Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
A Predictable Crisis of Eucharistic Faith

Taken from here. [Emphasis mine.]

The widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence has been amply documented in the well-known 2010 Pew Survey of Religious Knowledge in the United States, which asked participants what they thought “best described the Catholic teaching” on this issue. This revealed some unsurprising results.

The large majority of self-described Catholics believed that the consecrated species were just symbols of Christ’s Presence among them, and half of them were not even aware of the Church’s official teaching regarding Transubstantiation. More recent follow-up surveys showed no significant improvement in the situation.

A progressivist Eucharistic Adoration; another here; below, a cold barren side chapel in a Novus Ordo church

Realizing that there was a growing sense of unease among the faithful that there was something wrong with the liturgical reforms, Joseph Ratzinger (as Pope Benedict) reversed himself on the subject of visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and started to produce documents praising this ancient practice together with other forms of Eucharistic adoration. An example can be found in Sacramentum Caritatis (2007) §§ 67-68.

But by then it was too little, too late. After two generations of post-Vatican II reforms, it is almost impossible to erase errors that have become entrenched in the minds of the Catholic faithful, clergy and laity alike, or to shake them out of their now ingrained habits of thought.

We can see an example of the latter in the reform of Friday abstinence from meat which was made no longer obligatory: When attempts were made to restore it decades later, many Catholics, long accustomed to thinking of Tradition as part of a dead past, found the theology on which it was based incomprehensible, and simply ignored it.

Similarly with the half-hearted attempts to re-introduce Benediction or Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in some parishes, these initiatives have become hostages to fortune. They cannot be guaranteed to succeed to any significant extent in renewing Eucharistic fervor, for the clergy have generally lost a sense of the sacred.

This cannot simply be reinstated automatically or wished into existence without creating an atmosphere of confusion and incoherence among priests and people who have grown accustomed through lifelong practice to treating the Sacrament with disrespect.

In the modern-style Benediction, there is no consistent arrangement in liturgical practice, so that its connection with Tradition is lost and the ceremony is robbed of its significance. It is often improvised in a variety of methods and languages, with or without a monstrance, using a large or a small Host, and even performed in the presence of people talking to one another while engaged in an entirely unrelated activity.

Similarly with Exposition, the arrangements are not conducive to adoration. In some churches the monstrance is placed in an unadorned room on a low coffee table, on the same level as the people. No kneelers are provided. The people sit on chairs that are arranged in two rows so that they can directly face one another instead of the Blessed Sacrament.

Such is the nonchalance surrounding the modern practice that, when the last person leaves, the exposed Sacrament is left unattended. This scenario, which is now accepted practice, would have deeply shocked pre-Vatican II Catholics, yet is often reported as happening, especially in city centre churches.


Ratzinger’s contribution to the crisis

The Foreword of volume 2 of the trilogy, Jesus of Nazareth, confirms where Ratzinger’s true interests lie – not in upholding Catholic doctrine in clearly comprehensible terms, but in crafting new formulations that mislead Lutherans into thinking that their idea of the Eucharist is fundamentally compatible with Catholic doctrine, or at least not too distant from it.

A significant point to note is how Benedict treats non-Catholic ecumenists as equals, even friends, in religion, with the implication that they do not need evangelization in Catholic doctrine. With reference to the Lutheran theologian, Joachim Ringleben, who had recently published a scholarly book entitled Jesus, Ratzinger described it as an “ecumenical companion” to his own, and gave it equal theological weight:

“It is my hope that these two books, both in their differences and in their essential common ground, can offer an ecumenical witness that, at the present time and in its own way, can serve the fundamental common task of Christians.”

Benedict XVI in Erfurt greeting Protestant Nikolaus Schneider after presenting Luther as a model

This joint venture in “ecumenism” is an example of how the “New Evangelization” adopted after Vatican II replaced the traditional evangelization which emphasizes Truth over heresy.

Still on the subject of the two books, Ratzinger stated that “despite the differing theological viewpoints, it is the same faith that is at work” and that “a profound unity emerges in the essential understanding of the person of Jesus and His message.” But it is not a question of differing “viewpoints.” In conflating Catholic and Protestant beliefs, he was inviting us to believe that what are in reality two opposing concepts of the Faith are simply two different perceptions of the same reality.

His presuppositions are not supported by any evidence that Protestants actually believe in Christ as He is in reality i.e. in the Blessed Sacrament. Although some Protestants believe in what they term the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, it is not meant in the same sense as understood in Catholic teaching. Besides, how this “profound unity” is possible between Catholics and Protestants, when Protestants are not even united among themselves, was never explained. It seems that Ratzinger simply wished it into existence.

