The Hopeless Ambiguity of Sacrosanctum Concilium

Recent events of all kinds have provoked yet another round of discussions on the meaning of the documents of Vatican II, and their relevance (if any) to the life of the Church today. It is not my intention to address the issue as a whole, a task for much wiser and more learned heads than my own. For what little it may be worth, I believe that, as has been the case in the past, the only thing that can bring much-needed clarity to the subject is another council, much as Trent was needed to address the hopeless and embarrassing mess left behind by the Council that preceded it, Lateran V. (Whether a council held in present conditions would in fact bring any clarity to anything is at best highly debatable.)

I do, however, wish to address the subject of the ambiguity which is often imputed to the documents of Vatican II, particularly because it is of great relevance to the Apostolic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the very first document issued by the Council, and the most pertinent to the subject and interest of NLM.

Photo taken before a Papal Mass during Vatican II. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Lothar Wolleh, CC BY-SA 3.0)

I got to thinking about this when I stumbled across an FAQ about Vatican II on the Word on Fire website, which addressed the question: “Did thinkers behind Vatican II deliberately use ambiguity to change Church teaching?” Their answer is as follows.

“Theologian Edward Schillebeeckx has been quoted as saying, ‘We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.’ The suggestion is that conspirators planted certain phrases within the Vatican II documents that appeared vague and innocent on the surface, but would later be exploited by those wishing to overturn traditional Church teaching.”

For our younger readers, Fr Edward Schillebeeckx was a Belgian Dominican who served during the Council as a “peritus”, an “expert” theologian and consultant, to the Abp of Utrecht, Bernard Cardinal Alfrink. He was actively involved in the preparation of various documents at the Council, although Word on Fire correctly notes that, not being a bishop, he had no vote on the final form which the drafting committees would submit to the Council for approval. Less than a year after the Council ended, he and a Jesuit named Piet Schoonenberg published the shameful Dutch Catechism, an unmistakable sign of just how rapidly the Church had already declined less than five years into the New Pentecost™. Later on, his writings on the Resurrection of Christ and ministerial priesthood, inter alia et multa, were the subject of so much concern (as one might say today) that he was called to explain himself to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And these writings were indeed very ambiguous, never (e.g.) flat out denying Our Lord’s bodily resurrection, while giving every suggestion that the author thought it at best irrelevant, and most likely untrue.

Fr Schillebeeckx in 1979, wearing the updated habit of a Dominican Doctor of Theology. (Image from Wikimedia Commons, CC0 1.0)

These being the mad years after the Council, when the Church’s very highest authorities had mostly surrendered control of the asylum to the lunatics, he was not, of course, actually made to either assert his belief in the bodily Resurrection or leave the Church, but the mere fact that the CDF took any action at all is nevertheless highly significant. (Schoonenberg was also censured by the CDF.) Schillebeeckx is therefore, in short, one of the most likely candidates both to have deliberately introduced ambiguities into the documents of Vatican II, and to have exploited them afterwards, as stated in the quotation given above.

However, Word on Fire points out that the quotation does not, apparently, come from anything that he himself wrote or said, but rather, from Abp Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics, and is not otherwise corroborated. And in point of fact, almost every result of a Google search of those words comes back to either Abp Lefebvre himself or someone else quoting him, and none to Schillebeeckx directly. (Google is not, of course, either infallible or comprehensive, and if anyone knows more about the veracity of this quote one way or the other, I would be glad to hear from them.)

Word on Fire then turns to this statement taken from the autobiography of the Ven. Fulton Sheen, as a “far more trustworthy and reasonable” assessment of the matter.

“Those who read the Documents of Vatican Council II have no idea how much care and preparation went into every word they contained. . . . I can testify to how we would discuss various Latin words for a day in order to arrive at a precise meaning. Then, after a chapter was prepared, printed, and given to the Council Fathers, the debates on each subject went on for months until finally there were hammered out documents that were acceptable to all except a very few who voted against them.”

