May 20, 2012
David Timbs
Some, Many, Most,
All?
Vatican
II side-stepped
and ignored
Joseph
Ratzinger, well before he became Pope Benedict XVI, had taken a special interest
in the liturgy of the Latin Catholic Church especially since the Second Vatican
Council mandated its reform and vernacular developments. Despite his initial
enthusiasm and support for these, Ratzinger has, over the years, become more and
more convinced that the medieval and Trindentine liturgical patrimony of the
Church needed to be protected and preserved in the interests of continuity
within the Tradition.
He
had consistently used his authority as Prefect for the CDF and then as Pope to
further the gradual homogenisation of the liturgy in the Latin rite. In doing
so, Cardinal Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI has side stepped important Vatican II’s
intentions and directives. His personal convictions about and actions towards
re-centralisation and papalisation of ecclesial governance has placed him in
virtual rupture and discontinuity with Vatican II. Among the first items on his
CDF restorationist agenda, along with
the effective dismantling of the authority of the national Episcopal
Conferences, was the liturgy,
I
am convinced that the ecclesiastical crisis in which we find ourselves today
depends in a great point upon the collapse of the liturgy… -
La Mia Vita (1997).
Ratzinger
has not only rewritten his own personal history from Council peritus
to Cardinal but has managed to regress substantially from his prior convictions
as John Wilkins points out,
“The
bishops’ role in reforming the liturgy existed not by delegation from the Holy
See, but by virtue of their own independent authority and that, decentralisation
of decision making is a
fundamental innovation.”
Benedict
has short-circuited that by spectacularly homogenising liturgical language and
norms in the English speaking Catholic world. In recent months Benedict has
shifted his focus to the last remaining targets for his reform in Europe. Using his particular national authority as Bishop
of Rome he has brought the Italian Episcopal Conference in to line with his
liturgical directives. Now he has turned his attention to his native country.
For
many or
for all?
Diktat and justification.
On
April 24 of this year, Benedict wrote a personal letter to the Bishops of the
German speaking jurisdiction in which he directed them to insert ‘for many’
in the Eucharistic words over the cup. This meant that the long standing
formula, ‘for all’ has been
expunged from the German vernacular
Missal. Once
again, despite Vat II granting authority to local conferences to arrange
vernacular translations for the liturgy, Benedict has acted out of his
theological conviction that the Universal Church pre-existed the local ecclesial
communities and over ruled the Council. He has now, by papal directive, forced
a common translation on all German jurisdictions in the name of ‘Unity’.
A
common argument for the translation for
many in the consecration over the cup is that it has its origins deeply
embedded in the liturgical tradition of the Church. Benedict employs as a
principal authority in his decision, the reasoning of the 1566 Catechism of
Council of Trent which was appealed to by those at Vat II who objected to the
establishment of the Novus Ordo. In an
article, actually critical of Benedict, Trent’s teaching is cited,
“The
additional words for you and for many are
taken, some from Matthew and some from Luke, but were joined under the guidance
of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His
Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His
Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look at the fruit of which mankind has
received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to
many of the human race…
When
Our Lord said: For You, He meant
either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people,
such as were, with the exception of Judas, the Disciples with whom He was
speaking. When He added, and for
many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect
among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used,
as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect
only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” – On the Form of
the Eucharist.
While
the Catechism of Trent and those who use it as an authority clearly acknowledge
that the memorial words of the Eucharistic formulae are conflations or
harmonies, what is accepted as integral to the tradition are its theological
assumptions and underpinnings. While it is affirmed that Christ died for all, it
is equally affirmed that not everyone has or does available themselves of the
benefits of that death. In other words, creative second-guessing of the Lord’s
mind as well as the theologies of limit and boundary apply.
Significantly,
a principal element in Benedict’s directive to the German speaking
jurisdictions is that, while on the theoretical level, Jesus died for all, in
reality it is not even the many who
benefit but rather the few. This
restrictive interpretation, interestingly, conforms directly and expressly with
his own private ecclesiological understanding of the existential status of the
Church, namely, that it is and will continued to be diminutive community
(Interview en-route to the UK for the Beatification of Card. John H. Newman,
September, 2010).
Among
the most extreme interpretations of the notion of the many
was the emergence of spiritual limits of belonging. These clearly and
unambiguously insisted that the means of salvation are coextensive with
membership of the Catholic community. They determined who was inside the pale
and who was not. ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’ was in fact
proclaimed a dogma of faith by, among others, Lateran Council IV (1215) and Pope
Boniface VIII (1302). This doctrine declares that those who wilfully reject the
Gospel preached by the Church are not included among the ‘elect.’ Those who
are invincibly ignorant of Christ are left to the judgment of a merciful God.
These two groups constitute those excluded from ‘the many.’
There
have been a number of recent commentators affirming and supporting these
distinctions made by the Trent Catechism and now Benedict XVI, some of them
plagiarising one another while others border on sycophantic embarrassment.
The
earliest texts
The
earliest Scriptural narrative evidence shows that there is no mention whatsoever
of the many or the all. Paul,
in addressing himself to abuses of the Eucharist in at least one house-church
in Corinth, goes so far as to remind the whole community of his earlier teaching
on the Anamnesis (Memorial) of Christ,
For
I received from the Lord
(the Oral Tradition) what I
also handed on to you, that ‘the Lord Jesus on the night when he was handed
over took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is
my body which is for you. Do this in
memory of me (my memory)”. In
the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant
in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in my memory.” For as often as
you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he
comes.’ (1 Cor 11: 23-26)
Paul
comments further on the significance of Jesus’ death when he spoke about how
he had modelled his own self-investment in the Corinthians Christians on that of
Christ. He declared that the death of Christ was on behalf of all, For the love of Christ drives us, because we are convinced that one has
died for all, that those who live
might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was
raised (2 Cor 5: 14-15).
Catholic
biblical scholars have consistently supported the value for
all in Eucharistic theology. In their study of memorial words of Jesus
they have shown conclusively that in the Aramaic words of the early tradition,
Christ’s death is interpreted as meaning all
not just many or a few,
The
word which we translate ‘many’ stresses the sense of a great number and does
not exclude anyone….Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own
and it is the whole of mankind to the end of space and time…..
Pierre Benoit (1964), “The Accounts of the Institution and What they Imply”
in The Eucharist in the New Testament: A
Symposium. Dublin.
Finally,
it is of great interest that in the very earliest and extant Eucharistic
liturgy, the third century Eastern Syrian Anaphora
of Addai and Mari, the memorial words of Jesus are implied
but not explicitly used. This extremely ancient Rite, recognised by the Catholic
Church as valid, consists mainly of a lengthy invocation of the Holy Spirit
during which the Anamnesis (Memory) of
Jesus is made but there is no actual ‘consecration’ in the western sense,
The
Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been
used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative.
–
Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (2001), The
Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.
In
affirming the sacramental integrity of this ancient Eucharistic liturgy the
western Catholic Church in particular might contemplate the dangers of an almost
pathological fixation on form and externals at the expense of the real mystery
that is celebrated when the faithful gather together at the table of the Lord
and recognise him in the breaking of the bread.
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
20/05/12
Next Sunday’s article will examine the notions of blood debt, atonement, sacrifice, reconciliation and salvation in the Catholic theologies of Eucharist and piety.
Comments welcome, following normal comment guidelines....