Liturgy: is reverence and dignity enough?

No. That's the short answer.

Look at these Greek rite clergy. There is much more to their Liturgy than reverence and dignity alone. Much, much more. Now compare it with the asinine silliness of the clown-style liturgy, presided over by a Western bishop, pictured in my previous post.

Can there be any doubt which is better? There is no comparison! And yet in the West even bishops allow themselves so to traduce Christ the Lord and to mock Him in the Sacred Liturgy. What a fearful disgrace! And how our Greek and Russian brethren in the Faith are scandalised by such mockery of the Lord! And they are right. For it is, indeed, a scandal. And, moreover, tasteless, clueless, stupid, ignorant and puerile.

Catholics simply MUST stop defending this sort of utter nonsense. It is a direct insult to God.

So long as Catholics ignore the truth about liturgy things will not improve. We must use our God-given intelligence, reason and understanding on the issue. The "touchy, feely" approach to liturgy and religion has done immense harm. That, of course, is not to say that we should be insensitive - we should not - but I think we do have to take care, when faced with the sheer tawdry dishonesty of much modern liturgy not simply to "feel" that any challenge to the dishonesty is somehow unjust or uncharitable.

We perhaps ought occasionally to remember Christ chasing the money-changers out of the Temple with whip-cords - they who made sacred things sordid. This is not sinful anger or injustice or uncharity. On the contrary it is the righteous wrath of the Lord. Doubtless the money-changers thought him unfair, hard and unreasonable. But He was not. He was right and just. It was the money-changers who were unreasonable.

Now we have something just as bad with the perversion of the liturgy. Yes, the Novus Ordo can be celebrated with reverence, dignity and love but this is next to impossible in most parish masses because of:

(a) The ICEL mistranslation - a far cry from the original Latin; and

(b) The poor quality of the rest of the liturgy as it is ACTUALLY done in most Western parishes.

Moreover, there is more to liturgy than dignity and reverence.

I daresay that a Buddhist ceremony can be celebrated with dignity and reverence. But it is nowhere near enough for a Catholic, of course.

What we need is a Catholic liturgy celebrated, firstly, the way God wants it and secondly, with beauty, truth and tradition at the forefront. We need to celebrate the way God wants us to, not the way WE would like to, no matter how reverent and dignified our own way might be.

No - reverence and dignity, although essential, are NOT enough. We must also love truth, tradition, faithfulness and integrity.

A monk of the Benedictine Abbey of St Marie Madaleine, Le Barroux

There can be no excuse for the ICEL mistranslation. It has over 300 errors in it. It is a deliberate falsification of the Latin of the Novus Ordo Missae. Yet this is what most English-speaking Catholics get, week after week, at Sunday Mass. In truth, I think it can be said that it is NOT really the Novus Ordo at all - at least not as the Council Fathers envisaged it.

When one adds the later innovations of forward altars, lay readers, disregard of proper vestments, communion in the hand, replacement of chant with modern (and often vapid) hymns, girl altar servers, facile bidding prayers, removing the Tabernacle and replacing it with the priest's chair (whom are we worshipping?) - let alone bizarre and ridiculous mockeries like clown masses, liturgical dancing, "happy clappy" masses and children's masses - then we can see that the situation is seriously worsened.

But too many Catholics have simply become blinded - in some cases culpably - to the differences between true and false liturgy. Many think it is all about aesthetics i.e. beauty and dignity. They also think that all that is needed is "reverence" and "dignity". As I say, that is not enough. A pagan ceremony can be reverent and dignified.

Much of our modern liturgy is simply dishonest. And one cannot celebrate a dishonest liturgy and pretend that one is doing so with love.

The problem is that Catholics have got used to the inferior diet of poor liturgy that has engulfed the Western Church. We have become blinded by our own self-indulgence and now, like the Emperor's new clothes, we cannot see that the liturgical Emperor is really naked and wears no clothes at all.

But non-Catholics can see it. They alight upon a modern Catholic liturgy and are repelled by it.

Indeed, I have spoken to many lapsed Catholics who felt the same way.

It is my belief that millions of Catholics have lapsed as a direct result of the auto-destruction of the Roman liturgy.

We should not under-estimate the immense harm that has been done by such devastating auto-destruction. We have preferred the tawdry and worldly to the beauty of the Divine and Holy.

Adam and Eve culpably exiled themselves from Eden by preferring the worldly above Paradise

I recently attended a Requiem mass, for a prominent Catholic figure, in a beautiful church in Malta with a colleague who is a Buddhist nun. She was brought up a Catholic and remembered the beautiful masses of her childhood. This Maltese mass was a typical product of the post-conciliar liturgical establishment.

In place of a High Mass there was a dreary concelebration. The mass, as the modern mass so often is, was mostly talking, talking, talking. It was not liturgy. It was mere recitation. And there is a big difference.

There was a choir but, instead of singing some of the extraordinarily beautiful music from the Church's immense and rich patrimony, they sung 3 vernacular hymns in Maltese to the tunes of "I'll Sing a Song to Mary", Crimond and "Welcome, welcome, welcome Jesus".

These tunes might be appropriate for a procession of our Lady or some tableau of popular piety but they are out of place at a Solemn Requiem. The mass was in the vernacular and, although the Maltese translation is a lot better than the appalling ICEL translation into English, it is still far accurately reflects the original Latin.

After I expressed my disappointment, my Buddhist colleague said that she felt able to say that she, too, was disappointed. She had expected so much more at a Solemn Requiem of the Catholic Church. She began to tell me more about her experiences in the Church and it was clear that she had been a devout Catholic once upon a time but, following the liturgical changes, she had, like so many millions of other Catholics, become disillusioned with modern liturgy and, thereafter, with the Church itself.

In former times, the Roman liturgy made many, many converts. It need not surprise us that the reverse can take place if the liturgy goes sour: millions leave. And they have left. Indeed, the Church has suffered a monumental haemorrhage over the last 40 years - the worst ever in its history.

Is this renewal of the Church? No - assuredly not.

There is simply thus no room whatever for complacency or sloppy thinking regarding the liturgy.

It is, in fact, a very, very serious matter. It is not just a matter of reverence and dignity. It is not just a matter of aesthetics and beauty. It is not even simply a matter of Latin. It is much more. It is about faithfulness and integrity, tradition and truth.

If we are to find our way back we cannot settle for the mockery of liturgy that now takes place with the ICEL mistranslation in most parishes of the Western Church.

If we do then we are selling short ourselves, our neighbour and, above all, God.

Behold the Blessed Babe! Adore Him as He should be adored!


...

Why do so many modern Catholics tolerate rotten liturgy?

Well, why?

Are they stupid?

Ignorant?

Tasteless?

Clueless?

Puerile?

Well, what is it?

I am a convert. The first time I was taken to a Catholic liturgy it was the new mass in ICEL's appalling mistranslation.

However, I had never even heard of ICEL (the International Committee for English in the Liturgy) at the time.

My first thought was "Why is the English so abysmally poor compared with, say, the Anglican Prayer Book?"

My next thought was "Surely this liturgy cannot be that of the 2,000 year old Roman Catholic Church?"

Not only was the English abysmally poor but the liturgy itself was banal, dull, flat and uninspiring.

I again wondered "Is this the mass that inspired great men like St Thomas More? If so, why has it been so badly translated? Who could be so crass as to do such a thing? And why have the Church's authorities permitted this to happen?"

Later I was taken by the priest receiving me into the Church to a "Rock mass". I plainly said to him I was not likely to be very interested in it. Nevertheless, said he, you should go to it. So I went.

He, by the way, has since left the priesthood.

I was amazed by the whole concept. There being some music it was at least better than the banal, flat spoken mass I had previously attended. But the whole atmosphere was absurd: it was neither fish nor fowl. It was neither a religious liturgy nor, on the other hand, was it a rock music discotheque or nightclub. It missed both marks and so failed completely.

I found it silly, childish and facile.

This almost put me off the Catholic faith altogether.

Fortunately, I was being instructed "on the side" by a layman (now a priest) who was able to explain the phenomenon to me, wryly observing the fatuities and re-assuring me that this was the so-called "new liturgy" which was being famously traduced all over the world and that I should not take it as any more than the absurd posturing that it was. Better times would come, he said, when proper liturgy would be restored.