The root of the problem here, as with much of Ratzinger’s theology, lies in the abandonment of Scholastic metaphysics: Having consciously expunged it from his early philosophical education, he had no further use for it in his intellectual career. This fact, coupled with Vatican II’s policy of “ecumenism” (which he himself helped to devise at the Council) explains how easy it was for him to give undue credence to the work of Protestant theologians, and to view the believe of non-Catholics in unrealistically favorable terms.


Corpus Christi

In this spirit, Ratzinger made the following defamatory remark about Trent, blaming it for offending Protestants and thus causing them to cast aspersions on the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist:

“The Council of Trent concludes its remarks on Corpus Christi with something that offends our ecumenical ears and has doubtless contributed not a little toward discrediting this feast in the opinion of our Protestant brethren. But if we purge its formulation of the passionate tone of the 16th century, we shall be surprised by something great and positive.”1

Ratzinger’s harsh criticism contains a rebuke to the Catholic Church for her “passionate” defence of her own Faith, while conciliating Protestants who were, and still are, equally passionate in their condemnation of Catholic devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as nothing other than superstition and idolatry.


A reality check

The salient feature of Ratzinger’s ecclesiastical career, illustrated in his various official roles – Council peritus, Professor, Archbishop, Cardinal, Prefect and Pope – is that he was always searching for a “new synthesis” of religious expression incorporating insights from sources outside Catholicism. He would then combine the disparate elements to form something new that, whatever else it might be, would, by definition, not be Catholicism.

His decision to reject the Scholastic system as “too narrow” for him to spread his intellectual wings outside the confines of Catholic particularism had unfortunate consequences. It prevented him from consistently upholding the truth and defending the integrity of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Pius XI had taught in Mortalium animos (1928) that there is “one law of belief and one faith of Christians,” and that we should keep “the teachings of Christ whole and uncorrupted.” Ratzinger believed in a fabled “profound unity” among all who call themselves Christian. He was adamant that there should be no requirement for conversion to the Catholic Church after the historic rifts that split Christendom:

“This unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”2

In these “ecumenical” times, it seems to have been forgotten that the law of belief (lex credendi) is absolute, and admits of no compromise or ambivalence.

Ratzinger, however, started out from a distorted ideological perspective. He was part of an elite clique of theologians – including De Lubac, von Balthasar, Congar and Küng – who adopted positions originally forged in the modernist years and condemned by Pope Pius X. All his colleagues in the “New Theology” shared his aversion to Scholasticism which was a formidable obstacle to the incursion of heretical ideas into the Church. They succeeded in breaking down “ramparts” and erecting new ones out of their own heads to shore up their “New Theology.”

Ratzinger once described his own efforts at the Council to outwit the Scholastic theologians and prevent the original schema on the Constitution of the Church from seeing the light of day. One of his objections concerned the distinction that had always been made between those who were members of the Church, and those who were not.

But when truth conflicts with “ecumenism,” clarity and honesty are cast aside, and the distinction that he acknowledged was “hallowed by long usage in Catholic theology” would have to be muted. With reference to the original schema that had been drawn up with the linguistic precision and rigorous conceptual analysis of the Scholastic system, he explained:

“By shedding this terminological armor, the [replacement] text acquired much wider scope. This made possible a much more positive presentation of the way Christians are related to the Church as well as a positive Christian status for Christians separated from Rome.”4

The battle between Scholasticism and the Neo-Modernism was thus engaged at an official level in the early stages of the Council. Considering Ratzinger’s part in the demise of Scholasticism and his dedication to promoting a false ecumenism one has to ask oneself why anyone would want to surrender a highly efficient method of communicating the Truth for a mess of ecumenical pottage.


To be continued

1. J. Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, p. 130. The original German edition was Das Fest des Glaubens: Versuche zur Theologie des Gottesdienstes, Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1981. It is highly significant that the publishing house, Johannes Verlag, was owned by Ratzinger’s colleague, Fr. Urs von Balthasar.
2. Benedict XVI, "Apostolic Journey to Cologne on the occasion of World Youth Day Ecumenical Meeting," August 19, 2005. In the same speech, Benedict clarified his reason for pursuing “ecumenism”: “I wished consciously to follow in the footsteps of two of my great Predecessors: Pope Paul VI, who over 40 years ago signed the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, and Pope John Paul II, who made that Document the inspiration for his activity.”
3. J. Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, p. 66.
4. Ibid.