One is, of course, immediately struck by how forcefully the first sentence of this suggests the very opposite of what Abp Sheen clearly meant when he wrote it, and what Word on Fire’s FAQ wants to prove by it. If so very much care and preparation went into every word contained in the documents of Vatican II, how is that fact not immediately evident to those who read them?

I do not know whether Sheen was personally involved in the drafting of all sixteen of the Council’s documents, but we have his good reputation to assure us of the truth of the statement that a great deal of careful preparation was in fact put into the drafts “to arrive at a precise meaning”, even discussing specific (individual?) words for a whole day. Furthermore, the text was then debated “for months” in the Council itself in order to hammer out documents that were acceptable to all.

Image from Wikimedia Commons

It hardly needs to be said that none of this proves in any way that the documents of Vatican II are devoid of ambiguities.

First of all, it should be obvious that a good way to get any large group of people (in this case, more than 2,600 of them) to agree on any kind of statement is to make it ambiguous, so that each one thinks it means what he wants it to mean. I do not assert that this WAS in fact done at Vatican II, only that the agreement of the bishops on a particular text is no proof of its lack of ambiguity. And indeed, Word on Fire admits exactly this when it states that “sometimes, including in the Councils of Trent and (First) Nicaea, theologians are not in full agreement and so somewhat ambiguous statements must be used in the final documents.” (In regards to First Nicaea, this is historically inaccurate; the details of the theological discussions at that Council are unknown to us.)

But more to the point, assuming that Bishop Sheen is correct, and that the greatest care and attention were indeed put into every word of every document, that is also no proof whatsoever against ambiguity.

A few years ago, I was thrilled when an editor at National Review asked me to review Dr Kwasniewski’s book Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness, in part because my mother had worked for that publication back in the 1960s. I tried to be particularly careful with what I wrote, knowing that many of the eventual readers would likely not be conversant in the subject, only to hear back from the editor that one of his non-Catholic colleagues had read my piece over, and not been able to follow it at all. Likewise, I have often reread one of my own articles and realized that on one point or another, I had not been anywhere near as clear as I thought I was when I first wrote it.

I am certain that other writers have this experience, and I can cite one particularly good example to the point. In 1959, 14 years after the original publication of Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh revised the book. In his introduction to this revision, he states that in his then-current frame of mind, he would not have even attempted to write the famous passages in which we “hear” the interior monologues of Julia Flyte and Lord Marchmain, precisely because he didn’t think his readers realized that they were the characters’ thoughts, and not things they said out loud.

All of which is to say, if the Fathers at Vatican II did indeed try their best to avoid ambiguity, as Bishop Sheen states, that does not preclude the possibility that their documents did nevertheless wind up being ambiguous. And if they are in fact ambiguous, the question of whether they got to be so by deliberate machinations, malign or benevolent, is a merely historical one, which has no bearing on their ambiguity per se.

And the fact remains that, however it got to be so, Sacrosanctum Concilium is indisputably full of ambiguities. It says that “a broader place (amplior locus) can be given” to the use of the vernacular in the liturgy (36.2), without stating how much broader. Does this exclude or include the possibility that such a place will in fact be so broad as to eliminate Latin from the liturgy altogether? The text does not say. It says that “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (116) Which “other things”, and how shall we know them to be equal? The text does not say. Does this exclude or include the possibility that the Church will “lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant?” as the Pope himself, less than six years after Sacrosanctum Concilium was issued, stated would happen? (General audience, Nov. 26, 1969). The text does not say. Further examples could be adduced almost endlessly.

Is there a single document of the Council about which similar questions cannot be asked?

The text does not say.