This intrigued me and naturally I wanted to know more.

So began a voyage of discovery which has, Deo volente, confirmed me completely in my initial reactions to the "new" liturgy as "performed" in most churches today.

It is, was, and always will be little more than puerile nonsense and childish trash, at least so long as the ICEL mistranslation and silly, modern "rubrics" (if they can be called such!) are used.

This might not matter were it not for one, huge, inescapable and unavoidable fact.

This is now what most Western Catholics get, most of the time, in most Catholic churches in the Western world.

What happened to the leaders, scholars, bishops, clergy and learned men and women of the Catholic Church that they ever let it get into their heads to accept this cheap, tawdry substitute for the beauty and solemnity of real liturgy?

What collective madness stole over an entire Church to allow this to happen?

I still do not have a proper answer to this question.

And most bishops in most parts of the Western Church are not about to give me an honest answer, either.

The new parish liturgist is a well-known scholar in his field...


...

Vernacular readings: the discussion continued

The discussion continues on Shawn Tribe’s website The New Liturgical Movement at:

http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/

He writes:

“As I’ve said as well however, there are two problematic extremes. One is change for its own sake; the other is immobilism.

While there needs to be a certain caution and prudence, there also needs to be discussion and some reasonable sense of the normal, living liturgical process and how that might be manifest or approached. This is more than ever necessary given the problematic ways in which it has been approached in the 20th century.

What can concern me in addition to needless and arbitrary change -- which does concern me -- is that there can develop amongst some an attitude that seems somewhat reactionary, which possibly categorizes any development as equally problematic or undesirable.

Veneration of the liturgy has to occur with a respect to its natural context which is neither innovationist nor immobilist.

We need not agree whether a particular development -- such as this one we’ve been discussing -- is a reasonable development, but it seems to me that there should be at least be an openness to such possibilities in principle; possibilities that must be balanced off by a rejection of mastery over the liturgy; a rejection of liturgy-by-committee; a rejection of any sense of the liturgy and its form as arbitrary.”

And the reader replies:

“Dear Shawn,

Your approach seems to be that we should aim at a compromise as our first goal - a compromise between what you see as two extremes.

This is not the way the Church has ever thought about liturgy. Liturgy is not primarily an exercise in compromising. Liturgy is about worshipping God in the way He wants. And He indicates that by the test of time of time and continuity, as Newman eloquently tells us in his Development of Christian Doctrine.

All liturgical reforms of the Roman rite, save that of Bugnini’s Novus Ordo, have been, first and foremost, preservative and restorative and only after that have they been additive.

They have never been - and mark this well - subtractive.

To subtract from the sacred liturgy has always been seen as akin to sacrilege.

Thus the Gregorian reforms, the Gelasian reforms, the Pian reforms and all reforms (save Bugnini’s) have been what you would call ‘reactionary’. They have sought to eliminate recent and inconsistent novelties encrusted onto the old rite and to restore the rite to its ancient splendour, not by false antiquarianism but by careful preservation of that which has been handed down to us by Sacred Tradition.

Anything new has only ever been additive and then only at the edges of the rite by way of approved and authorised devotions, themselves of considerable antiquity and always entirely fitting to the ancient rite.

Bugnini’s reforms were as far away from such a model as could be imagine and were more comparable to those carried about by the ‘slash and burn’ technique used by the early Protestants who butchered the Roman rite for their own nefarious purposes.

This is how the Apostolic See has, in times past, reformed liturgy. Its approach has been consciously preservative and not innovative. It has indeed been what you would call ‘reactionary’.

There is not only no condemnation by any pope or Council of a reactionary approach to liturgy but, on the contrary, it is the approach that the popes and Councils themselves have always used.

Even Vatican II was largely preservative and not innovative. The innovations came about AFTER the Council.

Liturgy, since it involves the way in which the Church prays to God publicly, is, together with doctrine, the very paradigm of Sacred Tradition and the handing on of that which we have received from our fathers.

The liturgy is not about compromises, development, liturgical processes and so on. To think so is inevitably to hand oneself over to liturgical committees.

It is about the preservation of Sacred Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles until our time.

Any additions to the liturgy can only come after centuries of the hallowed use BY ALL THE PEOPLE (and not just in the mind of some specious expert) of holy prayers and ceremonies, in keeping with sacred tradition and, eventually after long usage, approved, by such continuous usage, by the Holy See.

Subtractions are never permitted since they savour of suggesting that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in the past.

This is not to suggest that devotions, processions and so on, around and outside the sacred liturgy should be avoided. On the contrary, even certain very slight changes have been allowed within the rite itself giving rise to ‘uses’ of the Roman rite such as the Sarum, York and Aberdeen uses among many others.

Some of these, when hallowed by centuries of use, may, if approved for universal use by the Holy See, become part of the main rite.

That is how the Holy See has, historically, introduced feasts into the Calendar.

But the idea that we can, within anyone’s lifetime, see wholesale novelties added to the rite, no matter how fitting some people may think they are, is simply an idea without any precedent whatever.

The addition of a new feast or saint to the calendar and rite is not a novelty since the idea of venerating the feasts and saints in the liturgy is as old as the liturgy itself and thus not a novelty at all but the continuance of an exceedingly ancient and hallowed tradition.

The idea that we should introduce novelties in each generation but, in doing so, should avoid ‘extremes’ of ‘reaction’ or ‘needless innovation’ is already itself an ‘extreme’ idea and one with not the slightest foundation or basis in Catholic tradition or teaching.

It comes rather from the jejune shallows of modern political discourse where change, revolution, innovation and compromise are the key concepts and where the very idea of hallowed and sacred tradition are laughed to scorn.”

Any further thoughts ladies and gentlemen?

Vernacular readings: treat with caution!

On his site The New Liturgical Movement, on 23 January 2008, Shawn Tribe posts this:

"The Vernacular Option for the Lessons; A Call for Discussion

One of our readers sent in this story: Aufer A Nobis: Missa Pro Pace at St. Mary's in Washington, DC. The Mass, offered in the ancient form of the Roman rite, occurred in relation to the Pro-life March in that same capital city.

What I found particularly interesting however was that the celebrating priest, a European priest from the Institute of Christ the King, employed a practice that -- to my knowledge -- tended to be employed within continental Europe, and in particular France: while the celebrating priest quietly read the Epistle and Gospel from the altar in Latin, another member of the clergy read the lessons in the vernacular aloud concurrently.

For whatever reason this practice had not found liturgical expression within the English speaking world -- enough so that to even see or hear of this might seem novel to some -- with the preference instead being for the proclamation of the readings in Latin from the altar and later again from the pulpit (in the vernacular) prior to the homily.

The former, more European practice has always seemed to me to be a more elegant solution that meshed better with the flow of the liturgy. Today however, the option for the use of vernacular readings has been made available to us by the Pope, therefore firming up a development that had been already occuring:

‘In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.’ (Article 6, Summorum Pontificum)

Simply put, the readings proper to the 1962 Missal may be spoken or chanted by the priest at the altar in the natural course of the liturgy.

While it is a point of legitimate disagreement amongst those of us attached to the ancient Roman liturgy, I myself believe that if one is going to have vernacular readings proclaimed (rather than simply read as we might do elsewhere in the liturgy with our missals) then doing so in the way described in article 6 of Summorum Pontificum is a preferable option to exercise given the right conditions -- i.e. pastoral preparation.

Previously we were more limited in this regard and so the aforementioned workarounds were implemented. These have served their purpose in the context of their day, but in the present situation I think we need to now re-analyze our approach to this.

In my mind, neither of the aforementioned practices are the best liturgical solution any longer. After all, if we wish to have the readings proclaimed in the vernacular, why have the priest say them in Latin at the altar while having someone else do so concurrently? Likewise, why have the same epistle read twice and why have people stand and listen to the same gospel proclaimed twice?

In the case of the latter, what I have often found mentioned is the aspect of the preserving the chanted Latin readings. I'd propose that we need not be all or nothing about this. A vernacular equivalent can be worked out using those same melodies -- thereby preserving the chanted aspect -- and if a community wishes to preserve the tradition of the Latin readings (a good thing as well) why not simply make the translation of the readings available to the faithful so that they might read along as the priest or deacon says/sings them in Latin, just as they might at other times in the Mass?

