The Sacrifice of Cain

Some time ago, I read the spiritual autobiography of the late William F. Buckley,Jr.: Nearer My God. In that book, which I recommend to all, Buckley presented his religious life, both before and after Vatican II. Like many of those of his day, he remembered with fondness the old ways, and looked with a certain regret upon the “reforms” which happened after the Second Vatican Council. But at the end of one chapter, he asked a most pertinent question: if the Council was such a time of powerful religious and spiritual reform, then why are the monasteries, seminaries, and nunneries so empty? Why have vocations among priests and religious so dried up? And why have so many who remain have been revealed as followers, not of Our Lord, but of such as Gilles de Rais and the Marquis de Sade?

These questions I have long pondered, and I have also pondered the answers that a number of people have given to those questions. It seems that those who are happy with the reforms after Vatican II have their answer, which in effect is to say: “we have not gone far enough down the road of reform to reap all of its benefits. We must follow the latest fashions and styles of the new musicians and liturgists. If folk masses are no longer au courant, then we must invent punk masses, with slam dances for the kiss of peace, and mosh pits in place of the sanctuary. We must call for a Third Vatican Council, which will finish those reforms which the People of God have called for. Then we will have reached the parousia, and we will be led into a land flowing with soda pop and saccharine.”

I don’t know about you, but such people remind me of Einstein’s definition: “Insanity is when people do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result.”

On the other extreme, I have seen and heard many so-called Roman Catholics say: “Many or all of the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council are in error, and that is why those who follow those doctrines have entered and have led many others into error.” There is just one problem with holding a view such as that: We have been promised by our Lord, among many other things, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. As should be obvious, the three main ways that people are led into Hell are by sin, by error, and by death. To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church has committed grave and repeated error is in effect to say either that our Lord is a liar, or that the Roman Catholic Church is neither the or a true Church of Christ. I do not see how any one who is a true child of that Church can say such things against Her, or against Her Lord. This is usually the role taken by Her enemies.

If nothing else, I would think that the brighter of such people would remember the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc: it is a logical mistake to think that because one thing happened after another, that the first thing is therefore the cause of the second. It thus may be a mistake to think that because many evils happened after Vatican II, that that Council was thus the cause of those ills.

Then there are some who say what I think is the most plausible reason so far given as to why what happened after Vatican II did not fulfill the promise offered by that Council: They say that there were many who failed to follow the teaching of Vatican II, but instead taught what they wanted to teach, and said that they were somehow following “the spirit” of Vatican II. This eisegesis, or this misinterpretation, they call the “hermeneutic of discontinuity”.

That is all very well, and it very well may be the root of the rot which has so damaged the Roman Catholic Church. But I find this explanation to be lacking on two levels: first, like any child of the East, I prefer the simple language of Scripture, of the Fathers, and of most of the saints, to the polysyllabic jargon of the Schoolmen, be they Aquinas and Bonaventure, or Husserl and Heidegger. The expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity,” savors more of the university and the lectern than the cathedral and the pulpit.

But second, and more importantly, the expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity” is not adequate to the task, because it does not adequately describe or explain how and why such damage happened to the Church after Vatican II.

I thus propose a simpler, and more Biblical, explanation of what happened after the Second Vatican Council: too many bishops, priests, religious, and lay people offered the sacrifice of Cain, and as a result, the Lord God did not bless their work.

If you will recall from the book of Genesis, Cain offered the sacrifice of the first fruits of his farm, while his brother Abel offered young lambs from his flock. The Lord blessed the sacrifice of Abel, and rejected that of Cain. Both the Rabbinic and the Patristic commentary on this scripture are agreed that the Lord had taught the family of Adam that the proper sacrifice before the Lord was the sacrifice of the lamb, and that Cain had offered what he wanted to offer, rather than that which the Lord demanded. The sacrifice of Cain is thus a type for all of those who offer what they want to the Lord, rather than what the Lord asks or demands.

Lest anyone think that I exaggerate here, I invite your attention to the Vatican II statement on Divine Revelation, or Dei Verbum. In it, the council fathers proclaim that Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority, rather than being “inconvenient truths”, are the three means by which the Spirit of God has spoken to human beings. Further, in their dogmatic statement on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, the council fathers proclaimed that one of the chief means by which the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Church has been in and through Her ecumenical councils. It would thus seem obvious to anyone who actually believes in what the Church teaches that God has spoken to us through Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and through the Councils of the Church. It should also appear obvious that any one who would ignore these teachings, was in fact ignoring the Word of God.

It should also be obvious that he or she who ignores the word of God, but who says that they are doing God’s will, is simply offering the sacrifice of Cain.

Taken in that light, let us examine what the Council documents have to say about the Divine Liturgy. Those on the Divine Liturgy ask that the Latin language be retained in some way in the liturgy. They commend that clergy and people make song a principal part of that liturgy, and that the Roman Church’s traditional chant be given pride of place in all liturgical gatherings, that the treasury of polyphony be preserved and cultivated, and that modern hymns be introduced. They ask that the liturgy be served with a noble simplicity, and that all art, architecture, music, vestments, lights, and incense be used to reflect the dignity and the beauty of heaven.

The fact that almost none of this has been done in and for most of the liturgies served in the last two score of years thus is not just a shame and a pity. For the last score of years at least, Canon 214 of the Code of Canon Law has stated that “the Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.”