A Recording of the Byzantine Liturgy with Commentary by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Here is an interesting item newly posted to the YouTube channel of the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, a recording of a Byzantine Liturgy, with commentary on the different parts by the Venerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen. The liturgy was recorded during a national convention of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church in Birmingham Alabama in 1958; the celebrant, Fr Joseph Raya, later a bishop, was a well-known advocate of the use of the verncaular in the liturgy, although not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, of the kinds of radical changes to the texts and rites that the Roman Catholic Mass would suffer in the post-Conciliar reform.

“The Holy Mass—Our Divine Treasure”: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Today NLM is pleased to publish the sermon preached by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on May 30, 2018, at the Pontifical Low Mass offered in St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church in Winnipeg, Canada. We are grateful to His Excellency for the permission to share these inspiring words with our readers.

Bishop Schneider in London

The Holy Mass — Our Divine Treasure

Sermon of H. E. Bishop Athanasius Schneider

St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba

May 30, 2018

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ! In these moments we participate in the most holy, in the most great, in the most wonderful and in the most divine work in all creation and in all eternity: the Holy Sacrifice of Mass. The Holy Mass is in substance the same as the Holy Sacrifice of Golgotha. We are present at the same work which Christ accomplished on the Cross and which Christ the Eternal High Priest is now and forever acting in Heaven in the presence of the Holy Trinity: the sacrifice of the eternal and everlasting Covenant.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: “There are certain things in life which are too beautiful to be forgotten, such as the love of a mother. Hence, we treasure her picture. The love of soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their country is likewise too beautiful to be forgotten; hence, we revere their memory on Memorial Day. But the greatest blessing which ever came to this earth was the visitation of the Son of God in the form and habit of man. His life, above all lives, is too beautiful to be forgotten; hence, we treasure the divinity of His words in Sacred Scripture, and the charity of His deeds in our daily actions. Unfortunately, this is all some souls remember, namely, His words and His deeds; important as these are, they are not the greatest characteristic of the divine Savior. The most sublime act in the history of Christ was His death. … If then death was the supreme moment for which Christ lived, it was therefore the one thing He wished to have remembered. He did not ask that men should write down His words into a scripture; He did not ask that His kindness to the poor should be recorded in history; but He did ask that men remember His death. And in order that its memory might not be any haphazard narrative on the part of men, He Himself instituted the precise way it should be recalled.”

Archbishop Sheen continues, saying: “Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His Cross than to His garments. A temple without an altar of sacrifice is non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians. And so in the Catholic Church the altar, and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it; it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord. The Mass is the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only holy act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth.”

When we recognize and really believe in what each Holy Mass is, then every detail of the rite of the Holy Mass, every word, every gesture is important, is deeply meaningful and spiritual. Even from the moment we enter a church to participate in the Holy Mass, we have to try to lift up our mind and heart to Golgotha and to the heavenly liturgy. Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote: “The Catholic Church alone is beautiful. The celebrant, deacon and subdeacon, acolytes with lights, the incense, and the chanting — all combine to one end, one act of worship. You feel it is really a worshipping; every sense, eyes, ears, smell, are made to know that worship is going on. The choir singing out the Kyrie, and the priest and his assistants bowing low, and saying the Confiteor. This is worship, and it is far above reason” (words of Mr. White in the novel Loss and Gain).

Saint John Mary Vianney explained the greatness of the Holy Mass: “All good works together are not of equal value with the sacrifice of the Mass, because they are the works of men, and the Holy Mass is the work of God. Martyrdom is nothing in comparison; it is the sacrifice that man makes of his life to God; the Mass is the sacrifice that God makes to man of His Body and of His Blood. Oh, how great is a priest! If he understood himself he would die. God obeys him; he speaks two words, and Our Lord comes down from Heaven at his voice, and shuts Himself up in a little Host. God looks upon the altar. ‘That is My well-beloved Son,’ He says, ‘in whom I am well-pleased.’ He can refuse nothing to the merits of the offering of this Victim. If someone said to us, ‘At such an hour a dead person is to be raised to life,’ we should run very quickly to see it. But is not the Consecration, which changes bread and wine into the Body and Blood of God, a much greater miracle than to raise a dead person to life? If we knew the value of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or rather, if we had faith, we should be much more zealous to assist at it.”