Some might say that I am myself being rather ‘all or nothing’ in promoting a choice between using either the vernacular or Latin for the readings of a particular liturgy -- rather than both-and. However, it seems to me there is something to be said for preserving the normal place of the readings in the context of the natural ebb and flow of the liturgy itself with its associated prayers, tracts, alleluias and ceremonial. So perhaps we need to just make our choice for that Mass, Latin or vernacular readings, and proceed with it accordingly.

There may indeed be some need for preparation of course. Perhaps all that will be required in one community is a simple explanation by the priest of this in the light of the Pope's motu proprio. Perhaps time will be needed for priests to learn how to chant the reading in the vernacular. Perhaps it will take time to source out an approved edition of the readings in question. Moreover, perhaps one's congregation is peculiarly sensitive to this issue, in which case it may be best to work in such possibilities gradually over a more extended period of time.

This is all fine of course. We have had enough rushing into things to last us for quite some time and we need measured, prudent and responsible applications. I am not interested in promoting such rushing in. However, I think it would also be a mistake to not at least begin to approach the issue, or to simply assume that there will be a negative response, particularly now that the Pope has made it a formalized option.

With that in mind, I would be curious to hear your comments either in support, caution, or disagreement. Let's hear your thoughts. In particular, I would be interested in hearing from our clergy celebrating the usus antiquior."

A reader replied to him thus:

“Dear Shawn,

Well! That certainly generated a discussion!

The temptation to change for the sake of compromise is very great but, alas, the itch for compromise and change is what got us in a mess in the first place.

I think there is something mystical at work, here, if it’s not too dramatic to say so.

Why did God allow the virtual suppression of the TLM? In one sense, I suppose, God has preserved His treasure by allowing foolish men to act as if it were suppressed. Thus it has been curiously preserved whole and intact, amidst all the liturgical chaos of the last 40 years.

That seems providential, indeed.

In times past, as the English bishops said in response to Apostolicae Curae in the early 20th century, the idea that anyone could make substantial changes to the liturgy was utterly unthinkable and like a kind of sacrilege. Additions, yes, but subtractions, no, and the vernacular was viewed cautiously because it so easily lends itself to mistranslation and misinterpretation.

The Eastern Churches have a horror of such (and their liturgies are in a sacred vernacular, like Old Slavonic or Geez, which seems to give them, like 1662 Anglicans, an extra sensitivity to the unbridled vernacular). Their view is that the Last Supper was like what we would call a ‘collegial’ or ‘conventual’ mass and that our Lord used Hebrew, as was used in the Temple worship, and not vernacular Aramaic or Koine Greek. And, today, liturgical Aramaic and Greek are not at all colloquial or ‘vernacular’ but more akin to the relationship between Classical Arabic and vernacular Arabic.Which translation of Scripture would be used?

The Earl of Clarendon said, in his history of the English Civil War, that three words had destroyed all peace and stability in the nation. They were: ‘Search the Scriptures’. He did not mean that there was anything bad about Scripture but rather that men wrought Scripture to their own damnation.

For this reason it is better kept in a sacred language and not broadcast promiscuously to the people who may then wrest the meaning to their spiritual destruction. Better that the learned understand it and the clergy explain it (in sermons etc).

When Vatican II urges greater reading of Scripture, that is, of course, right, but that surely meant under the guidance of the Church and not simply by promiscuous reading of Scripture in the vernacular so that the people might make of it what they will.

Liturgically, it seems odd, too, since it can interrupt the flow of the dramaturgy like, say, a man walking on stage during a Shakespeare play to explain in modern English to the audience what the dialogue means.

Yes, more than one thing can happen at a time in a play/liturgy but it can destroy the harmony of the whole if it does not fit the drama or is intruded into the drama.

Some will say that this is just the ‘old guard’ moaning again. Actually, it was a twenty-something black student who made the comment to me.

I think it is wiser to treat phrases like ‘it always seemed to me’ or ‘in my mind’ with caution.

Whenever Tradition is set aside or dismantled it is usually in the name of someone who has had a bright new idea and wishes it to replace what has been handed down for centuries.”

Any views, folks?



...

Letter to Thomas at Advent: beware the compromisers and false optimists

I reproduce below a letter to a friend who has plainly been influenced by a new and wholly fatuous statistical argument that is fast becoming the shibboleth of those who continue to dismiss the traditional Roman rite out of ignorance and weak-minded prejudice.

I hope it may, perhaps, help others to counter this latest propaganda of the pusillanimous.

The name is changed to preserve anonymity.

St Thomas the Doubter would not believe until he had physical proof.

Dear Thomas,

There is a species of fraudulent optimism that can become dishonest and so a sin. Take care you do not fall into it. Telling your brothers that all is well when it simply is not is unjust, uncharitable and untruthful. Take care not to make that mistake.

We must be optimistic, indeed, but we must also be truthful. False optimism is not true optimism. It is, like all lies, a sin.

You say you have a PP who is "very orthodox". The fact that you have a PP who is orthodox does not make those others, who are not, any the better. And there is no such thing as "very" orthodox. One is either orthodox or one is not.

You quote Fr Werenfreid van Straaten as saying that "Bishops are better than you think". I knew Fr Werenfried for many years and I never heard him ever say such a thing. He knew better!

You say (as is now the new mantra of those who still want to dismiss the old rite) that the number attending the traditional Roman rite is less than 1% of the total number attending mass in the Western Latin rite (actually I doubt that figure).

To view the traditional mass from a purely statistical perspective bespeaks not only a lack of faith but also a lack of reason. Beware of it!

Those who are so concerned with statistics always fail to mention the most dramatic and obvious statistic of all - the statistically MASSIVE decline in the numbers attending mass and the sacraments since the introduction of the new rite.

Take care not simply to ignore that yourself.

In the 50s and early 60s the Church was growing in leaps and bounds and mass attendance was simply enormous. Within a decade of the new rite this had been utterly shattered and mass attendance is now tiny by comparison.

There has been a massive haemorrhage of souls from the Church - souls whose very salvation has thereby become threatened. And the very pastors, whose job it is to care for and cure such souls, are all too often the least concerned about this terrible disaster. They even have the shameless mendacity to call this "Renewal"!

What bigger lie could there be than that?

THAT is the statistic that the fraudulent and dissembling optimists dishonestly ignore!

If one wants to play the statistics game then the fake optimists lose hands down. Where did all those massive numbers of mass-attending Catholics go after the new rite came in?

Then, even worse, these very same false "optimists" show themselves so narrow-minded and inward-looking that they can only look at that tiny number of people currently attending church these days, rather than looking out to a world that is in dire need of Christ and the sacraments. How many of them are going to be attracted to the silly, liturgical nonsense that goes on in the average Catholic parish these days? Why did so many leave in the first place? And how many are going to come back or be attracted by the very thing that drove so many away in the first place?

Wake up to reality!

The Catholic Church is not just a little club for those folk who currently call themselves Catholic and who want to re-fashion the liturgy so as to suit their own lazy, selfish, corrupt and worldly tastes.

This is to treat the Church as if it were a little plaything of our own to be re-fashioned to suit ourselves rather than to be the instrument of God and his sacred plan for mankind. That is not zeal, still less love. It is the capital sins of Sloth and Pride. It comes straight from Satan.

It is typical of the slothful, uncaring and anti-missionary attitude of so many modern Catholics that they are more concerned to have a liturgy that suits their own lukewarmness instead of one that suits God and His missionary desire to preach to the world and save all souls.

It is frankly sickening in its sinful self-indulgence and pure selfishness. Such people are already on the road to Hell, God help and rescue them. It is our solemn duty to warn and admonish them and to pray for their conversion back to love and zeal for the Faith and away from the lukewarmness that threatens their very salvation.

The question is not how many people currently attend the traditional mass. There is only one question that needs to be asked and you ought to know this without me telling you.

It is this: "What does God want?".

That is the question to be asked. If we find out the answer and then do it we shall soon enough have numbers in abundance, indeed "pressed down and running over" as Scripture puts it.

