...continued from: Can We Ask if a Mass is Better?
There are various respects in which one Mass can be compared to another. Here are some questions we might ask. (Please click links to see references to St. Thomas' Summa.)
Better in essence: Is this Mass valid?
One valid Mass cannot be better than another in its essence. In order to be a true Mass, i.e. in order to be the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, a Mass must have the right form and matter and minister. It must have:
Christ’s words of consecration,
said over wheaten bread and grape wine,
by an ordained male priest
with that intention. A 'Mass' said without any one of these is not a Mass at all.
Better in cause: Does the state of the priest’s soul, his faith or virtue, make this Mass better?
The state of the priest's soul does not affect validity. Christ is the agent cause of the Mass, but the priest is the instrumental cause. When a priest says the words of consecration, it is necessary for validity that he have the intention to offer the Mass, as opposed for example, to having the intention to demonstrate it in a video. However, St. Thomas says that if a priest is wicked, and even if he has no Faith, this is irrelevant to the validity of this sacrament, because by intending to offer the Mass he acts on behalf of the Church so that the Church's intention supplies for what he lacks.
That being said, the degree of the priest's holiness, although it does not change the objective essence of the Mass, does communicate a proportionate good to the faithful as regards the subjective efficacy of his prayers.
Better in accidents: Is this Mass said licitly? Is the rite performed faithfully as instituted by the Church?
The most important circumstances of the Mass are its liceity, or lawfulness, and the rite, which is the combination of rituals and prayers prescribed by the Church.
A licit Mass is better than an illicit one. While a priest indelibly has the sacramental character from which comes the power to perform the Sacrament, he requires the authority to use that power from the Church. A licit Mass is therefore better than an illicit Mass. For example, the Mass of a priest who has been condemned by the Church as a heretic, schismatic, or excommunicate is worse in two respects. First, from the perspective of the priest, "because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy." (even though his Mass may be valid.) Second, from the perspective of the congregation, it is usually a sin to intentionally attend the Mass of a sentenced priest. (I say 'usually' because there is so much more to be said whenever it comes to Canon Law!) We must not preclude the Church's sentence, though, since it is not our job to make that judgment, except as needed for wise personal choices.
Even a non-sentenced priest who messes with the rite both sins gravely and may diminish the effects of the Mass for the congregation. However, it is not a sin to attend the Mass of such a priest before he has been judged by the Church, and this Mass still gives grace both by Christ's sacrifice and the Blessed Sacrament.
The Church has established solemn rites to adorn the essential words of consecration, because "the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament," and the Church alone has the authority to determine and to change the words and gestures of the rite. These rites are sacred, because their elements have been handed down to us throughout history, St. Thomas says, from St. James and St. Basil. Their words and gestures are ordered toward three effects:
to symbolize Christ's sacrifice which is re-presented in this Sacrament,
to evoke reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and
to prepare us for this great mystery.
One could discuss whether a particular form or rite is better than another insofar as it has a longer hallowed Tradition, or better insofar as it is more conducive to these three effects.
There are also Church documents and writings of the saints pertaining to the definition of sacred music, the reason for ad orientem, communion received kneeling and on the tongue from a priest only, and other such aspects of the Mass around which the question could be formulated.
Better in its effects: Can one Mass give more glory to God? Can it bring more graces than another?
Assuming that a Mass is both valid and licit, there are additional aspects that can change its subjective effects. We already mentioned the efficacy of the priest's prayers, and then there is left to be considered the devotion of the one hearing the Mass. First, mortal sin makes us unable to benefit from Holy Communion at Mass, whereas even un-repented venial sin diminishes our ability to benefit from Mass as much as we might. Even our faults and weaknesses change the subjective effects.
The primary effects of the Mass are to glorify God and to sanctify us. It is not that we can add any glory to Him Who is already full of glory. Rather it is that we reflect His own glory back at Him when we subject ourselves to Him in worship, whereby our minds and hearts are opened to receive from Him everything that we need for our perfection. The Mass is not a 'pep rally' for God then. Recall how quickly the supportive cheers of Palm Sunday changed to the angry jeers of Good Friday. What glorifies God is not our emotional highs, but rather the right ordering of our minds and hearts. This is epitomized in Christ's sacrifice – a far cry from an emotional high.
One person may prefer one form or rite of the Mass because it is more familiar. Or he may judge one Mass inspires in him more devotion and reverence because of his response to the music... or because of the silence, or because of his own habit of recollection in contrast to a lack of attention. Devotion is not to be confused with emotion. The person with well-ordered passions of the soul is more free to enter deeply into the spiritual mysteries, which are beyond the senses. That may mean either less emotion, or emotions directed toward a different object.
Further, in a society that specializes in overstimulation, competing with that stimulation on its own terms is not likely to meet with success in the Mass. Yes, external participation can be forced that way. But to create even the slightest possibility of intimacy with our Lord in interior prayer, learning to reign in imaginations and calm our emotions is a necessary pre-requisite. Toward this end, stillness, hushed tones, and pregnant silence are far more conducive.
There is, then, both an objective standard for what truly gives God glory, as well as what we ourselves bring to the Mass to dispose ourselves. When subjectively judging a Mass for ourselves, we should pray to be conformed not to our own emotional expectations, but to the standard of the Church throughout Tradition.
"Can we ask whether one form of worship is better than another?" My answer to the question is: Yes, in many respects we can... not in essence, but in accidents, instrumental cause, and effects. Let us not hesitate then, to consider this question prudently and fruitfully for the greater glory of God, and for our own sanctification.
Comments