The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture has graciously granted permission to reproduce the text of the following article from vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 20-31.The Merit of a Mass
by Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.
Among the traditional faithful there appears to be a kind of intuitive sense that the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new rite. Many believe that they derive more spiritual gain from the old rite of Mass than from the new. However, to give a more precise expression to the intuitive sense of which is more efficacious, the new or the old rite, it is necessary to make several distinctions. Since the purpose of this article is very specific, i.e. to ascertain which ritual is more meritorious or efficacious, certain issues regarding the value or efficacy of the Mass will be avoided.
Yet, to answer the question of whether the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new is of paramount importance. It is the point of departure between priests of the respective rites, since each holds that he is saying the Mass that is best for the faithful. Nevertheless, the question is a key one since, in the end, whichever ritual is more meritorious ought to be the one that the Roman authorities encourage. Since one of the primary obligations of those in authority in the Church is the glory of God through the salvation of souls, they have the obligation to encourage and, in some cases, require the ritual of the Mass which is most efficacious.
Yet, to answer the question of whether the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new is of paramount importance. It is the point of departure between priests of the respective rites, since each holds that he is saying the Mass that is best for the faithful. Nevertheless, the question is a key one since, in the end, whichever ritual is more meritorious ought to be the one that the Roman authorities encourage. Since one of the primary obligations of those in authority in the Church is the glory of God through the salvation of souls, they have the obligation to encourage and, in some cases, require the ritual of the Mass which is most efficacious.
Read the rest of this article here: The Merit of a Mass
11 comments:
Hi, John - I read through the article by Fr. Ripperger, and his reasoning raised some concerns.
The article is founded on the intrinsic value/merit/efficaciousness vs. the extrinsic value/merit/efficaciousness of the Mass: i.e., that the Mass is of infinite value because it is the sacrifice of Christ on the one hand, and that this infinite value is necessarily received finitely by the individual person at the Mass.
The problem is that he misinterprets extrinsic merit as being the merit of the Mass itself as said in the current state of the Church as a whole, by a certain priest, with certain faithful, with certain "decora," with a certain rite; rather than as the merit the individual actually receives from the Sacrament, which merit cannot be diminished by any of the above in any way that implies necessity.
That is, correctly understood, any diminishing of the extrinsic merit an individual receives from the Sacrament due to any of the above conditions is properly the fault of the individual, not the fault of a lack of the "extrinsic merit of the Mass" said under the conditions. This is because merit and the diminishment of merit by definition require free choice - they cannot reside in objects. (The intrinsic merit of the Mass rests on the free choice of Christ Himself.)
-The extrinsic merit of the Mass itself as the sacrament of the sacrifice of Christ cannot be diminished for someone by another person (III, q.82, art.6, ad 3).
St. Thomas distinguishes in this article between the Sacrament itself and the prayers that the priest offers for the faithful in the Mass. The Sacrament itself cannot be affected by the holiness of the priest; the priest's prayers for the faithful can only be made more fruitful by a priest's holiness, not rendered unfruitful because of sin.
-The same principle holds with regard to participation of other members of the faithful. Holy people can increase the fruitfulness of the Mass, apart from the fruitfulness of the Sacrament itself, by their participation, but sinners cannot detract from the extrinsic merit of the Mass for others simply by their participation.
-The place, vestments, and vessels of the Mass can only affect the extrinsic merit of the Mass for an individual insofar as they affect his reverence and devotion. Certainly, beauty and magnificence "more easily moves people to lift their minds and hearts to God," but it does not increase merit in and of itself. St. John of the Cross reminds us that it can even become a distraction. (Not an argument for ugly things, though!) Likewise, ugly or even unsuitable objects cannot in and of themselves diminish an individual's reverence and devotion.
-Finally, as regards the rite itself, the extrinsic efficaciousness of the Sacrament is only affected insofar as the individual's reverence and devotion are positively or negatively affected by the rite.