Look at churches like the Brompton Oratory in London. At the Christmas midnight mass it is so filled with people that after a certain hour it is impossible to get into this huge Church, so packed is it. Why is this? Because it has retained so much of the traditional rites over these last 40 years of darkness and aridity. Soon, it will be reverting fully to the traditional rites and think, then, how many more will be attracted back to God thereby.

In times past, many men and women were converted to the Faith simply by experiencing its ancient liturgy, especially the ancient Roman rite. Who now is converted to Catholicism by the insipid liturgical fare that so many parishes favour?

Are we getting large numbers at mass in the new rite? Well? Are we? You know the answer. Of course, we are not. The new liturgy has decimated a once populous and vibrant Church. Now the story is all about decline, closing churches, closing schools, closing parishes. It is all closing, closing, closing. It's a big closing down sale!

And what is the response? Fatuous, false optimism and half-baked compromise! In short, sloth, lukewarmness and the very Devil himself!

Such is the modern approach of so many. Beware of it. It is a dangerous trap for the unwary and catches many in its snares.

Of the entire numbers in the Church, only a tiny minority are martyrs or canonised saints. Does that mean we need not bother about striving to be like canonised saints because they are less than 1% of the entire Church? St Thomas says that only a minority gets to Heaven. I hope he is wrong but, if not, then on a purely statistical analysis we should cater for Hell over Heaven! Scripture is replete with tales of the falling away of the majority and of the faith of a remnant keeping alive the fullness of faith for better times. Shall we simply ignore the obvious lesson there?

Only 2 of the Apostles remained with Christ upon the Cross - far, far less than 1% of the Jews who should have been faithful to Him. Should we look to the faithless majority or the tiny, faithful minority as our example? Need I even ask this question? Do I really need to remind you that this tiny minority are now considered, together with St Joseph and St John the Baptist, the very greatest of all the saints in the Church, i.e. our Lady and St John?

What percentage of the Christian people do they make up, pray? A tiny, minute fraction of far less than 1% of the total!

And what happened to the rest, the majority, including his closest followers, the Apostles and disciples?

They ran away.

The first "collegiate act" of the College of Apostles and bishops was to run away!

And what of the vast majority who formed the remainder of the flock - the people chosen by God Himself to be the harbingers of the Messias? What happened to this huge majority?

They, too, ran away or were indifferent. Worse - many of them were actively responsible for crucifying Him. This was where the statistical majority lay!

Catholic truth and practice is not a numbers game. It is about discovering the will of God and doing it.

I will not here rehearse again all the arguments which overwhelmingly favour the traditional mass but if you have forgotten them already (so soon!) then, of course, I shall give you them all over again, if you like.

But for the present let me just say this: what cannot be denied is that the Novus Ordo is a break with tradition and breaking with tradition is simply wrong for a Catholic. This does not mean that the new mass is invalid, or even illicit, but it does mean that it is vastly inferior. And God should not be worshipped with anything less than the best.

Even in Latin the Collects of the new mass are ambiguous and, I have no doubt, that is how Bugnini, and his committee of compromisers, intended them to be. The new rite is a liturgy got up by a committee not confected over time by the Holy Spirit. It represents a preference for, and compromise with, the traditions of men over the traditions of God, in short, the very thing that Scripture warns us to avoid.

The traditional Roman rite has a continuous tradition back to the original Ordo Romanus of the earliest times. The Novus Ordo is literally that - novus - a novelty. It is a confection of men, patching and splicing the traditions of the past. It is but 40 years old. The traditional rite is, in essentials, nearly 2,000 years old. Every reform of the Roman rite from St Gregory the Great, to St Gelasius, to St Pius V and after, until that of Paul VI, has been a restoration to the original stem and the paring away of novelties.

The Novus Ordo had done the very opposite: it has introduced novelties and not around the edges where they might be acceptable but at the very heart and centre of the rite! Look at the scandalous way in which Bugnini dared to interfere with the very words of consecration. Ironically and fittingly, he removed the very words "Mysterium Fidei" - in short, he removed the "mystery of Faith" from the heart of the rite. It is a fitting commentary upon his demolition of the ancient Roman rite.

But the crowning abomination and shame has been the appalling mistranslation into "English" by ICEL of the Novus Ordo. It is nothing short of a shameful betrayal and disgrace. It has over 350 mistranslations and is a pastiche of the already weakened Latin Novus Ordo.

Yet this absurd pastiche is what the average Catholic now gets in his Parish church! This is what "nourishes" the faith of the average Catholic. No wonder so few know their faith and so many have simply left! Is it really surprising?

And then, to add insult to injury, a whole range of other innovations have been introduced! Facing the people, women altar servers, communion in the hand, are but some of the more common.

Clown "masses"

There are wildly eccentric and bizarre innovations beyond the worst nightmares of the Fathers of Vatican II that have grown up and festered in the corrupt and corrupting years that we have witnessed since Vatican II: clown masses, "liturgical" dancing, Yogi bear masses, "Gay" masses, replacing of the cross with the statue of Buddha, revolutionary masses with "Molotov cocktails" and bullets being brought up to the altar in place of the elements. Any and every abuse that a distorted and perverted human mind can devise has been essayed over these last 40 years of chaos - and they are still happening!

And yet this is called "Renewal"!

Was there ever a bigger lie?

It is a lie so great that it can only have come from the very Father of lies, himself. And yet so many weak-minded and pusillanimous Catholics are taken in by it!

Women "priest" liturgy and pretended "Ordination"

If we had an ounce of zeal and love in our lukewarm souls we should be crying out at such abuses and resolutely refusing to have anything to do with them. Such is what faithful Catholics did during the days of the Arian heresy. The orthodox would not even touch a football that had been touched by an Arian priest, Newman tells us.

How pathetically weak and lukewarm are we by comparison! What spineless cowards we are that we cannot even begin to follow the example of the saints of times past!

Instead we settle for lies, distortions, compromises, corruptions, abuses and half-truths - ever the resort of the slothful and the pusillanimous.

No - it will not do. It is a betrayal of the Faith and a betrayal of God.

God does not compromise our freedom. If we wish to ruin and shatter the beautiful, towering glory that He has built us in the Roman rite then He will let us do so. But He will also let us pay the price. He invited us to come back but He will not force us. We must do so willingly, even if it is to be in the face of great odds and hardships. The good is often gained at a price - but it is a price we must pay.

Now God has, through the Holy Father, once again given us a wider access to the riches of his incomparable Roman rite, the most ancient rite in the Church.

Will we make use of what He has given us?

You say that the traditional rite has been spared from some of the excesses of the new rite by the very fact of its having been (illegally) banned. Yes, you are right that God has thus preserved His treasure and has done so by allowing it to be hidden and illegally suppressed but kept as the carefully-guarded treasure of those few who still truly love God enough to value so supreme a divine gift to us.

But in so admitting that His beautiful gift would, if it had not been illegally suppressed, have been trashed by the ungrateful iconoclasts of the post-Vatican II period, you admit the whole of my case. You admit, in short, that these last 40 years have been dominated by destroyers and not builders, by enemies of Catholic truth and practice and not by the friends of God.

Moreover, this could only have happened with the permission of the very bishops whom you seek to exculpate from any blame.

Well, then?

Draw the obvious conclusion.

We must shun such destroyers. We must return to the Traditions of God and leave the traditions of men which cannot last.

Then we shall not only be worshipping God as He wishes to be worshipped (and how else should we worship Him?) but we shall also be reaching out to the churchless, faithless millions who will only be attracted to the Church and to the Faith by those who are fully loyal to the traditions of the Gospel and to the Holy and Ancient Traditions of God.

Take a lesson from the Eastern Church. Would they ever have considered such a wholesale abandonment of their liturgical traditions as has happened in the West? Never! Men and women were prepared to die in the East over no more than the manner of crossing themselves!

How pathetically weak are we by comparison!

And with what shameful, disgraceful Pride do we go about congratulating ourselves for our clever compromises and "forward thinking"!

Away with such trash. It is the refuge of the spineless, the cowardly and the unholy.

Turn, instead, to the ancient and hallowed traditions of the Church - hallowed by time and the sure judgment of the Holy Spirit.

Anyone who does so - and most, alas, do not - will discover an astonishing liturgical treasure trove that is second to none and which is the warmest balm for the sorriest and most lukewarm of souls.

