Reflecting on Cardinal Heenan

I don't know what to make of Cardinal Heenan; in truth, I don't know a great deal about him, but the fragments I do know seem to pull in odd directions.

I know most about him with regard to the changes in the Liturgy, as that is an area of particular interest. I have discussed his comments on the changes in previous posts, starting here. 

However, I am also aware of his correspondence with Evelyn Waugh, published as A Bitter Trial, and Waugh's feeling that Heenan had ultimately betrayed him (and implicitly himself, given his early statements about liturgical change).  

Likewise, I am aware of my own father's sense of betrayal, as conveyed in the notes from his notebook which I have previously published. These refer not only to the liturgical changes, but also to the English Hierarchy's abdication of responsibility (to put it kindly) in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was published (see here).

However, prompted by a post on Fr Ray Blake's blog on Tuesday, about Cardinal Mindszenty, I got out my (or rather, my late father's) copy of Cardinal Mindszenty's Memoirs.  

I had forgotten what a strong supporter Cardinal Heenan was of the persecuted Hungarian prelate (and this at a time when the Holy Father was trying desperately to put him out of the way, to smooth relations with the regime in Budapest).

After his departure (under false promises from the Vatican, in his view) from the American Embassy in Budapest, where he had been claiming asylum for 15 years, Cardinal Mindszenty spent some time travelling to minister to Hungarian expatriates (against the Holy Father's wishes).  That included a visit to London (1973), where he was warmly received by Cardinal Heenan.

In a sermon, Cardinal Heenan said:

While Cardinal Mindszenty remains an exile the world will not be allowed to forget that communism is inflexibly hostile to religion. To regard dialogue with Marxists as if it were a purely academic exercise is ingenuous and dangerous. We who live in liberty must not rest while men and women of any religion are persecuted. If world communism is in earnest about spreading peace let it cease from persecution. Let Hungary invite its Cardinal Primate to return home to the people for whom he is father and hero.

This was very much in opposition to the Vatican diplomatic approach at the time and will not have gone down well.  Indeed, so damaging was Mindszenty's witness (and in particular his Memoirs) deemed to be, that the following year, the Holy Father chose the 25th anniversary of the show trial of Cardinal Mindszenty to remove him, against his will, from the see of Esztergom.

But as for Cardinal Heenan, I remain intrigued.  I have his autobiography (my father's copy of course) but have yet to read it. It has just climbed several places up the list of intended reading...

In the meantime, remember both these holy Cardinals in your prayers.

Requiescant in pace.

My Father on Luther and Heenan

In a previous post, I mentioned my father's quoting of Cardinal Heenan (which leapt out at me for reasons I think I made clear).  I have just read what preceded it in his notebook, which is a French quotation of something Luther wrote.  This explains, quite graphically, the impact of the Heenan quotation on my Father

'Toutefois, afin d'arriver sûrement et heureusement au but, il faudrait conserver certaines cérémonies de l'ancienne messe pour les faibles, qui pourraient être scandalisés par le changement trop brusque.'

(My translation: Anyway, in order to be sure of happily arriving at our goal, it would be necessary to preserve certain aspects of the immemorial Mass for the sake of the weak, who might be scandalised by too abrupt a change.) 

Given that context, it is easy to understand why my father reacted so strongly to Cardinal Heenan's admission that the changes to the Mass were introduced gradually, because otherwise 'You would have been shocked.'

As I read my father's notes, I am increasingly aware of the real anguish that he (and doubtless many others) experienced as the Mass (and as they saw it, the Faith) they had known and loved was re-fashioned.

A later note (May 1975) reads:

I am convinced that the Church is in the power of men who wish to destroy it. They are engaged in substituting a new ecumenical religion for the Catholic Faith, and in aligning the Church with Communism.

The proper authority of the Pope and bishops is fettered by 'collegiality.' Law is disregarded.

The whole structure of Catholic thought - theology and its philosophical basis - is discarded. Heresy is everywhere permitted to be taught. The Dutch Catechism is almost everywhere the basis of official teaching.

A spurious ecumenism has everywhere destroyed Catholic consciousness of the 'One True Church.'

The teaching and disciplinary authority of the Church is in abeyance - except as against 'Traditionalists.'

The new liturgy is intended to substitute a Protestant communion service for the Mass.

I am not obliged to 'obey' such authorities.