The arguments are not all on the side of the old rite. An obvious argument for the new rite, for instance, is that the vocal participation of the laity is intended to help the faithful more easily pray the Mass itself rather than use Mass as a setting for private prayers and devotions. [The "requirement of attention as a part of prayer" is also nothing new - St. Thomas makes clear that while our weakness keeps us from maintaining attention during prayer, we are to strive for it (II-II, q.83, a.13, ad 3).]
I thoroughly agree with Fr. Ripperger that holy priests, holy faithful, and fitting beauty in every aspect of the celebration of the Mass are not only desirable but will assist the faithful in receiving more merit from the celebration of the Mass, but I cannot agree with the jump from that to the conclusion that Masses that more perfectly incorporate all of the above are therefore in and of themselves more "extrinsically meritorious."
Heidi,
Thanks for the thorough critique! Without going back to re-read the article very thoroughly myself, here's my take on it.
I think your main criticism was this: "The problem is that he misinterprets extrinsic merit as being the merit of the Mass itself as said in the current state of the Church as a whole, by a certain priest, with certain faithful, with certain "decora," with a certain rite; rather than as the merit the individual actually receives from the Sacrament, which merit cannot be diminished by any of the above in any way that implies necessity."
I'm not sure he misinterprets the extrinsic merit of the Mass after all. I could be wrong (of course), but it seems to me that the Mass as a whole, considered apart from its infinite intrinsic perfection, is also extrinsically pleasing to God.
He is pleased by the holiness of the Church, the office of the priest, the devotion of the priest, the devotion of the faithful, the suitability of the decora, and by the rite itself.
The basic principle that seems to be at work throghout Fr. Ripperger's reasoning then is, the more God is pleased, the more man benefits.
Certainly, I think it true that of the six principles of extrinsic merit mentioned, the personal devotion of the participant is the most important factor.
However, your reasoning would seem to imply (please correct me here if I misread you) that an individual person will receive the same fruit whether he attends a Mass in which God is glorified or one in which God is sacrileged (extrinsically, of course, God is equally glorified by Christ in each), so long as the individual is equally devout.
I'm relying here more on instinct than on theological training, but that doesn't sound right to me.
Heidi,
How are studies in Rome, by the way? My sister is still planning on heading that way next Fall (unless I can convince her to come here instead - free babysitting ;)
John,
Studies in Rome are great; glad to hear that your sister is still headed our way (though a niece as cute as the one she has with you would be a powerful attraction!).
My point is precisely what you said in summing it up: "that an individual person will receive the same fruit whether he attends a Mass in which God is glorified or one in which God is sacrileged (extrinsically, of course, God is equally glorified by Christ in each), so long as the individual is equally devout." The only clarification I would make is: "so long as the individual's devotion in the context of each of the Masses is the same."
To say otherwise is to say that sacramentals as well as sacraments work ex opere operato, "from the work performed," conferring grace provided that the individual doesn't put an obstacle in the way; rather than ex opere operantis, in which the fruit gained rests on the devotion of the individual.
None of the six principles that Fr. Ripperger mentions is either a sacrament itself or strictly essential to the Sacrament that is the center of the Mass, so none of them can work in the manner of a Sacrament.
St. Thomas also makes clear in his questions on Religion (II-II, Q.81, a.7) and Superstition in Undue Worship of the True God (II-II, Q. 93) that those things put to use in worship are pleasing to God not in themselves but insofar as they are
signs of and serve to arouse one to interior devotion. "Hence Augustine quotes the words of Lk. 17:21, 'The kingdom of God is within you,' against the 'superstitious,' those, to wit, who pay more attention to externals" (II-II, Q.93, a.2, corpus).
In his reply to the third objection of II-II, Q.81, a.7, he says "Idolaters are ridiculed for offering to idols things pertaining to men, not as signs arousing them to certain spiritual things, but as though they were of themselves acceptable to the idols; and still more because they were foolish and wicked."