The problem is that so few of our proud, arrogant, conceited and pusillanimous modern Catholics are even willing to taste and see the goodness of the Lord. They attend a couple of silent Low Masses and think nothing of them. They never darken the door of a Church to hear and taste the intense, spiritual riches of the Missa Cantata or, still less, the Solemn High Mass of the Roman rite which is meant to be the norm in the traditional Roman rite.

Even less do they experience the whole liturgical year of the Roman rite, that "Liturgical Year" of which the founder of the so-soon-to-be-hi-jacked Liturgical Movement, Dom Prosper Gueranger, so lovingly wrote.

And yet they have the effrontery and damnable Pride to attack and abuse this rite, a rite about which they care little and know even less!

They speak with their tongues about the praise and love of God but in their actions, in suppressing the traditional rite and in trivialising the new rite with the toy baubles of shallow modernity, they show themselves in their true light. It is rank, hypocritical, Pharisaism. It shall not go unpunished in the life to come.

What kind of supposed lover of God prefers childish pantomime ditties like "Colours of Day" or "If I was a fuzzy-wuzzy bear" to the timeless beauty of Veni Creator Spiritus, Rorate Caeli, Crux Fidelis, Pange Lingua, Vexilla Regis, Te Deum and the host of other divine poetry and song that so great a God has so lovingly provided for us through the pen and words of the very saints and Doctors of the Church?

Need I even ask?

And yet such people include all too many of our bishops - the successors of the Apostles who should be first among us in the love of God and the preservation of His gifts and treasures to us!

No, Thomas, it will not do.

This is not about mere rubrics but about the ancient traditions of the Faith, handed on from the Apostles and from generation to generation, hallowed by time and the Holy Spirit, and smashed to pieces in a few short years by the hand of Archbishop Bugnini, the architect of the new liturgy and a man who, by his own admission, was sacked by Paul VI for being a Freemason.

Do we praise God with the pastiche creation of this disgraced prelate or with the creation of the centuries, arising from the Jewish Temple worship, nourished and developed by the hand of saintly Apostles, popes and Doctors and hallowed by the Holy Spirit Himself?

Need I even ask?

You must make up your mind to close your ears to the siren voices of compromise and lukewarmness. Get off the fence before the iron begins to enter and weaken your soul.

Remember our Lady and St John, the remnant of the Faith in its darkest hour when Christ was upon the Cross. Count not the numbers and statistics of the vast majority that did not feel the courage to go with them. Stand, instead, at the foot of the Cross with the Holy Ones of God. Then, with them, you shall be able to enjoy to the full the glory of the Resurrection when it comes.

Cast aside the lies of the compromisers and the pusillanimous Pharisees. Embrace the truth. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord. Do not be like the liars, the compromisers and the worldly, who refuse to taste and see and instead prefer to attack, insult and abuse that which they have not even yet tasted.

They have allowed themselves to be guided not by the God of truth but rather by the Father of lies. Do not be persuaded by mere statistics. The majority take the wide path that leads to destruction, Scripture tells us. And the majority are statistically more significant than the minority who follow the narrow path that leads to life. Who then shall we follow: the statistically significant who go down the wide path or the statistically insignificant who do not?

He who embraces truth will be persecuted but, in the end, he will triumph with the Master Whose path he shall then be following.

We must embrace the Cross, not statistics.

May God guide you so to do. Nothing less will do.

The timeless traditional Roman rite of the Mass

...

Henry IX and I, King and Cardinal: the Royal Stuart Bicentenary Requiem

Setting the standard for all future Requiems and Solemn Masses!

This was the Solemn Pontifical Requiem for Prince Henry Benedict Stuart, the Cardinal Duke of York and, by right, King Henry IX of England and I of Scotland and Ireland.

The pontificating bishop was Bishop Bernard Longley, titular Bishop of Zarna, Auxiliary Bishop in Westminster supported by an all-star cast of clergy familiar with the traditional Roman rite, including the preacher and Subdeacon, Fr Nicholas Schofield, Honorary Chaplain to the Royal Stuart Society which sponsored the whole event.

On the right of the picture is Fr Bede Rowe who is such a superlative amateur milliner (hat-maker) that he made the Cardinal's galero that sits on top of the catafalque in the middle of the sanctuary. What an outstanding feat of hat-making!

Here is a close up of Fr Bede with his superb galero:

The galero was worn by cardinals in the Middle Ages and gradually added more and more tassels and then was no longer worn. It was worn at the creation of a cardinal by the Pope and, after the death of the recipient, it was hung over his tomb until it disintegrated to remind the people of the transitory nature of fame in this life.

The Requiem took place in the Conventual church of the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta (founded in 1099 and later known as the Knights Hospitaller). This is not - as some wrongly call it - a "hospital chapel". This is the Conventual church of an ancient religious order, older than the Franciscans and Dominicans and most other religious orders in the Church - only the Benedictines and Augustinians are older.

Here, below, is the church prepared for the Requiem.

The catafalque is in the middle of the Sanctuary, standing on a black carpet. Black hangings are attached to a coronet suspended from the cupola windows to match the black altar frontal and black vestments used in the old rite for Requiems and funerals. Six candlesticks stand guard by the catafalque. The arms of the Cardinal-King are displayed attached to the altar pillars. In the Order flag-stand are seen the papal flag, the flag of the Order and the Union flag.

This latter has been, since 1801 and the union with Ireland, the flag of the United Kingdom and Great Britain. The Stuart monarchy did not use it but only the pre-1801 Union flag which did not have the red Saltire of St Patrick and looked like this:

Here below is the catafalque closer up. At the front of it, placed on a red cushion, are representations of the Order of the Garter regalia but of the type used by the Stuarts. The Stuart Garter star was diamond-encrusted which the Hanoverian Protestants replaced with cut metal only. The Stuart Garter sash was a lighter blue, the Hanoverians changing to a darker colour to distinguish themselves from the Catholic Stuarts. The Garter collar with the pendant image of St George killing the dragon, and the Garter itself with its famous motto, Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense, are also represented.

The motto means "evil be to him who thinks evil of it" and refers to the chivalrous incident by which the Order of Knights of the Garter was initiated. King Edward III about 1348, whilst dancing at Eltham Palace, picked up the garter of the Countess of Salisbury which caused some sniggering as if there were some impropriety. The King, seeing this, said the words that are now the Order's motto, as if to mean "if you think ill of this lady's reputation assuming she lost her garter through improper behaviour, then evil be to you". So the Order was founded upon the chivalrous defence of a lady's honour by the King himself, a Catholic king.

Since St George had become the Protector of the English Realm, through his having inspired King Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, King Edward dedicated his new order of Knighthood to that warrior saint.

Even today the Order of the Garter is still given by the Monarch in the way it has always been given, in the name of "God, our Lady and St George".

Draped on the catafalque is a representation of the Royal parliamentary mantle which is burgundy-coloured with an ermine cape. At the altar end is the galero sitting on top of the cappa magna of a cardinal, the long scarlet train that is worn on solemn occasions.

In the middle of the catafalque on a white cushion sits a mitra pretiosa or precious mitre. At a Requiem the pontificating bishop wears a simple white mitre, not a precious mitre.

Below, Fr Nicholas Schofield preaches the sermon about the Cardinal-King. The text of the sermon is on his website at http://romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/.

Below, in their stalls sit the Knights of Malta, praying and singing the Dies Irae alternately with the schola of some 23 singers. The schola sang from behind the altar which produced a wonderful effect as of hidden angels pouring forth chant and polyphony for the soul of the Cardinal-King and the deceased members of his family.

Here below the Bishop performs the Absolutions. As the schola sings the Libera Me the Bishop blesses the catafalque with lustral water and then incense.

The Bishop then processes out, preceded by the clergy and servers with his mitre-bearer and other servers behind, imparting his blessing as he goes.

Below is a representation of the funeral of Prince Henry's mother, Queen Maria Clementina, the daughter of King Jan III Sobieksi of Poland-Lithuania.
Finally, here is the portrait of the Cardinal-King hanging in the Scots College in Rome, where Scottish seminarians are trained for the priesthood.