Saint Peter Julian Eymard said: “Why has our Lord willed to establish so close a relation between the Sacrament of the Eucharist and His death? It was, in the first place, to remind us of the price His Sacrament cost Him. The Eucharist, in fact, is the fruit of the death of Jesus. The Eucharist is a testament, a legacy, which becomes valid only at the death of the testator. To give His testament legal force, Jesus had then to die. Every time we come into the presence of the Eucharist, we may therefore say: ‘This precious testament cost Jesus Christ His life; He thereby shows us His boundless love, for He Himself said there is no greater proof of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Jesus gave me the greatest proof of His love when He went to His death in order to make the Eucharist possible and give it to me. How many think of this price paid for the Eucharist? And yet Jesus is there to remind us of it. But like unnatural children we are bent only on using and enjoying our riches, without ever thinking of the One Who acquired them for us at the cost of His life” (The Real Presence. Eucharistic Meditations, ch. XIII).

Dear brothers and sisters, let us receive the Eucharistic Lord with love, with purity of heart, with a gesture of adoration kneeling down, with a gesture of humility and littleness opening our mouth and receiving the Holiest of Holies, the King of the universe, in the little sacred Host. O Lord, when we have You in the Eucharist, we have all things and we want for nothing. Amen.

PDF Download: The Fulton J. Sheen Sunday Missal (1961)

A GUEST POST BY JEFF OSTROWSKI

The famous Fulton J. Sheen Sunday Missal (1961) is now available for free download. Needless to say, Archbishop Sheen did not produce the Missal alone: it was a joint effort by many, especially the Jesuit priests Rev. Philip Caraman and Rev. James Walsh. However, Sheen did compose the lengthy Introduction (which every Catholic ought to read) and seems to have exercised an influence on the general contents. For example, the choice of English translations—Msgr. Ronald Knox for the Lauda Sion, Gerald Manley Hopkins for the Adoro Te, and so forth—is a clear signal of Sheen's involvement, because of his well-known admiration for those literary giants.

Download: "Part 1 of 2" : Fulton J. Sheen Sunday Missal (1961) 

Download: "Part 2 of 2" : Fulton J. Sheen Sunday Missal (1961) 

In addition to the aforementioned Introduction, Sheen's Missal has several other remarkable features. The descriptions of priestly vestments are excellent. It also includes the entire "Fore-Mass" (as Fortescue called it) alongside the readings for every feast. That choice meant printing the "Kyrie Eleison," for example, close to eighty times. Finally, certain translations employed are noteworthy, especially poetic texts like the sequences and Pange Lingua. Similar to the Campion Missal, the editors made judicious use of drop caps and went out of their way to print all the "extra" post-Pentecost Masses in addition to every feast that could ever occur on a Sunday—a tremendous help to Catholics in the pews. The date of publication (1961) is fascinating, considering what would come a year later! The pages use a single numbering system for matching Latin/English pages. Furthermore, it's nice that this book contains most of the changes of the 1962 Missal, such as the Holy Week of Pius XII and optional dialogue Masses.

This book must have been in production for many years. For one thing, it shows such elegance. The unified, lovely images (such as the Divine Pelican, often preached on by Sheen) appear to have been created specifically for this layout. In general, the book seems like an effort to make a significant contribution to Catholics' liturgical life. I mentioned earlier the distinctive translations such as: "Raise your hearts."—"They are raised to the Lord."

For myself, the most interesting part of the book is the translation used for the Pange Lingua of Fortunatus (Good Friday). Producing the Campion Missal, we spent two whole weeks searching for different translations of this magnificent hymn. Sheen ultimately decided upon a metered translation which doesn't rhyme: a truly marvelous choice.