--

To his credit, the depth of his disillusion with the Church was not clear to me as I grew up. I was taught  to respect the Holy Father and the bishops, and to reverence the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, and my spiritual Mother.

But I do find that his notes demonstrate the real spiritual struggle of someone who was an adult convert to the Faith, and who felt severely let down.  Some of the context surrounding all this (as well as the wider changes in the Church) was the fact that he had entrusted his daughters to the nuns and his sons to the monks for their education, and found that they had not honoured that trust.  

You Would Have Been Shocked

One of my late Father's running jokes was to collect titles for the many volumes of the  autobiography which he never intended to write.

Every now and then, he would come across a phrase that struck him, and adopt it as the title of the next volume.

One such phrase was 'You would have been shocked.'

Reading his notebook last night, I found the source for this, which also explained its resonance for him.

This is from a Pastoral Letter by Cardinal Heenan, dated 12x69.

Why does the Mass keep changing?  Here is the answer. It would have been foolhardy to introduce the changes all at once. It was obviously wiser to change gradually and gently. If all the changes had been introduced together, you would have been shocked.'

(The underlining is my Father's).

More on Cardinal Heenan on the New Mass

Part Time Pilgrim raised some interesting and important questions in response to my recent post quoting Cardinal Heenan.

I attempted an answer to the first here, so I am now turning my attention to the second: 

2. How exactly does the OF throw doubt on the doctrine of the Real Presence?

Here I think the source of my original quotation becomes very relevant.  In his three volume work on the Liturgical Changes, Michael Davies essentially makes the case for this proposition.

The first volume is 'Cranmer's Godly Order.'  It looks at the Protestant Reformation, and at how the Mass was repeatedly re-written in order to express a theology which denied the orthodox Catholic understanding of it as the Sacrifice of Calvary, in which Our Lord's body and blood are made truly present as the same victim, being offered by the same priest, to the Heavenly Father.

What is disconcerting is that the changes which Cranmer and others initiated find uncanny echoes in the changes made by the Consilium and subsequent initiatives.

One of these, clearly is the removal of the Offertory, about which I have already blogged here.

There is also the change from regarding the altar as primarily a place of sacrifice to treating it as a table, about which I have blogged here and here.

We have also witnessed the destruction of the notion of the sanctuary as a holy place, set apart for sacrifice, about which I have blogged here and passim.

Then in the actual language of the Mass (and in particular in the emasculated translation which, thanks to our Holy Father, has finally been replaced) we found that almost all references to sacrifice and oblation have been bowdlerised.

The ritual, too, has been stripped of those signs of reverence that acknowledged the Real Presence: the genuflections, signs of the Cross, the priest's holding his fingers together lest a crumb be dropped, kneeling for communion, receiving on a tongue, the use of pattens, the use of a hieratic language...

Then there was also the introduction of innovations that served as a rupture with the pre-existing sensus fidelium, often scandalising the faithful, and ultimately (in my view) numbing them: the use of EMHCs when not absolutely necessary, the deliberate destruction of the pervasive silence that was once a characteristic of any Catholic Church (particularly before and after Mass), the practical prohibition of kneeling for communion, the admittance of women to the sanctuary and to service at the altar,and so on and so on.

Also, there was the replacement of the fundamentally vertical orientation of the Mass, focused intensely on God, as Father, Sanctifier, Priest, Victim, and Spiritual Food,  with a much more horizontal orientation, with the people attending, at least in part, to themselves as a community: the new approach placed a new emphasis on the people, typified by Mass facing the people, and an emphasis on the Mass as a time of instruction. (Don't get me wrong: I think instruction in the Faith, and knowledge of Scripture are essential: but the Mass is not the place for them.  At Mass we are learning a yet more profound lesson). 

For me, one of the changes I think really unhelpful  - and emblematic of the thinking of the 'reformers' is in the Kyrie.

We used to have a three fold  - Trinitarian -  structure:

Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison, Christe eleison, Christe eleison, 
Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison.

That was replaced with the dialogue form:

Priest: Kyrie eleison
People: Kyrie eleison

Priest: Christe eleison
People: Christe eleison

Priest: Kyrie eleison
People: Kyrie eleison

(Though if you get it in Greek, you are very lucky. Yet this is a link with the very early Church...)

