The Gospel of Passion Monday

Yesterday, the Roman Rite began the season of Passiontide, in which the focus of the liturgy shifts from penance, fasting, and the preparation of the catechumens for baptism to meditation on the Lord’s impending suffering and death, before His glorious resurrection on Easter Sunday. The Mass chants of the season are mostly taken from Psalms which are evidently about the Passion, and were understood as such by the Fathers, as for example today’s introit, the beginning of Psalm 55: “Miserére mihi, Dómine, quoniam conculcávit me homo: tota die bellans tribulávit me. – Have mercy on me, o Lord, for a man hath trodden me down; all the day he hath made war and troubled me.” A treatise known as the Breviarium in Psalmos, traditionally but incorrectly attributed to St Jerome, which seems to have been read very closely by the unknown composers of many Gregorian chants, explains this verse as follows: “In the one who is a man and makes war, the Psalm shows the attack of the devil and of the other wicked spirits, at whose inspiration the Lord suffered.”

The Man of Sorrows, ca. 1434, by the German painter and Dominican friar Master Francke (ca. 1380- ca. 1440)

The epistle, however, is the third chapter of the book of Jonah, in which the prophet enters the city of Nineveh and preaches to the inhabitants the fast commanded by God as an act of repentance. Placed on this first feria of Passiontide, it serves as an important reminder that although the tenor of the liturgy has shifted, Passiontide is still very much a part of Lent, and Lent is kept by fasting.

The Gospel, John 7, 32-39, then explains in a very beautiful and subtle way what exactly the liturgy is now looking forward to, and not just in Passiontide, but in what comes from it, and extends beyond it through the Easter season. “The rulers and Pharisees sent ministers to apprehend him”: this foretells our Lord’s arrest in the garden of Gethsemane on the night of Holy Thursday. Jesus’ words to those sent to arrest Him, “Yet a little while I am with you, and then I go to him that sent me,” remind us that we are now very close to the day on which He will die, but also to the time of His Ascension, in which He will bring our human nature, glorified in the Passion and Resurrection, before the throne of God. “You shall seek me, and shall not find me, and where I am, thither you cannot come,” refers to the absence of the Lord’s body from the tomb. The response of the Jews to this, as they say, “Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will He go unto the dispersed among the gentiles, and teach (them)?”, is a prophecy of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit, through which the Lord will indeed, in the person of His Apostles, go among the gentiles and teach them.

The conclusion of the Gospel therefore speaks of the baptism of the catechumens both at the Easter vigil, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, at the vigil of Pentecost as well. On the latter, the Communio of the Mass is taken from this passage. “And on the last and great day of the festivity (here, symbolically, on the last day of Lent, i.e. Holy Saturday), Jesus stood and cried, saying, ‘If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this He said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Communio, Jo. 7 Ultimo festivitátis die dicébat Jesus, ‘Qui in me credit, flúmina de ventre ejus fluent aquae vivae’; hoc autem dixit de Spíritu, quem acceptúri erant credentes in eum, allelúja, allelúja. (On the last day of the feast, Jesus said, ‘He who believes in Me, from within him there shall flow rivers of living water.’ He said this, however, of the Spirit, Whom they who believed in Him were to receive, alleluia, alleluia.

The final verse reminds us, as we walk with the Lord in His sufferings, that He is indeed glorified at the end of them, not only in the Resurrection, but in the establishment of His Church, and the fulfillment of the mission which He gave to it to go forth and baptize all nations.

From the Friday of the third week of Lent to the last day of Passion week, most of the Roman Rite’s Gospel readings are taken from St John. They are, however, not arranged in the order of the Gospel itself.