If the question comes down to one of strict sacrilege, rather than just ugly things and sinful people, occurring in the context of the Mass - participation in sacrilege is, of course, clearly sinful, but devotion could still be present and fruit could still be gained from such a Mass by someone who was unaware of a grave sacrilege, or simply did not himself participate in or interiorly assent to a lesser one.
Both Q.81, a.7 and Q.93 of II-II are worth reading in relation to the broader topic; Question 93 only has two articles.
Will you, Lisa, & Maria be in Lansing this summer? Kevin & I will be back in Ann Arbor with my parents - it would be great if we could all get together this summer.
Heidi,
We will be in Lansing this summer (mid-May through mid-Aug). I'm sure we'll be in the AA area a fair bit as well.
We'll be splitting time between Lisa's parents and my own, so email will remain the best way to communicate with us, I hope we can work something out!
I hope you don't mind, I asked Fr Ripperger what he would make of your critique, as I am certainly interested in the question, and the points which you raised seem like good ones.
His answer was:
Dear John,
I do not want to give a long reply since the problem seems to be on the side of understanding the precise distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic merit or value. The distinction as to the different kinds of extrinsic merit are based upon centuries of theologians all holding to the same distinctions. The critique below presumes that all merit or value of the Mass is subjective, i.e. ad personam. This is false. In the eyes of God, some things are simply more pleasing than others objectively and that is what the article is dealing with. God bless.
-Fr. R.
I am a bit disappointed that he didn't mention who these theologians are that have this consensus regarding extrinsic/intrinsic merit. I assume they are the same "liturgical writers" to whom he referred without reference in the article.
Regardless of this, it is his last sentence that seems to me to be the point of our divergence: "In the eyes of God, some things are simply more pleasing than others objectively."
This seems true to me, whereas the way I am understanding your argument is that the honor given to God in the context of the Mass is not pleasing to him as such, but is meant only to arouse devotion on the part of the faithful, and this is what is pleasing to God.
Wouldn't your line of thought lead you to say that the Gloria, for example, is chanted in the Mass, not to give glory to God per se, but merely to excite devotion in the hearts of those chanting/hearing it?
Hi again Heidi,
Sorry to leave so many separate comments, but it's obviously a question that interests me.
You said,
"St. Thomas also makes clear in his questions on Religion (II-II, Q.81, a.7) and Superstition in Undue Worship of the True God (II-II, Q. 93) that those things put to use in worship are pleasing to God not in themselves but insofar as they are signs of and serve to arouse one to interior devotion. "Hence Augustine quotes the words of Lk. 17:21, 'The kingdom of God is within you,' against the 'superstitious,' those, to wit, who pay more attention to externals" (II-II, Q.93, a.2, corpus)."
According to my reading of II-II q. 93, a. 2, St. Thomas actually implies quite clearly that some acts of worship are per se conducive to God's glory:
"On the other hand if [!] that which is done be, in itself, not conducive to God's glory, nor raise man's mind to God, nor curb inordinate concupiscence, or again if it be not in accordance with the commandments of God and of the Church, or if it be contrary to the general custom - which, according to Augustine [*Ad Casulan. Ep. xxxvi], "has the force of law" - all this must be reckoned excessive and superstitious, because consisting, as it does, of mere externals, it has no connection with the internal worship of God."
It would seem that external actions that do not per se glorify God can be excessive and superstitious (and hence St. Augustine's warning), but also that there are external actions that do glorify God per se.
Aquinas also says in the same article above:
"Consequently, whatever a man may do conducing to God's glory, and subjecting his mind to God, and his body, too, by a moderate curbing of the concupiscences, is not excessive in the divine worship, provided it be in accordance with the commandments of God and of the Church, and in keeping with the customs of those among whom he lives."
Here it is stated clearly that the things we do in worshipping God are meant to glorify him.
