April 3, 2010
-
A question concerning so-called “Private” Masses
I shared an excellent article (H/T Pertinacious Papist) recently on Google’s “BUZZ” which elicited a question from a (protestant) friend of mine. Since my response seemed quickly to outgrow the limitations of the format of the BUZZ com-box, I thought I’d post the full response here, and simply link to it there.
NOTE: Please do read the original article first, including the footnotes, as it will be important for understanding the context for the question!
With that noted, here was my friends’ question:i know i’m not considered part of the family, but i find the question interesting. i don’t have a view on whether a priest should do a mass before doing another one in public. i think the author makes too strong a case for private masses. if private masses should be done before public ones for all the reasons he cites, then additional private masses should be done prior to those private masses just prior to the public ones…and additional ones for those too, etc.
i’m sure this kind of reply has been made by someone not for private masses.
Much could be said on this topic, but allow me to offer a couple of points in answer to the questions you raise:1) Nonsense: whatever the problems with Vatican II, or with it’s implementation, there is certainly one truth which shines out from it’s documents: and that is that if it can be said that many elements of sanctification and truth exist within the ecclesial communities of the separated brethren (including protestants), then these ecclesial communities must indeed be “brethren” (by virtue of their baptism) even if they are, for the moment (and sadly) “separated”.
Nevertheless, to honor the kernel of truth in your comment about not being “part of the family,” it is a sad fact of “separation” that over time it creates barriers of understanding because the common foundations for that understanding have not all been passed down within the ecclesial communities of the separated brethren, and without that context, discussions of this sort become complicated by the need to create some meaningful context in which such questions can be asked and in which the answers to such questions will be meaningful.
But my point (e.g. my “Nonsense:”) is that such is due not to myself or any other catholic not “considering” someone to be a “part of the family”, but rather to the sad objective reality of such separatedness, and the sad barriers to communication which necessarily flow from such separatedness – particularly when it has extended, as with protestant communities, for over 500 years.
2) Some of these barriers to communication can be observed, I believe in your next statement where you speak of “whether a priest should do a mass before doing another one in public”. It might not be so obvious coming to this article from the context of a separation extending back 500 years or more, but that’s not what the article is talking about – indeed, it is specifically rejected in footnote 4. which states:
“Note that if there are twelve Priests in the community, one of them would not celebrate a private Mass that day in order to be the Priest who offers the conventual Mass in the midst of his brethren. No Priest celebrates twice a day (bination) unless pastoral need requires it, which would not be the case in such a community.”This point about the traditional norm of “1 mass per priest per day” (in both it’s positive – e.g. “at least” interpretation, and it’s negative – e.g. “no more than” interpretation) is, on one level, merely an issue of cannon law and it’s interpretation. However, cannon law is a codification of the will of, and itself a tool of, the Holy Spirit, who, since he is, as St. Augustine said, “the bond of charity flowing between the Father and the Son”, works through the the norms, laws, and traditions of the Church’s sacraments to build up the Body of Christ in charity, and to vivify it towards the goal of that charity in the glorification of the Head, Christ himself, who in turn, seeks the glorification of the Father – “that God may be All in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28)
And that is why, on another level, what has to be understood is bigger than merely an argument about the interpretation of some canon or other, be it Canon 904 or 906 or whatever. What is at stake here is the root question of why do we even HAVE priests at all? What is a Priest? For what purpose are priests ordained? Here is where the context becomes important. Within the unbroken tradition of the Catholic Church (and to a great extent, this statement applies to our separated Eastern Orthodox brethren as well) a man is ordained a Priest “in order to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the living and for the dead”. Another way of saying this is to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost, “for” (in the different senses pertaining to each) the Church in each of it’s Militant, Expectant, and Triumphant manifestations – and, through and as a consequence of this, also “for” the whole world.
What I’m getting at here particularly is the way in which the Sacrifice of the Mass is an expression of the faith, hope, and particularly, the charity, of the Church - charity flowing between, and thus creating a bond between, not only herself and her Divine Lord, but also a bond of charity flowing between one another – which is another reason why Masses are offered *both* for living and for dead, since two thirds (and indeed, far MORE than two thirds if measured numerically!) of that Militant/Expectant/Triumphant-complex refers to those who have “fallen asleep in the Lord”.
Furthermore, this bond of charity flowing between the faithful – both living and dead – results in an overflowing of grace which spills out into the world as well. I’ll never forget the chill that ran up my spine when it hit me, while watching the FSSP training video for the Latin Mass, that the final Trinitarian “Blessing” at the end of the Mass is still spoken, “versus populum” as-it-were, *even if* the church building is empty and no one else but the priest himself is present – e.g. it is pronounced towards an “empty” room! The reason? This blessing is placed, in fulfilment of the Church’s commission to be a blessing to all the families of the earth, as an objective reality, not merely upon the faithful, but upon the whole world. It is the final aspect of the great Cosmic “Yes” which Christ, through his Sacrifice on our behalf, and not only on our behalf, but on behalf of the “whole world” has offered to the Father, that such a blessing is pronounced, even if there is no one else (visibly) present but the Priest.
It should not go without mention, since we’re discussing the Mass in it’s aspect of charity, that the “intentions” of the priest at Mass are one of the primary ways in which the bond of charity, subsisting among and flowing between the faithful within this Militant/Expectant/Triumphant-complex, is made fruitful in the honoring of one another (in the case of the Triumphant and Expectant), and in the procurement of grace and blessings for one another (in the case of the Militant and Expectant). This is another element of the “context” behind this discussion of so-called “private” masses which could easily be mis-understood or overlooked by someone coming at the discussion from the quite different context of a separated protestant ecclesial community. Because within the protestant context, this aspect of the Mass as the primary means by which the “whole” Church celebrates and actualizes that bond of charity betwixt her members, and betwixt herself and her Lord, is often truncated, and the result is that what is offered or celebrated there tends to be understood as only applying with reference to the particular individuals living within that particular ecclesial community and in attendance at that particular moment.
As a result, from a protestant context, it would seem silly and irrelevant to celebrate a Mass in front of an empty church building – e.g. with no one else there but the priest. Leaving aside completely for the moment the question of whether the Mass is or could be a conduit for God’s Grace and Blessing – which is not going to be necessarily granted by a protestant anyway – there is the further problem that in the protestant understanding, what is celebrated exists, and can only exist, “for” whoever is in that building at the moment – after all, as a protestant praying for the dead (e.g. the Church Expectant) is frowned upon, and praying “to” the dead (e.g. the Church Triumphant) is, in the immortal words of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, ”RIGHT out!” This is, in one sense, merely another part of (perhaps the core of?) what I have meant in the past when I have spoken more generally about the ecclesiological differences between the Catholic Church and the ecclesial communities of protestant brethren separated from her, which, as I recognized even before becoming convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church’s position, had reduced the protestant ecclesial community to a “merely” horizontal, political organization – which exists, and accomplishes whatever rites it celebrates, “of, by, and for The People”.
By contrast, from a catholic perspective, ANY Mass, including so-called “private” Masses *even if* no one is (visibly) present but the Priest who is celebrating, is FULL of rich meaning and import – to say nothing of the graces which it contains – with which it blesses the WHOLE Militant/Expectant/Triumphant Church, and, in so doing, enriches and blesses the whole world.
In conclusion, I can say that I definitely understand why this question would occur to you, and while I can’t claim that I’ve necessarily given a “complete” or “satisfying” answer, hopefully I’ve at least broached upon some of the issues of difference in context which affect the asking, and answering, of such a question.