As those “legitimate pastors” would appear to include the Council Fathers, and as the documents of the Second Vatican Council doubtless would be included in the teaching of the Church, the failure to serve liturgies consonant with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council would appear to be both the denial of the word of God, and the denial of the rights of the Christian faithful. These denials would appear to be nothing less than sins before humankind, and before God.

If this were just a failure to serve the liturgy as God and as the Council Fathers had asked, it would be bad enough. But the sacrifice of Cain runs even deeper than this. Let us examine two other documents of the Council.

The first, Optatam Totius, expresses the Council’s wishes as regards the education and training of priests and bishops. It first commends that candidates to the priesthood be well grounded in Latin, and encourages them to learn the languages of Scripture and Tradition. As the languages of Scripture would appear to be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the languages of Tradition are Greek and Latin (and some would add Christian Aramaic, or Syriac), candidates to the priesthood are thus commended to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, and to use these tongues better to know the sources of Divine Revelation: that is, Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority.

It then commends that the candidates, before entering the seminary, gain the scientific, literary, and humanistic education customary to those going on to higher studies. That is to say, the sort of education which is required before one can go on to studies in Medicine and Science, Law, Theology, and Philosophy. In short, the Council Fathers asked that candidates to the priesthood, even before entry into the seminary, be well educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, music, classics, literature, history, and political theory. As most areas of higher studies require a reading knowledge at least of French, German, and Italian, three of the four languages of modern scholarship (the fourth being English), these would also appear to be prerequisites.

It further states that the candidate should, while in seminary, take two years of study in philosophy, and four in theology. As regards philosophy, it recommends that all philosophical studies of “perennial” value should be undertaken. That would appear to include Plato and Aristotle, the Schoolmen, and everyone from Descartes to the modern philosophers. As regards theology, it commends that the sources of theology (again, Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority) be examined thoroughly, that the candidate be fully trained in liturgical theology, moral theology, and dogmatic theology, and finally that the candidate be instructed in the Summa of the blessed Aquinas.

I have a question for my readers: how many priests do you know who have had or even approach the level of education demanded by the Council Fathers? I only know of three: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Joseph O’Leary, and my parish priest at St. Andrew’s, Fr. Alexei Smith. I hope and believe that there are some others. I fear that few of them live and serve in my country. This lack among the Roman Catholic priesthood is one of the main reasons that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I need more than they can give me, or to the rest of the faithful.

The last document which I wish to examine in this essay is Presbyterorum Ordinis. In it, the Council fathers express their wishes for the spiritual life of priests and bishops. They state in no uncertain terms that the first duties of bishops and priests are to preach the word of God and to serve the sacraments. Priests and bishops are to work together as co-laborers, with priests acting in obedience to their bishops, and the bishops seeking to act to better direct and to ease the labors of their priests. The sacraments do not simply include the Eucharist and Penance, but also the Liturgy of the Hours, which in some part should be shared with the people. Priests are to cultivate the spiritual life, and are to assist the laity in their efforts to live that life. Further, priests are to keep up their knowledge of theology, through a thorough study of scripture, tradition, and authority, and are to keep up their knowledge of secular matters, so as better to bring the Gospel to the world.

Several questions come to mind, which I wish to pose to my readers: How many priests do you know who appear to spend more than a few minutes in the preparation of their sermons? How many show that they have even the remotest acquaintance with Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the lives of the saints, or the traditions and teachings of the Church? How many lead their people in Vespers, Matins, or any of the hours? How many have any inkling of the spiritual life, or show that they might have something to teach you of that life? I am happy to say that my parish priest does quite well in all these regards. I am sad to say that I know of few others who are where I live. Most of those either visit or help to serve at my church.

In short, most of the Divine Liturgies served for the last two score years, and most of those priests allegedly serving them, have neither been informed by nor obedient to the teachings of their Church, or of Her most recent Council. In the parlance of the sixties, they have “done their own thing.” They have offered the sacrifice of Cain.

There are three things that we know of from the Book of Genesis as regards the sacrifice of Cain: The first is that God will not bless it. This should be obvious. If we do not listen to the Spirit of God, or to do what it has to say, then how can God bless us? The Psalmist tells us, from the first to the last Psalm, that those are blessed who hear the word of God, who meditate upon it, and who do what it tells us. The Psalms also have some rather harsh things to say about those who do not listen, and who instead harden their hearts. I suggest reading Psalm 1, or Psalm 95, to see what God has to say here.

The second thing that we know from the Book of Genesis is that the error of the sacrifice of Cain is correctable. God told Cain, and through Cain, us, that if we did well, we would be rewarded, and if not, we would not be blessed. He thus gives us hope that if we were to listen to what God has to say, and to apply it to our worship and to our lives, that we can still obtain His blessing. I am happy to say that there are some who are now trying to bring the teachings of the Second Vatican Council for once into the worship of the Divine Liturgy in the West.

For priests in particular, and for those with the gifts for it, it is the simplest thing in the world to heal one’s ignorance. All that one needs is a little knowledge applied to one’s mind. For my part, later essays will attempt to give guides by which both priests and lay people can learn what needs to be known.

But the third thing that Genesis teaches us is that for those who persist in the sacrifice of Cain, sin lies in wait along the way, and that sin is twofold: the denial of God, and wrath for those who try to do His will. That wrath moved Cain to kill his brother, Abel. This wrath, which is the mark of Cain, is the surest sign that those bearing that mark have made the sacrifice of Cain. We see it now in the wrath which some display towards the advocates of the “hermeneutic of continuity”, or said more simply, those who wish to learn and to do the will of God.