The point being again that it seems reasonable to me to suppose that the more glory is given to God in the Mass, the more God is pleased, and the more graces he makes available through that Mass.
Pax!
It also seems apropos to add the statement of Pope St. Pius X:
"And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple." (Instruction on Sacred Music)
Here the pope clearly makes a connection between the degree to which God is pleased by something external to the Sacrifice of Christ itself (music), and the degree to which we may hope to receive His blessings.
Hi, John - back again. Distracted yesterday because I found Gihr's book online & started reading it. I'm enjoying it. (It's not very readable in its .txt format, but I'm laying it out as I go - I can send you the chapters as PDFs as I finish them, if you want. Public domain - no copyright issues.).
As to the question at hand, though, it seems to me that we're trying to tread our way between superstition/pharisaism on the one hand, and "anything goes as long as you feel groovy about God" on the other hand. Let me make clear at the outset that I am not advocating the latter!
There are two aspects of the interior devotion that I mentioned: exterior worship ought to 1) be a sign of interior devotion, and 2) arouse one to (greater) interior devotion.
We would both agree that a chanted Gloria is a better sign of interior devotion than something courtesy of Marty Haugen. Why better? Because this music conforms to what Pope Pius XII said in Musicae sacrae, 42:
"It must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this holiness."
This music objectively points to a deeper, higher, more reverential worship of God than than the music that has been foisted on the American Church post-Vatican-II. That is no surprise to those responsible - their emphasis was not on reverence but relevance.
A chanted Gloria, then, has the intrinsic capacity to be more pleasing to God than a poor American one or a spoken Low Mass one.
I am arguing that the degree to which it is pleasing to God, however, depends on the degree to which the external expression corresponds to, manifests, the internal reverence and devotion of those chanting it.
Imagine four hypothetical people:
The first is chanting a chanted Gloria as an act of worship, an expression of his reverence and devotion to God, and it does truly convey his reverence and devotion.
The second is chanting a chanted Gloria, but his reverence and devotion would better correspond to the music of a particularly atrocious contemporary Gloria.
The third is singing a particularly atrocious contemporary Gloria with the same degree of reverence and devotion that the music expresses.
The fourth is singing the same contemporary Gloria, but his interior devotion is the same as that of the first guy and exceeds what the music expresses, whether or not he's aware of it.
Superstition or pharisaism would say that the second person would receive more fruit from the act of chanting the Gloria than the fourth person would from singing the lousy contemporary Gloria.
On the other hand, the "whatever floats your liturgical boat" school would say that the first person and the third person would get the same fruit because the form each sings is suited to the particular "worship style" of each.
I disagree with both of these camps, and furthermore argue that the first and the fourth would get the same amount of fruit, and the second and the third would get the same amount of fruit - in each case, the fruit would correspond to the degree of interior reverence and devotion.
Does this make my point more clear?
One more example that occurred to me this morning:
A fifth hypothetical person. He has no appreciation for Gregorian chant - doesn't like it as a musical form. He's always felt like he's gotten more out of contemporary music. Nevertheless, because he knows that the Church has given pride of place to Gregorian chant in her worship of God, and that therefore there must be something about it that makes it better suited for this worship, he's chosen to attend a Mass that incorporates Gregorian chant instead of relying on contemporary settings.
I would say that he'd get more fruit out of the chanted Mass than from the contemporary Mass. He wouldn't likely feel like that was the case, but devotion and reverence aren't emotions. On the other hand, he wouldn't be getting more fruit from the chanted Mass simply and solely because it is chant and in itself better suited for the worship of God, but he would be getting more fruit because his will was united to the chanting of this chant for the sake of the greater glory of God - and it was therefore an expression of his reverence and devotion, and a greater expression of reverence and devotion than his attendance at a contemporary Mass would have been.
Heidi,
Yes, please do send me those PDFs as you go through them. I'd be very interested. Thanks!
Post a Comment