Thus the  whole feel of the Mass changes: the priest and the people are talking to each other, rather than united in the worship of God (and that's why orientation is so important...)

It is quite true that much of this was changed after Cardinal Heenan's remarks: he was prescient, I think, and spotted very early on the direction of travel - what followed later was implicit from the start, from the philosophy, theology, ecclesiology and sociology of the Concilium.

It is also quite true that few, if any, of these changes were mandated by the Council Fathers.

Perhaps what is hard to see from the perspective of those of us who grew up after the changes is the massive impact of change at all.

The iconic example of this is the Canon of the Mass.  The very word Canon means that which is unchanging.  Suddenly it was changed: the Canon itself was both edited, to become Eucharistic Prayer No. 1, and made optional, with three other regular options and, eventually, countless others.

Some of these, such as EP 2, when compared line be line with the Roman Canon, are clearly less explicit about the Sacrificial Action and the Real Presence.

So my thesis is that it is the cumulative effect of these changes which has undermined a clear Catholic sense of what the Mass is, and therefore belief in the Real Presence.

It is not the sole cause - the crisis in education and the apostasy of some priests and nuns are clearly contributory factors.  But Cardinal Heenan said what he said when he said it, and what he predicted came to pass - so I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that he may have been onto something.

In terms of protestantisation, if Davies' analysis is correct - and it certainly seems cogent to me - then that case is made: the New Mass is far more acceptable to many protestants than the Old could ever have been - and was designed to be.  Protestant advisors were consultors to the Concilium.

As for feminisation, I am less clear. I think the Cardinal was suggesting that the more community-focussed 'inclusive' approach to liturgy may appeal more to women than to men, but I am wary of generalisations about the sexes.  I think our own time is one in which it is hard to see these issues clearly (every age has its own blindspots!).

More on Cardinal Heenan and the Mass

In his thoughtful (as always) comments on my previous post, Part Time Pilgrim raises two questions:

1. I accept the OF gives more prominence to scripture than the EF (I think this is a Good Thing) but does it give more prominence to scripture than to the Eucharistic prayer?

2. How exactly does the OF throw doubt on the doctrine of the Real Presence?

He then adds:

Now it may be that I need to experience more EF masses to understand what he is getting at (although I am uneasy about the idea of liturgical tourism). Having attended OF masses for the last 40 years and still having a firm faith in the real presence I still don't "get it".

I propose to answer these, in a somewhat circuitous way, over this post and one or two more.

I am not attempting to convince PTP or anyone else, but to explain how I see it.

So before addressing these questions directly (this is not evasion: I will get around to them) I want to put them, and my response to them, into a context.

At the time of the unprecedented liturgical changes (never before had the Mass been re-written by a committee of experts) there were dichotomous views expressed about the probable consequences. 

On the one hand, advocates of the changes declared that they would reinvigorate the Church’s worship and thus faith, and also increase the likelihood of full-scale reunion with our separated brethren in various denominations.

On the other hand, there were those, including Cardinal Heenan, who thought they would have an adverse effect on the practice of the faith, and ultimately on the faith itself of many people.

It seems clear to me that what Cardinal Heenan feared is much closer to what we have experienced since the changes than what the liturgical experts expected.  

It is also interesting to note that where we are experiencing some reunion with separated brethren en masse, in the Ordinariate, the newer form of liturgy of the Church is not something they find appealing...

I am not claiming post hoc, propter hoc, with regard to the changes in the liturgy and the collapse of Catholic understanding and practice in the intervening decades, but I think the issue at least worthy of exploration.

So turning to PTP’s questions, I will have a go at No.1 here and return to No. 2 and his additional comments in a subsequent post.

It is hard to do a precise comparison of the time given to scripture, and the time given to the Eucharistic Prayer, because both are variable.  When the readings are long, and the EP2 is used, for example, then it seems likely that the readings may take considerably longer than the Eucharistic Prayer.  Certainly on the most solemn feasts, (consider the Easter Vigil...) Scripture is given far more time.

But prominence isn’t just about length of time; I think the impression which the Cardinal gained needs to be understood in the context of the change he had just experienced.

Formerly, the reading of Scripture at Mass had been done at the altar (the lesson or epistle being read on the right hand side, the Gospel being read on the left hand side).  Thus the readings were primarily addressed to God as part of the preparation for the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

The Lesson or Epistle was by way of saying: remember what You did for us, or promised us, of old; and the Gospel: remember what Your Son did and said...

