Religion

Bending with the Remover

Thomas W. Gadd

A number of changes have come about in the Catholic Church over the last decade or so. The general idea has been to make certain aspects and activities of the Church more acceptable to a modern community. It has been marked — in some respects almost comically — by a rash left-wing rush towards popularisation and quasi-communism goaded by that vicious sting-word " progress," which makes many of us jump, unnecessarily mostly, on to band-wagons. Some of these bandwagons are already axle-broken — they are the ones the " improvers" seem most to go for.

Equivalently, the other and more true general idea has been overlooked: it is that the function of the Church is to make the community acceptable to the Church — intrinsically, to the Word. A Church which waffles about with every wind of change is not likely to take anyone ,every far along the Christian way. One might read the Church into the Shakespearian lines: "... Love is not love/Which alters when it alteration finds/Or bends with the remover to remove/... It is an ever fixed mark...."

In recent years there has been much effort in the world to remove the Church in fact — and even more in essence because her subtler enemies know that to remove the essence is to remove the Church; however the institution and its statistics may visibly remain. And, to the writer's mind, none have "bent "s so far with these " removers " as the Catholic liturgists who have recently devised for, and inflicted upon, the Church a new rite of the Mass now compulsorily to be used. This is the change which disturbs most.

Why is the Liturgy so important? Because it is (as I see it) a Communion word-rite taking the place of the Old Testament isolatedpriest-action rite. Word. The Liturgy is about the new Genesis via the Word. St John opens his gospel with the new creational statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. . In him was life." And thus the Word is revealed as person-with. Communion. And as action-er. And as medium. That's how basic Word is. To my mind all words take their salience from the Word. They can be used to create good or ill behaviour: free-will is free-word. Words may not be basic to animal acts; they are to human life — also to divine life, we have Christ's word for it.

In the context of the Mass the words are the action. Apart from the physical action necessary to the distribution of the Sacraments virtually the whole Mass could be truly effected in stillness. What, then, should the wording of the Liturgy be? It should be a wording taken from the living, short-form of the Word (the " full-form " being God Himself) that is, from the Bible; properly consulted and accurately quoted. I would like to say that the Bible is the tablet of Creation, which undergoes a change via the New Testament of the Re-genesis — just as the " tablet " of the earth (the bread and wine amalgam) undergoes a change into the " tablet " of the new firmament in Christ (his Body and Blood) via the wording of the Consecration which is the heart of the Liturgy. By " tablet" is meant, therefore, what the Mass gives in minor temporally, God is giving in major eternally. And we call them both by the same essential name — Communion. And the whole purpose of the Mass is to bring about this Communion in the partaking — in tablet,

or living short-form — of the Body and Blood of the living Christ. And in doing this the Sacrifice is commemorated — not renewed, or re-enacted or perpetuated. We cannot speak of sacrifice except in the past or in the future. It is either done, or to be done. It cannot be " going on " as it is not sacrifice until sacrifice-d. Thus, Jesus said, while still on the Cross and for our all-time information, "It is finished." It is therefore now to be commemorated, as often as we will, but not "perpetuated." But the effects of a sacrifice can perpetually obtain. One other point that must now be made: we cannot have peace until war is over; and when we get peace we do not want it mixed with war again. Similarly with, in the present case, Sacrifice-war and Communion-peace. Now we can turn to that liturgical alteration in particular to which I most strongly object. It occurs in the warding of the Consecration of the bread and of the wine.

Transubstantiation is of communion, not of sacrifice. Therefore, the Word(ing) of the consecration, the word-action that transubstantiates, should mit contain sacrificial reference. When Jesus gave his disciples his body and the cup of his blood he was anticipating in faith his victory on the Cross and was therefore in faith already providing the celebratory meal — which, in essence, is the re-union " dinner " after the war is over and that sacrifice vindicated. At the point of Consecration — that is, when Jesus is actually handing over and stating what it is that he is handing over — the Sacrifice is in faith a "thing of the past." Now are the fruits of it.

But the new liturgists want to sacrifice the fruits as well. They are now making the priest say, "This is my Body which is given up . . . " (my italics). How can we " take " and " eat " that which the priest is •' giving up" or putting out of our reach? He is giving the Body up to God, whereas we understand God is handing it across (a-Cross) to us. Formerly the priest simply and correctly said, " . . . This is my body." Why the change — so completely annulling the giving-to-usto-eat intention of Jesus? Likewise with the Cup of his Blood. The priest now has to say, "This is the Cup of my Blood. . . which is to be shed for you and for all men . . ." Why do they shed a Cup — which is poured for us to drink? And " us" means the discipleship, not "all men." What the priest should say is, " . . . This is the Cup of my Blood. . . which is poured for you and for many . . ." Which is what in Latin he used to say (". . . qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur . . ."). At the point of consecration it is obvious from the gospels that Jesus is concerned only with two

things: the food and the discipleship. But it is not so much a full meal, this food, as a " tablet " again — for both cleansing and nourishing that discipleship. And certainly it is not for "giving up" or "shedding." But it is also a commemoration, or remembrance ritual — a short-form of remembering Him. If someone is our only food provider we shall not easily forget him — and the whole point of the Sacraments is to feel a wanting of them: but this requires a belief in them, which, again, obviates" all men."

So we see how important wording is in a context such as this. We see how those few ' changes of the consecrational wording negate the intention of Jesus.His intention is clearly post-sacrificial provision for the discipleship. The " modern " liturgists have made it pre-sacrificial: their thesis ignores the faith of Our Lord that He had already won our salvation from sin before going on the cross historically: that the Body and Blood are of a Victor, not a victim. And thus we are, by the new wording, faithless and still awaiting our Communion in doubt of its provision. That " tablet " is for God in our belly so that, dissolved in goodness of belief and action, living water may flow from the cleansed discipleship-Christ. And faith is required of us — as communicants — obviating "all men" again.

So what answers do I get from the hierarchy when I approach them on this change? Not very encouraging ones. A cardinal, an archbishop, several monsignors and priests (including learned Jesuits) and laymen have all indicated to me by their answers that ' they all know little about the English lan

guage and Christian gospel. In brief, their responses imply that: (a), even in liturgy words don't matter much; (b) we don't know what Jesus said — " er-exactly "; (c) it's all a matter of translation.

Response (a) has already been dealt With here. On response (b), they can soon tell us exactly what Jesus said when challenged about their power to bind and to loose sins; or why the Catholic Church is the one Jesus meant; or whether the Catholic Church will

never succumb to the "gates of hell." On response (c), what has been discussed here is

not a matter of translation but of literacy, logic and simple Christian understanding. Then they say, "Well, Christ did shed His blood for all men, didn't He?" I point out, unavailingly, that at the point of consecration in the Eucharist Jesus was obviously con cerned with the Cup-pouring for drinking of His blood, no longer with its shedding, and thus he is concerned at this time with the actual (and faithful) consumers, not with "all

men." In any case, Jesus was always making exceptions to universal salvation. "Except ye . . . (do, or be, such and such a thing)" occurs frequently in his statements. There do seem to be precise conditions for salvation — it is just that they are impossible for no man to meet. It's all in the Word.

I find it significant that the Psalms have been largely omitted from this appalling, largely heretical, new "liturgy ": for there Is no nonsense about "all men" (that is, automatic, conditionless "all men ") from either Lord or servant; from the Messiah or the mastersinger. Virtually every point they make deals with a sorting out, eventually; but the basis of it is always made clear to all men — who will listen. Obviously, our new " li• turgists " and a frightening majority of Catholics, which includes a shocking number of" leaders," have never listened.