a radical break with Tradition, and has been invested with an anti-sacrificial signification since its adoption by Protestants as a sign that they believe their Lord's Supper to be no more than a commemorative meal.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

One of the saddest characteristics of human behavior which can be identified in almost every century in every country is what I would term the "bandwagon-syndrome." When a bandwagon begins to roll it takes great strength of character to refrain from jumping on. The crowds who shouted "Hosanna" on Palm Sunday were screaming "Crucify Him!" on Good Friday. And why was this? They did it because everybody else seemed to be doing it, and there is a feeling of comfort and security in doing what everyone else does. In 1965 we were witnessing an almost hysterical stampede among priests to celebrate Mass versus populum, facing the people. As I will show, there has never been so much as a recommendation that this should be done in any Vatican document, simply recommendations that altars should be constructed in a way that would make such a celebration possible. But the practice itself has not been recommended, let alone made mandatory. It was not recommended by the Council; it has no precedent in Tradition; why was it done? I have little doubt that since the Council tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars have been squandered throughout the world in vandalizing beautiful sanctuaries to make a versus populum celebration the norm. The only explanation I can give is that it represented a bout of mass hysteria among the clergy. Many of those who adopted the practice are, I am sure, totally orthodox. I know that hundreds of parish priests read The Angelus, and almost all of them will celebrate Mass in this way. I hope that what I have written will not offend them, and I am certainly not condemning them. They behaved in a normal, understandable and predictable manner. Everyone seemed to be celebrating versus populum so they did so too. If asked why they would probably answer: "It seemed a good idea at the time."

The Lercaro Letters

The next documents to which I will refer do not seem to be very well known. Cardinal Lercaro, President of the Consilium, was alarmed at the liturgical anarchy which was becoming widespread in 1965 before the Council had even concluded! He issued a warning, against unauthorized innovations which he described as noxious, and which God would not bless. He feared that these arbitrary experiments would offend the piety of the faithful and compromise the official reforms. Sadly, the concern he showed seems to have been similar to that displayed by Luther when Carlstadt went too far too quickly, and just as Luther eventually adopted all of Carlstadt's innovations, so a good number of the noxious initiatives undertaken without authorization in the mid-sixties were eventually made official: priests said the entire Mass in the vernacular—this was legalized; they gave Communion in the hand—this was legalized; laymen distributed Holy Communion—this was legalized.

In his letter Cardinal Lercaro made special mention of what he termed a "general movement to celebrate versus populum." He stressed the fact that the practice was not necessary for pastoral efficacy, and condemned the hasty, ill thought out changes in the sanctuaries of existing churches to the irreparable harm of other values which also required respect.

The Cardinal's letter had little or no effect, and on 25 January 1966, he wrote once more to the presidents of episcopal conferences, stressing that Mass facing the people was not necessary for active participation, and that account must be taken of artistic and architectural considerations. All this, remember, was over three years before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, but liturgical anarchy was widespread.

The General Instruction

The next relevant document is the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 6 April 1969. No. 262 of this Instruction is identical to No. 91 of Inter Oecumenici, with one crucial exception. The words "praestat ut—it is better" have been removed, so that it reads:

A reference is given for this recommendation, and note carefully that it is no more than a recommendation, which is Inter Oecumenici, No. 91. However, as we have already noted, the recommendation in Inter Oecumenici, "it is better that," is far weaker than that in No. 262 of the General Instruction.

Liturgicae Instaurationes,
5 September 1970

The last document which we need to consider is Liturgicae Instaurationes, the Third Instruction on Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. No. 10 of this Instruction contains three paragraphs:

These documents do not contain any mandatory legislation requiring any change in the sanctuary whatsoever, only recommendations. Eucharisticum Mysterium was discussed in the April Angelus, where it was noted that it is self-contradictory in place.

A reference is given to the letter of Cardinal Lercaro published in the September 1965 issue of Notitiae, which has already been cited. Paragraph (6) does not recommend making changes in existing sanctuaries, simply discontinuing temporary arrangements. As Mass does not need to be celebrated facing the people no temporary arrangements need ever have been made.

The Rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae

There is only one possible conclusion to be drawn from an examination of all the relevant Vatican documents relating to the subject of Mass facing the people, i.e., there is no mandatory legislation imposing the practice or requiring that sanctuaries should be altered to make it possible. This is confirmed by an examination of the rubrics for the New Mass itself. There is not one rubric providing for a celebration versus populum, but an examination of the General Instruction will reveal a number of rubrics instructing the priest to turn to face the congregation and then to turn back to the altar, e.g., numbers 107, 115, 116, 122, 198 and 199. If it had been the mind of the Church that Mass should be celebrated facing the people this would have been provided for in the rubrics.

A Bishop Speaks

In view of Bishop Lindsay's claim in the July 1981 Northern Cross that the sanctuary changes are obligatory, I wrote to another English bishop who is noted for his knowledge of the liturgy. I asked him whether there is any mandatory legislation requiring that Mass should be celebrated facing the people, and expressed my own view that no such legislation exists. He replied: "I would agree with you that there is no mandatory legislation compelling a priest to celebrate Mass facing the people. Moreover, the Church is very anxious re vandalism in its legislation."

The Example of the Oratory

As a final and very pertinent piece of evidence, I would cite the Brompton Oratory in London. This is probably the most beautiful Catholic church in Britain. The Oratorian Fathers were first brought to this country by Cardinal Newman, and have always been distinguished for their knowledge and celebration of the Liturgy. The London Oratory celebrated its centenary in April this year, and has just been fully restored and repainted. The Oratorians have implemented all the mandatory liturgical changes imposed since Vatican II, but have made no changes in their sanctuary whatsoever as no mandatory changes have ever been promulgated. Mass is still celebrated with priests and people facing the East, symbol of the Risen Christ, as our Fathers in the Faith have done since apostolic times.

Conclusion

I am now able to conclude this series which I began in February. The fact that it has needed to be so long, to be so technical, and, at time, tedious and repetitive, illustrates the difficulties experienced by those who wish to uphold the liturgical traditions of the Roman Rite. I could cite numerous cases of bishops and priests claiming, like Bishop Lindsay, that there is a legal obligation to make changes in our sanctuaries. It is easy to make such a statement, particularly when most Catholics will accept it at face value and, in any case, would not have the resources to refute it. But to present the truth requires much time, much effort, and much space. If elementary norms of justice were observed in the Church today it would be those who wished to vandalize our sanctuaries who would be required to prove that there was a legal requirement for them to do so, but, alas, it is those who oppose the barbarians who are required to prove their case. What is even more unjust is that when we do prove our case, those in authority are not even interested and will press ahead with the changes anyhow. This was the case in Kansas City, at the parish of Christ the King (see February Angelus); it was the case in Newcastle upon Tyne, England; it was the case in 1983 in the beautiful church of St. Mary's in Belfast.

Archbishop R. J. Dwyer stated correctly, the barbarians have taken over, the despisers of culture, and we have lost an entire generation in the process. This final point is of considerable importance. Traditional Catholics are not opposing an ongoing liturgical renewal which has brought enormous pastoral benefits. The liturgical renewal has been a pastoral fiasco, more than a fiasco, a disaster! Seventy-two percent of American Catholics went to Mass before the great "renewal," only forty percent do so now. But the liturgical barbarians would not really care if no one went at all; barbarians are not people who think, they are not people who care, they are people who smash. They have exchanged thuribles for sledge-hammers and they find the change exhilarating. Well, they have had their way. They have destroyed a cultural heritage that was beyond price. It can never be replaced. We were not able to stop them; but there is one thing that we must never allow them, and that is the satisfaction of claiming that they were acting under orders. Let Mr. Turnbull have the last word. In his protest to Bishop Lindsay he sums up everything that I have documented in this series:

1. A rood-beam separates the sanctuary from the nave and derives its name from the large, often life-sized, crucifix mounted upon it, usually flanked by statues of Our Lady and St. John. The word "rood" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word "rod"—a pole, a gallows, and so, a cross. The Cross upon which Our Savior died was referred to as the Holy Rood. As far back as the thirteenth century, screens were erected beneath the rood-beam. Some exceptionally beautiful carved wooden screens can still be found in the parish churches of Devon, e.g., in Lapford, North Devon, a church referred to on page 124 of my book, Cranmer's Godly Order. The rood-beam was often wide enough for liturgical ceremonies to take place upon it (rood-loft), and the steps giving access to it still exist in some English parish churches where the screen itself was destroyed during the Protestant Reformation. The Feast of the Exaltation (14 September) was often known as Rood Day, Holyrood Day, or Roodmas Day.