That was why it didn’t matter, in a sense, whether the people could understand the Latin (though of course, in practice, people had missals with translations, and frequently the readings were subsequently read out in the vernacular for the edification of the people - but that was secondary.)

In the New Mass, the readings were suddenly proclaimed to the people from the ambo in a more didactic (and thus less prayerful) mode.

That shifted the whole balance of the Mass, it seems to me, from being all about the build-up to the Sacrifice, to being a Mass in two halves: the Word, then the Eucharist.  In that way, the Scripture readings had far more prominence than heretofore, and one can easily see why the Cardinal thought they were more prominent than the Eucharistic Prayer.

Of course, one could argue that the new approach is better.  But that is not the issue I wish to highlight at this stage (though I do have a view, as you would imagine). But I think that the first thing it to try to understand what Cardinal Heenan was getting at, and I hope that I may have cast some light on that.

(Incidentally, the rest of the EF Mass is saturated in Scripture, in a way the OF is not - but that is another issue for another day...)


UPDATE

Simon Platt makes a very important contribution in the comment below: I think I have been arguing from a misunderstanding, though my points remain sound, I think, in the light of his explanation.

Cardinal Heenan on the New Mass

I had occasion today to look up Cardinal Heenan's comments after seeing the first celebration of the New Normative Mass, in the Sistine Chapel, during the October 1967 Synod of Bishops in Rome.

This was some time after the introduction of the vernacular Mass: initially that was a fairly straightforward translation of the Traditional Mass, the one we now refer to as the Extraordinary Form.  (Indeed, that is the first Mass I can remember from my childhood, with the priest entering and starting the Mass with the words (in English) I will go up to the altar of God' and the servers responding: 'The God who gives joy to my youth.')

So by 1967 the Mass had been celebrated in English (at least sometimes) for a while.  This, however, was the first sight of the wholesale revision of the Mass, and the Cardinal's words strike me as prophetic and worthy of reflection. He said:

Like all the bishops I offer my sincere thanks to the Consilium. Its members have worked well and have done their best. I cannot help wondering, however, if the Consilium as at present constituted can meet the needs of our times. For the liturgy is not primarily an academic or cultural question. It is above all a pastoral matter for it concerns the spiritual lives of our faithful. I do not know the names of the members of the Consilium or, even more important, the names of their consultors. But after studying the so called Normative Mass it was clear to me that few of them can have been parish priests.  I cannot think that anyone with pastoral experience would have regarded the sung Mass as being of first importance.

At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel (a demonstration of the Normative Mass) we would soon he left with a congregation mostly of women and children. Our people love the Mass but it is Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments to which they are chiefly attached. I humbly suggest that the Consilium look at its members and advisers to make sure that the number of those who live in seminaries and religious communities does not exceed the numbers of those with pastoral experience among the people in ordinary parishes.

 Here are a few points which solely for the sake of time - since only five minutes are allowed for comments - must be put so shortly as to sound brusque.

 1. The rule of prayer is the rule of faith. If there is to be more emphasis in the Mass on Bible readings than on Eucharistic prayer the faith of both clergy and people will be weakened.

 2. There is more need than ever today to stress the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. No change in the Mass should he made which might seem to throw doubt on this doctrine.

 3. Many bishops in this Synod have spoken of the need of coming to the rescue of the faithful grown restless and disturbed on account of too frequent changes in the Mass.  I must therefore ask what attitude the Consilium will take to these warnings from the pastors of the Church? I confess in all seriousness that I am uneasy lest the liturgists say: "These bishops know nothing about liturgy." It would be tragic if after the bishops have gone home, no notice were to be taken of their opinions.

 4. In my diocese of Westminster - and in several other English dioceses - the rule is that at least one Mass each Sunday must be celebrated in Latin.  It would be a great help if the Consilium were to tell the whole Church how the Latin tongue can be preserved.  If the Church is to remain truly the Catholic Church it is essential to keep a universal tongue.

(Quoted in Michael Davies: Pope Paul's New Mass).

It seems to me that the four points he raised were indeed prophetic - and prophecies which were ignored.  We are still paying the price, and our Holy Father has his work cut out to turn the tide.

Remember him - and the late Cardinal Heenan - in your prayers.