TLM and Novus Ordo: Offerings of Cain and Abel?

There is a pervasive belief in traditionalist circles that the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is a more pleasing sacrifice to God than the Novus Ordo Mass. You will often hear these two forms of the Roman Rite compared to the offerings of Cain and Abel, and how the TLM represents Abel's offering and is acceptable to God, while the Novus Ordo represents Cain's offering and is not acceptable. (I've even heard this analogy stretched to parallel the subsequent events; that the "Novus Ordo church" is "envious" of the superior offering and its acceptability, and is therefore trying to "destroy" those who offer this other form of sacrifice. But I digress.)

However, this analogy seems to miss the point of sacrifice as it relates to Catholic history. Unfortunately, the concept of worship and sacrifice can often take on a reductive view that sees God as an angry, vengeful deity whose wrath can only be appeased by offering sacrifices to placate Him and to keep his divine judgment from raining down on us. But sacrifice in the Bible is always connected to one’s interior disposition, not to appeasing God. "Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High...He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me[.]" (Ps 50:13-14, 23) This is important to remember in analyzing the Cain and Abel episode more closely, which we will do here. Let's first revisit the passage in its entirety to hone in on several details:

In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.”And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. (Gen 4:3-8)

Commentaries differ on their assessment of the offerings themselves. Some juxtapose the offering of Abel’s “firstlings” with the absence of any such description in Cain’s offering to show that what he offered was ordinary. Other commentaries point out that nothing explicitly states Cain’s offering was lackluster, and there is nothing to indicate a living sacrifice (Abel’s) is any more pleasing to God than a sacrifice of plants or harvest. But nothing in the text actually indicates that Cain’s offering was unacceptable. As Jeff Cavins and Tim Gray note in their book Walking With God: A Journey Through the Bible (p. 23, my emphasis added):

A closer look at the text reveals that the narrative does not simply say that Cain's offering is not accepted, but that Cain and his offering are not accepted. The text implies that there is something wrong with the one making the offering, not simply with the offering itself. Indeed, this is the point made by God who tries to encourage a despondent Cain: "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" (Gn 4:7) The focus of God's admonition is not Cain's offering, but rather Cain himself. The lesson is unmistakable: it is the moral disposition of the one making the offering - of which the offering is but a gift and a sign - that decides the worth of the sacrifice. The God of the Hebrews is not appeased by offerings, no matter how valuable, but rather he seeks an upright heart in those who offer sacrifice.

Let us examine several commentaries from the early church to further illustrate this point.

For indeed in the judgment of Almighty God it is not what is given, but by whom it is given, that is regarded. For hence it is that it is written, The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his gifts, but unto Cain and to his gifts he had not respect (Genesis 4:4-5). To wit, being about to say that the Lord had respect to the gifts, he was careful to premise that He had respect unto Abel. Thus it is plainly shown that the offerer was not acceptable by reason of the gifts, but the gifts were so by reason of the offerer. (Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book IX, Letter 122)

Thus God does not receive the sacrifice of a person who is in disagreement, but commands him to go back from the altar and first be reconciled to his brother, that so God also may be appeased by the prayers of a peace-maker. Our peace and brotherly agreement is the greater sacrifice to God — and a people united in one in the unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For even in the sacrifices which Abel and Cain first offered, God looked not at their gifts, but at their hearts, so that he was acceptable in his gift who was acceptable in his heart. Abel, peaceable and righteous in sacrificing in innocence to God, taught others also, when they bring their gift to the altar, thus to come with the fear of God, with a simple heart, with the law of righteousness, with the peace of concord. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 4, On the Lord's Prayer)

For not the fat, not the smoke, made them acceptable, but the purpose of mind which offered them. Had it been otherwise, Cain's offering too had been received. (Chrysostom, Homily 15 on Philippians)

For God does not stand in need of sacrifices, being by nature above all want. But knowing that, as of old, Abel, beloved of God, and Noah and Abraham, and those that succeeded, without being required, but only moved of themselves by the law of nature, did offer sacrifice to God out of a grateful mind; so He did now permit the Hebrews, not commanding, but, if they had a mind, permitting them; and if they offered from a right intention, showing Himself pleased with their sacrifices. Therefore He says: If you desire to offer, do not offer to me as to one that stands in need of it, for I stand in need of nothing; for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof. (Apostolic Constitutions, Book VI)

This not only explains the truth behind Cain and Abel's offerings, but Jesus' offering of Himself, which was wholly pleasing to the Father because it was done in perfect obedience and love. "And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." (Phil 2:8) Our sacrifices are made pleasing by the intention of he who offers it, and whether or not it is done in obedience and love as Jesus' was. "Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire...Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then I said, “Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.” (Ps 40:6-8)

With this context, we ought to reconsider the idea that one offering is more pleasing than another because of certain external elements it includes or does not include. As Jesus taught in Matthew 23:16-19, “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?"

St. Irenaeus further wrote on this theme:

"For at the beginning God had respect to the gifts of Abel, because he offered with single-mindedness and righteousness; but He had no respect unto the offering of Cain, because his heart was divided with envy and malice, which he cherished against his brother, as God says when reproving his hidden [thoughts], Though you offer rightly, yet, if you do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at rest; since God is not appeased by sacrifice. For if any one shall endeavour to offer a sacrifice merely to outward appearance, unexceptionably, in due order, and according to appointment, while in his soul he does not assign to his neighbour that fellowship with him which is right and proper, nor is under the fear of God — he who thus cherishes secret sin does not deceive God by that sacrifice which is offered correctly as to outward appearance; nor will such an oblation profit him anything, but [only] the giving up of that evil which has been conceived within him, so that sin may not the more, by means of the hypocritical action, render him the destroyer of himself. [...] Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. 18)

Our intentions sanctify the offering, and if they are offered against the lawful order of the Church or in disregard of sanctions or censures, perhaps we should apply this scriptural and traditional precedent to re-evaluate their worthiness. Even if our sacrifices meet all external prescribed criteria, they cannot be pleasing to God if they are offered in a spirit of division or disobedience. As St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

And He calls back from the altar one who comes to the sacrifice in strife, and bids him first agree with his brother, and then return with peace and offer his gift to God: for God had not respect unto Cain's offerings; for he could not have God at peace with him, who through envious discord had not peace with his brother. [...] What sacrifices do those who are rivals of the priests think that they celebrate? Do they deem that they have Christ with them when they are collected together, who are gathered together outside the Church of Christ? (Cyprian of Carthage, 'On the Unity of the Church')

It is a faulty comparison to equate the two forms of the Roman Rite with the offerings of Cain and Abel. Either one can be pleasing or displeasing to God, depending on the circumstances. And either one will be displeasing to God if offered outside the Church or apart from the unity of the Church. In the words of St. Cyprian, "[A]ll will be liable to guilt as well as its punishment, who with irreligious boldness mingle themselves with schismatics in opposition to prelates and priests; even as also by the prophet Osea the Holy Spirit witnesses, and says, Their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourning; all that thereof shall be polluted."