The other day, someone came to me with a comment. It was not a complaint (he was clear about that), but just an observation. He said, "you seem to talk about liturgical abuse quite a lot these days". He actually agreed with everything that I have said, and told me he did not want me to stop bringing it up since it was so important. We had an extended conversation about this fact. I compared the whole thing with how (I suspect) some Russians might have talked about the Communist revolution of 1917 right after it happened. It was all around them and could not be ignored since it impacted their lives so heavily. Another illustration that might be even more poignant is to think about how most people react when they have been diagnosed with cancer. They talk about it often since it is a major issue that has changed their lives.
The first comparison is fitting since it shows an intentional overthrow of an opposing regime. Even without the Schillebeeckx admission that the documents of Vatican II were written with intentional vagueness in order to allow for modernist interpretations, we can still see that much of liturgical abuse is an intentional rejection of the rubrics and an attempt to push things away from Catholic tradition. Many priests were taught to think that breaking the rules is a good thing that pleases God. Some priests even admit it openly and say that they are celebrating Mass with the expectation of their actions being "grandfathered in" to the rubrics in the future. This is clearly an intentional attempt at an overthrow with the purpose of making a "new Church".
The second comparison is fitting even more so, though, because liturgical abuse is genuinely a cancer. The liturgical abuse that is so common today is effectively destroying the faith of Catholics everywhere. It is like a disease and every time that it rears its ugly head, we are forced to struggle with it since it is leading to a degradation of the health of the Church throughout the world. The Church is still indefectible, but that does not mean that certain branches of the Church cannot falter and even die. Parishes can be closed, and Bishops can fall into grave sin; no individual or institution is indefectible in itself, only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has the promise.
So what does a priest do who sees the attempt at a new Church and the spreading cancer? Keep quiet about it? That is not faithfulness (nor is it genuine love). He tries to give the most faithful example of Who Christ is; especially in the Mass. You may have heard the protestant thing years ago about "What would Jesus do?" It was based on a book that was genuinely horrendous, but the question is certainly valid. How would Christ Jesus respond to any given circumstance? The Catholic Church has many answers for this, but it also has chosen to give a specific example of it. Every priest is supposed to live "in persona Christi" -- in the person of Christ. Priests are supposed to exemplify what Christ does, and Who He is. People are supposed to be able to look at the priest (especially during the Mass) and see an example of Christ.
If, however, every priest is innovating the actions and words of the Mass (always from what he thinks is better for the people) then the people are going to see and learn from contradicting examples. In principle, it does not matter one tiny bit what I think Jesus would do, or Who I think Jesus is. What matters is how He has revealed Himself through the Church, and one of the ways that the Church has determined for all to see that is through the actions of the priest in the Mass. The rules and rubrics of the Mass are given so that everyone (including the priest himself) can see Christ in action.
If the priest is breaking the rules (either in the Mass, or in his own personal life) and saying it does not matter how we live our lives then that is the "Christ" that he is portraying for the people. He is portraying a Christ Who contradicts Himself; is that the Christ Who came to save us? If that confused rendition of Jesus is what is being portrayed for the laity week after week, should we be surprised if people have a hard time with obeying God? They keep seeing a priest who lives "me first" and eventually are led to follow in that path. Is Christ pleased when His priests lie about Who He is by giving examples of disobedience? What do you think?
What does our Lord do in Heaven when these liturgical abuses happen? Does He say, "it's not that big a deal, so just ignore it and please stop bringing it up in conversation"? Not likely. As a finite human, I cannot imagine how the Lord responds to liturgical abuse (we do know that He got quite upset at in Jerusalem -- He even whipped a few people for it). I can guess at what the devil does, however. He likely smiles with glee. He rubs his hands together and is happy for a disobedience that leads so many astray.
This is why I talk a lot about it these days. It is a cancer that is eating away at our faith; it is the intentional actions of many who wish to overtake the Church and replace it with something else (it appears they want something more protestant). It is something that we must point out and discuss so that we are not led astray ourselves. Pray for your own heart in this (no matter how much you see the truth) so that you will not be deceived. Pray for the conversion of those clergymen who have perpetrated such errors. Pray for the seminary professors who started them down this road. Pray for the people who are still subject to this, that they would see the errors and separate themselves from it. St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