Thus was appropriately celebrated the memory of the Head of the Royal House of Stuart and rightful King over the Dowry of Mary, England, the Crown of Mary, Scotland, and the blessed isle of St Patrick, Ireland, the last of the Royal name of Stuart that had ruled in Scotland for so long and which later came to be the ruling dynasty of the British isles, the last Catholic dynasty of these islands.

The Stuart line, happily, continues and, having passed down through various generations, now rests with HRH Prince Francis, Duke of Bavaria.

His brother, Duke Max Emmanuel in Bavaria, will succeed and thereafter the daughter of Duke Max, Princess Sophie of Bavaria, now Her Serene Highness, Princess of Liechtenstein after her marriage to HSH Prince Alois, the heir of the very Catholic princely line of Liechtenstein. Appropriately, Prince Alois was educated at the Royal Miltiary Academy Sandhurst, Britain's military academy, and his eldest child was, again appropriately, born in London.

Here is a portrait of the Princess with her husband at the 200th anniversary of the Principality of Liechtenstein which was acquired by the Liechtenstein family when they were a substantial land-owning noble family in Austria, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. They held Liechtenstein directly (unmittelbar) from the Holy Roman Emperor and so thereby qualified to sit independently in the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), the Parliament of the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the later Parliament of the same name in the Protestant German Empire). They were great friends and honoured courtiers of the Habsburg Roman Emperors. However, all their lands, save Liechtenstein, were later seized by the Communists and they now head only the Principality which is still technically a fief of the Holy Roman Empire, the last such fief in Europe.

HSH Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, lineal successor of the Royal Stuart line, and her husband, HSH Prince Alois, the heir apparent to the Principality of Liechtenstein.

St George, St Andrew, St David and St Patrick, pray for us!

...

Bicentenary Pontifical Requiem for the Cardinal Duke of York

Henry Benedict Stuart
Prince and Duke of York
Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Velletri
Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati
Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals
Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church
Head of the Royal House of Stuart

Solemn Pontifical Requiem
for the Bicentenary of his death

Noon

Saturday, 22nd September 2007

Conventual Church of the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta

The Ordinary of this Requiem Mass is sung in the traditional Roman rite and is set to music by Giovanni Francesco Anerio (1657-1630), a Renaissance composer of the Roman school.

The Sequence, Dies Irae, is sung in chant and polyphony, alternately with the Choir.

Celebrant: The Rt Revd Bernard Longley, Titular Bishop of Zarna, Auxiliary Bishop in Westminster

Assistant Priest: The Revd Andrew Wadsworth, Magistral Chaplain, Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Deacon: The Revd Dr Laurence Hemming

Subdeacon: The Revd Nicholas Schofield

Preacher: The Revd Nicholas Schofield, Hon Roman Catholic Chaplain to the Royal Stuart Society

Master of Ceremonies: Mr Duncan Gallie, Vice-Chancellor, Grand Priory of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

The Schola is directed by Mr Eoghain Murphy.

"Faithful Cross above all others, one and only noble tree": the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the Grand Restoration of the Roman rite

CRUX fidelis, inter omnes, arbor una nobilis;
Nulla talem silva profert,
Flore, fronde, germine.
Dulce lignum, dulci clavos, dulce pondus sustinens!

FAITHFUL Cross! Above all other,
One and only noble Tree!
None in foliage, none in blossom,
None in fruit thy peers may be;
Sweetest wood and sweetest iron!Sweetest Weight is hung on thee!

So for centuries has been sung the song composed by Venantius Forntunatus (530-609) extolling the Triumph of the Cross.

And never more so than today, the Feast which recalls the return of the True Cross to Jersualem following its recapture from the pagan Persians by the Roman Emperor in the East, Emperor Heraclius.

But today is also the triumphal day in which our Holy Father, Pope Benendict XVI, restored to the Roman Church the use of the ancient and noble Roman rite of our ancestors.

All hail Pope Benedict XVI, the restorer of the ancient Roman rites!

Yes, today is the day when, by his own motion - motu proprio - Pope Benedict XVI has restored to the Roman Church its ancient rites. In so doing he has placed himself in the same hallowed tradition of all those popes, among his predecessors, who always sought to preserve the ancient rites of the Church, as all popes until 1970, did.

For this alone, he will go down to history as a great pope. But he has many other great virtues which posterity will also recall and hallow.

He has chosen a very significant and memorable day to make his motu proprio, called Summorum Pontificum, become effective.

It is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross upon which day we sing the praises of the Holy Cross with such ancient hymns as Vexilla Regis and Crux Fidelis.

Venantius Fortunatus wrote both hymns, the latter for a procession that brought a part of the true Cross to Queen Radegunda in 570. This hymn is used on Good Friday during the Adoration of the Cross and in the Breviary during Holy Week and on feasts of the Cross like today.

Ancient legend is hinted at in the second verse of this hymn. According to this tradition, the wood of the Cross upon which Christ was crucified was taken from that tree which was the source of the fruit of the fall in the Garden of Eden. When Adam died, the legend states, Seth obtained from the Cherubim guarding the Garden a branch of the tree from which Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Seth planted this branch at Golgotha (the place of the skull), which is so named because Adam was buried there. As time went on, the Ark of the Covenant, the pole upon which the bronze serpent was lifted, and other items were made from this tree.

Eventually the Holy Cross was made from it and our Lord crucified thereon upon Golgotha directly over the tomb of Adam so that the Precious Blood of Christ, seeping through cracks, penetrated into the mausoleum of Adam beneath and fell upon the very skull of Adam to symbolise that the Sin of Adam had now been atoned for by the Crucifixion.

In the pre-1955 Roman Calendar, the Finding of the True Cross (Inventio Crucis) was celebrated on 3 May to commemorate that day when the Empress St Helena, daughter of a British king and mother of the Emperor Constantine, found the True Cross after long searching for it among the wells and cisterns of Jerusalem.

The British born Roman Empress St Helena finds the True Cross

The True Cross was set up and a Basilica built to house it for posterity.

3 centuries later, the pagan, fire-worshipping Persians (not yet Muslim), under King Chosroes II, attacked Jerusalem and took away the precious relic, the True Cross.

The Roman Emperor Heraclius, then regining, swore to recover it and warred against the Persians. He was on the point of being defeated himself when an internal dispute arose within Persia which threatened Chosroes II and the distraction gave Heraclius his chance. He soundly defeated Chosroes in 629 and recovered the True Cross.

This was seen as an answer to prayer by all at the time.

When Heraclius returned to Jerusalem to restore the True Cross he carried it himself, as had our Lord, intending to process along the Via Dolorosa in his gorgeous imperial robes. But when he arrived at the gate of Jerusalem he was frozen to the spot and could not move. All were puzzled and eventually the Patriarch of Jerusalem suggested that the Emperor divest himself of his imperial robes. The Emperor did more and stripped himself to little more than the seamless garment that Christ Himself had worn to carry His Cross.

At once the Emperor found himself able to proceed and so he continued until he was able to retored the Cross to its rightful place in the Basilica upon Golgotha, walking barefoot in a single shift all along the way to the great edification of the people of Jerusalem, his subjects.

Ever after that day, 14 September, was celebrated with great ceremony - nearly as much as Easter and Pentecost - as the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (Exaltatio Crucis).

The Roman Emperor Heraclius who restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629AD

Now our Holy Father has chosen this most memorable and triumphant of days to restore to us the glory of the ancient Roman rite which the Roman emperors of old fought and died to protect and preserve and which countless saints and martyrs gave their lives for.

VEXILLA REGIS prodeunt:
Fulget Crucis mysterium,
Qua vita mortem pertulit,
Et morte vitam protulit.

Abroad the Regal Banners fly,
Now shines the Cross's mystery;
Upon it Life did death endure,
And yet by death did life procure.

O CRUX AVE, SPES UNICA,
In hac triumpha gloria
Piis adauge gratiam,
Reisque dele crimina.

Hail, Cross, of hopes the most sublime!
In this triumphant glorious time,
Improve religious souls in grace,
The sins of criminals efface.

On Good Friday the second line reads "Now in this mournful Passion time" but on the Feast of the Cross this is replaced by "in hac triumpha gloria" - in the glory of this triumph!

Triumph, indeed, thanks to our beloved Holy Father now gloriously reigning!

St Helena, pray for us!

True Cross, protect us!

...

The incomparable beauty of holiness...

The incomparable beauty of holiness is never more fully shewn than in the drama, music, poetry and spiritual perfection of the traditional rites of the Catholic Church but especially the traditional Roman rite.

It is indeed a story written by an Angel at the command of the Holy Spirit, Almighty God Himself.

It is a story written, embroidered and made more perfect still over centuries by the Divine Hand re-living and re-capturing the history of His own sacrificial intervention into human history, the greatest of all events.

There was none greater.

The liturgy of the Church re-lives, over the course of the year, the story of our salvation and the life of Christ, just as the Mass itself re-lives, in an unbloody manner, the holy sacrifice of Christ redeeming us and atoning for us.

Thus the liturgical year begins with the coming of Christ, Advent and Christmas, touches upon His hidden life, then leads on to His public ministry, teaching and witness, his time of temptation and trial in the desert, Lent, then of the adoration of the Jews and their betrayal (Passion Week and Palm Sunday).

Then we enter into the most sacred season of the year, Holy Week and the Sacred Triduum of the 3 days when our Lord fulfils the Passover (the Pesach), immolating His own Divine self, the long-awaited Messias, to be the Paschal Lamb without blemish and the perfect offering to the Father, and makes of it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist and ordains the Priesthood of the new Covenant to perpetuate the memory of both His Sacrifice and His subsequent Ressurrection from the Dead.

On Easter Saturday the children of God wait by the sealed tomb knowing that He has descended into Hell, to the Limbo of the Just, to open the Gates thereof and liberate the Prophets and Patriarchs, all the just who were awaiting entry into Heaven.

In the West until the 12th century, and in the Eastern Church to this day, on Holy Saturday the Faithful keep vigil all night until sunrise, processing with the Pope, the Emperor, the Cardinals, the Prince-Electors, the bishops, nobility, clergy, senators, religious and people and the whole Body of Christ, re-illuminating with fire the lights of the Church as lumen Christi (the light of Christ), singing the praises of God in an exultation (exultet) of praise and praying for Pope, Emperor and people.

There was also final instruction to the neophytes about to be baptised, the story of salvation history from Genesis to the coming of the Messias, blessing the water of regeneration and baptism, invoking the saints, singing the Divine Office, re-enacting the searches for the Body of Christ and the encounter of the Holy Women who were first to find the Empty Tomb and, later, the risen Saviour.

Until 1955, the Papal choir of St John Lateran intoned the 12 Prophecies in both Latin and Greek, making fully 24 readings in all. There was no question of minimising then! How pathetically weak we are that we now complain if we have to keep vigil at the tomb of Christ for more than an hour or so!

Thereafter, during Eastertide, the Church basks in the glory of the Resurrection, a foretaste of Heaven, and remembers the encounter on the Road to Emmaus.

Then comes the Ascension, the first Apostolic Novena of prayer followed by the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost when, until 1955, the Roman Church celebrated, on the eve of this great Feast, a smaller version of the Easter Vigil.

Thereafter is the time of Pentecost, Whitsuntide, when the Church begins to enjoy the fruit of the Resurrection, commemorating the great gifts of God, the Holy Trinity, Corpus Christi, the great Feasts, the Feasts of our Lady, the saints raised up in each generation, All Saints, All Souls, praying for the Dead, and expounding and glorifying the teachings of the Church, working to restore the social Kingship of Christ, and ending with the prophecies of the End-times.

Then we begin again with Advent.

This is the Liturgical Year, extolled by Rt Rev Dom Prosper Gueranger OSB, the Abbot of the restored Abbey of St Peter of Solesmes, and the great champion of the Roman rite.

Anyone who thinks this is marginal or unimportant has failed dismally to understand the first lessons of prayer.

Imagine you are here:

and you are at Tenebrae (Matins and Lauds) on Good Friday, having heard the great prophecies that tell of the coming Messias, His sufferings and sacrifices to save His people, the great exegesis of St Augustine of Hippo and the choir is about to sing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x71jgMx0Mxc

"3 miserere mei Deus secundum magnam misericordiam tuam et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum dele iniquitatem meam 4 amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea et a peccato meo munda me 5 quoniam iniquitatem meam ego cognosco et peccatum meum contra me est semper...

8 ecce enim veritatem dilexisti incerta et occulta sapientiae tuae manifestasti mihi 9 asperges me hyssopo et mundabor lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor 10 auditui meo dabis gaudium et laetitiam exultabunt ossa humiliata...

17 Domine labia mea aperies et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam 18 quoniam si voluisses sacrificium dedissem utique holocaustis non delectaberis 19 sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet..."

"3 Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity. 4 Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 5 For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me...

8 For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me. 9 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. 10 To my hearing thou shalt give joy and gladness: and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice...

17 O Lord, thou wilt open my lips: and my mouth shall declare thy praise. 18 For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise...."

[Part of Psalm 50, the great psalm written by King David after the Prophet Nathan rebuked him for sinning with Bethsabee]

In case anyone thinks I've got it in for him...

I warmly recommend the latest post of Fr Dwight on his blog Standing on my Head which very properly underscores the importance, in the right place, of emotion in the worship of God.

Read it for yourselves!

The Motu Proprio: Fr Dwight errs but censors his critics...

The US Catholic Bishops Conference’s English version of the whole Motu Proprio is "unofficial" but many US priests are using it as if it were official. That is probably because the USCCB’s Liturgy Office published guidelines based on the unofficial translation.

Now Fr Dwight Longenecker (regular all-round good guy but a bit muddled on this issue) has used it to argue why the traditional rites should not be offered freely in his parish of St Mary's Greenville, South Carolina (and you can be sure that there are other priests arguing the same).

Here's what he says on his blog Standing on my Head in answer to an enquirer who, quite reasonably, asks him if the traditional rite will be celebrated at St Mary's:

"I therefore would need to consider what my bishop thinks of the matter, and consider the pastoral concerns of the whole community and not just those who are asking for the Latin Mass. This is difficult because to impose the Missal of Bl. John XXIII on the whole community would be pastorally unfair, but to celebrate a regular Mass for a separate group of the faithful would foster disunity. Tough one.

The most interesting word in the ruling is the word 'stable'. It says if a 'stable' group of parishioners asks for the Latin Mass their request is to be considered. But what does 'stable' mean? Must they be stable as a group? Stable as individuals or stable as families? Does this mean emotional and mental stability, spiritual stability or stability in their commitment to the parish?

This is a very important consideration. In some places there are groups of people who are not emotionally or spiritually stable, but more important than that, there are others who are not stable in their commitment either to the Pope or to their local parish. They trot off to whatever celebration of Mass they deem best. For example, some people forsake their parish (even when they have a good conservative priest celebrating the Novus Ordo reverently) for SSPX masses, or they drive hundreds of miles to attend a Fraternity of St Peter Latin Mass. They are entitled to do so, but it is arguable that such individuals, families and groups are not stable in their spiritual lives or their parochial commitment, and I expect many parish priests would not wish therefore to take their requests seriously."

Well, sorry, Fr Dwight. You are once again wrong.

The word "stable" simply does not appear in the document.

Even if it did you have no basis whatsoever for the fantastical conclusions that you draw in the above. And it is particularly unfair that you single out as "unstable" those who, through no fault of their own, through their loyalty to the traditional rites and despite their polite requests for it addressed to their PPs, are forced to go outside their parish to have their legitimate desire for the traditional rites met because the PP unjustly refuses it to them in defiance of papal decrees.

However, the word does not appear in the document.

One could be forgiven for thinking so initially. But Fr Dwight's correspondents put him right in a series of comments in a total of 26 at last count.

Yet, having been pretty comprehensively put right on this, as on a number of other crucial issues, Fr Dwight disdains to amend his blog or even add an update or rider.

When he's wrong he's right, perhaps (to quote from a previous post)?

More than that, he then goes on to censor out those responses which point out his more egregious blunders.

Here is part of one response that was "edited" out by Fr Dwight:

"...You continually say that you are willing to learn, having nothing against the old rite, wish to follow the MP, do not wish to enter into liturgy wars, respect people's love for the old rite etc etc etc....

The popes issued Tres Abhinc Annos, Ecclesia Dei and now Summorum Pontificum in order to get priests to be generous to the Faithful who prefer to worship with the rites that their ancestors used for at least 1700 years and yet there are still priests - like yourself - finding more and more excuses why they should continue to oppress those Faithful and deny them what the Pope has repeatedly said they may have.

This oppression has gone on for 40 years. Now is the time to stop. It is the Pope who orders it and you want, instead, to quibble.

All your quibbles have been more than adequately addressed and laid to rest by your various correspondents and yet.... still you quibble.

Where is the generosity? Where is the pastoral care? Where is the pastoral love of the flock? Where, Father, is your sense of justice?

Your later posts do nothing to re-assure me.

You write that 'this really is a marginal issue: in terms of numbers, those who wish for the Latin Mass are relatively minute.'

Which Latin Mass? Or have you once again overlooked the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Latin rite and that the vernacular was NOT demanded by Vatican II? We have been round that one again and again and again. You just ignore it!

Where do you get your stats from? I question them.

But even if you were right, would it be surprising? Latin, whether in the traditional or new rites, has been virtually strangled to death for the last 40 years. Moreover, only the faithfulness of a minority have kept the traditional rites alive. Now you use that against them. A good is suppressed then a complaint made that the good is no longer seen. Really, Father, what sort of argument is that?

It is abundantly clear from his writings that the Pope thinks this near-total suppression of both Latin and of the traditional rites was a grave mistake and he plainly wishes to reverse the situation.

It is also abundantly clear that he thinks that wide celebration of the traditional rites will vastly improve and enrich the way in which the Novus Ordo is celebrated.

...Once the Holy Father begins to be obeyed, you will find that more and more people are attracted to the traditional rites. That has been our over-whelming experience here in the UK.

Denying people the traditional rites is a self-fulfilling prophecy: you will get less people simply because the rites are, and have been these 40 years, very difficult to find.

To accuse people of being 'unstable' because they travel far to find the traditional rites is yet another extraordinary statement.

The Faithful have had to do so precisely because of the quibblers. Having denied them their rights, the quibblers then accuse them of 'instability' for going elsewhere to find what they have been unjustly denied. A more crassly unreasonable argument would be hard to find.

You write: 'With a shortage of priests it is difficult to justify too many special masses for a handful of people who want mass the way they want it.'

No, Father, it is Mass the way the Holy Father wants it...That is what he has now ordered. And the shortage of priests is not a reason for refusing to obey the Pope. These are not 'special' Masses, they are a right.

...You, have, with great respect, quite some way in this thread to go before you can honestly say that you are really being fair and objective about the traditional rites, as you claim.

Will you now do better?"

Fair question, isn't it?

Or is ignorance bliss?

Tripe about "stable groups": what the Motu Proprio really says...

It's started!

Some obstinate clerics are already trying to minimise the Holy Father's clear wishes to make the traditional Roman rite widely available to the Faithful.

One attempt centres around the weak unofficial translation of the United States Catholic Bishops' Conference upon which translation they then go on to give some very mediocre advice.

The translation makes reference to "stable groups" and some clerics have been desperately trying to make much of the word "stable" to imply that it rules out those who do not attend the Novus Ordo regularly, do not regularly attend only one parish, occasionally attend SSPX chapels, do not form a big enough group to be called "stable", or even that the priest judges them to be "emotionally unstable".

Tripe.

Yes, tripe.

Total and utter tripe.

The word "stable" does not even appear in the Motu Proprio!

Here's what the Motu Proprio says in the Holy Father's original Latin:

"Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. Ipse videat ut harmonice concordetur bonum horum fidelium cum ordinaria paroeciae pastorali cura, sub Episcopi regimine ad normam canonis 392, discordiam vitando et totius Ecclesiae unitatem fovendo."

Which can be pretty accurately translated as:

"Art. 5, § 1. In parishes, where there is continuously present a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, let the pastor willingly receive their petitions that Mass be celebrated according to the Rite of the Missale Romanum issued in 1962. Let him see to it that the good of these faithful be harmoniously incorporated with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the Bishop according to canon 392, by avoiding discord and by fostering the unity of the whole Church."

The word simply does not appear!

So, for those clerics who still want to go on pretending that the traditional rites should not be freely offered, and who refuse to recognise the generosity of the Holy Father, here is some more tripe:


Yech!

Can't stand the stuff!


.....

Fr Dwight: the grapes of wrath?

Fr Dwight decided to let off more steam on his blog Standing on My Head (a very good blog, by the way) having discovered Roman Christendom and its criticism of some of his views on the traditional liturgy.

Fair enough! I think that is his right. We shouldn't begrudge it. I like him and that's why I'm engaging with him. So please read the below in that spirit.

First, under a heading "Watzablog" he gives a lecture on what a blog should be like, accusing some people of bad manners and then claiming to know who was the author of Roman Christendom and seeking to "out" us.

He launched into an attack on James Bogle, whose letters I have borrowed from, even accusing him of being "insulting" and "arrogant" and this blog of making "senseless and weird" attacks, whilst claiming himself to be "objective and cheerful" and to give those who favour the traditional rites (or Mass of John XXIII as he insists on calling it when it is, of course, the oldest rite in the Church), the "benefit of the doubt".

He then gives us a treatise on how we're all wrong when we think we are right and thinking you're right, even if you are right, is self-righteous. Well, if we all followed such a principle there would, of course, never be any debate at all.

To add spice, the whole is interlaced with choice references to "fundamentalism", "little fortresses", "aggressive", "belligerent", "martyr complexes", "self-pity", "sick kind of mentality", "obsession", "mania", "self-righteous", "extreme", "suspicious", "intolerant", "the seriousness of Satan", "demented terrier with a slipper", "sulk", "infected wound" and the like.

No prizes for guessing, folks, that this is at least partly aimed at Roman Christendom for daring to defend the traditional rite in the face of some pretty ill-informed opposition.

I need say no more: Fr Dwight is not "standing on his head" over this one but on his own dignity by over-reacting somewhat.

Well, at least he is engaging, now. That's a good start!

Fr Dwight is, I consider, actually a very good guy, but both he, and his Parish Priest, Fr Jay Scott Newman, also a good guy, ought to exercise a little caution when using sacerdotal authority particularly on anything that might be interpreted as undermining the Church's traditions (Latin, Chant etc) or the manifest and proper wishes of the Pope and use scorn sparingly against others who simply point this out.

Targeting Catholics who prefer the traditional Roman rite is a recreation that is past its sell-by date. It's done great harm these past 40 years and the Pope has quite rightly called time on it.

Fr Dwight erased most of the comments on his blog that criticised his view of liturgy and Fr Jay now won't receive any further comments on his blog. His penultimate post was, aptly but sadly, entitled "Liturgy Wars". It was not traditional-rite Catholics who started the war.

There should, of course, be no wars over liturgy. We should all be on the same side not divided internally.

Unfortunately, it is the kind of statement that appeared in Fr Jay's Parish newsletter that can sometimes tend to prolong the war. I publish it below as it is in the public domain and a commentator has sent it to me.

If any priest is going to claim to be loyal to the Pope and to say "Where Peter is, there is the Church", then he needs to be open and willing to implement the motu proprio, and should avoid minimising it by suggesting that it "kinda, sorta" gives wider permission for the traditional rites.

The reality is that the motu proprio gives extremely wide and extensive permission for the use of the traditional rites.

But here is Fr Jay's advice to his parishioners on 1 July, just before the publication of the motu proprio:

"When this document is finally published, there will no doubt be a circus of media attention of the most sensational kind, but please do not be confused or disturbed by what you read in the papers or see on television. Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary’s. For now, simply know that a document will probably appear this summer, and when it does, we will study it together."

To be fair to Fr Jay, he clearly did not anticipate the breadth and width of the rights granted by the motu proprio and, I suspect, is still slightly in denial about it all. On his blog, he certainly admits - actually I think rather courageously and even humbly - to being a bit confused by it all. That actually rather endeared him to me, I have to say. My heart went out to him!

I suspect that when he and Fr Dwight have had time to digest it all, reflect upon it all and pray about it, they will take a more balanced view.

So let's give 'em a chance, folks, and pray for them and for what I have a feeling is a very important and influential parish in that part of the US of A and two potentially very influential priests.