• Week 3, Friday, John 4, 5-42 (the Samaritan Woman)
• Saturday, John 8, 1-11 (the adulteress)
• Fourth Sunday, John 6, 1-15 (the multiplication of loaves and fishes)
• Monday, John 2, 13-25 (the purging of the temple)
• Tuesday, John 7, 14-31 (the second part of Christ’s discourse in the temple during the feast of tabernacles)
• Wednesday, John 9, 1-38 (the healing of the blind man)
• Friday, John 11, 1-45 (the raising of the Lazarus)
• Saturday, John 8, 12-20 (“I am the light of the world.”)
• Passion Sunday, John 8, 46-59 (the discourse on Abraham)
• Monday, John 7, 32-39 (described above: the third part of Christ’s discourse in the temple during the feast of tabernacles)
• Tuesday, John 7, 1-13 (the first part of same)
• Wednesday, John 10, 22-38 (the discourse in the porch of the temple)
• Friday, John 11, 47-54 (the priests and pharisees take council against the Lord)
• Saturday, John 12, 10-36 (the triumphal entry into Jerusalem)

In the lectionary of the post-Conciliar Rite, not one of these remains in its traditional place. The Gospels of the Samaritan woman, the blind man and the raising of Lazarus have all been moved to Sundays in year A, on the basis of a completely erroneous belief, one that rests on no evidence of any kind, that their analogous position in the Ambrosian Rite attests their supposed original order in the Roman Rite. (Someone managed to realize that within the three-year lectionary system, that this means that these crucial passages are omitted from Lent altogether in two years out of three. A provision is therefore made that they can be resumed on any of the following ferias of the same week in such years, but this is not mandatory.) The rest have been rearranged as part of a semi-continuous series of readings from John which follows the order of the Gospel, but the selection of passages is very different, and no part of today’s reading remains in Lent on either a Sunday or a feria. The official description of the new lectionary claims that this new selection of readings “corresponds more fully to the characteristics of Lent.”

I imagine that many of our readers have read the proposal made by Geoffroy Kemlin, abbot of Solesmes, and sent to the Holy Father, recently published in an English translation on Rorate Caeli, that the Ordo missae of St Pius V be incorporated into the post-Conciliar missal, so that those who celebrate the traditional Roman Rite can benefit from all the worst features of the post-Conciliar Rite: the prefaces, eucharistic prayers and lectionary. In an interview that follows, Abbot Kemlin states that “the current lectionary called for by Vatican II is far richer than the old one.”

I pass over the fact that Vatican II most certainly did not call for the historical lectionary of the Roman Rite to be thrown in the trash and replaced with a new one of the Consilium ad exsequendam’s devising, although the good abbot of all people should know this. But to refer to the new lectionary as “richer” is an embarrassingly shallow assessment. Yes, it does have more readings. But as has been pointed out over and over again for nearly sixty years now, there is hardly a page of it that does not cheapen or substantially mispresent the meaning of the Word of God by censoring it of so-called difficult passages, or shortening it for the sake of mere convenience. (The Gospel of Lazarus, e.g., which was read this past Sunday, can optionally be cut down by omitting 18½ of its 45 verses, more than 40% of it. Next Sunday, the Passion of St Matthew can be optionally cut down to a pitiable 44 verses out of the traditional 141, a bit more than 30%.)

An unimportant part of the Lord’s Passion, depicted by the Italian painter Sebastiano Ricci (1659-1734), ca. 1730.

But there is the graver issue that the men who created the Roman Mass, including its lectionary, were poets and scholars of the very highest and finest literary sensibility, as evidenced, for example, by the careful selection of the Gospel reading for today, and the subtle way it lays out a program for the rest of Passiontide, and connects it to the Easter season. The notion that their work so desperately needed improving upon that almost no part of it should be left undisturbed would, in a happier age, rightly have been censured as scandalous and offensive to pious ears. The notion that the men who sat on the Consilium ad exsequendam were the ones to improve it is laughable. To paraphrase one of Evelyn Waugh’s best sayings, “To see this committee fumbling with our rich and delicate lectionary is to experience all the horror of seeing a Sèvres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee.”

I therefore offer as a counter-proposal that the lectionary of the post-Conciliar Rite be further enriched by the optional use of the Roman lectionary, so that the whole Church may benefit from the marvelous work of these ancient poets and scholars, our forefathers in the Faith, as Vatican II actually wanted.

A Letter Exchange on the Last Council and the Liturgical Reform

The following letter exchange took place between me and a gentleman whose personal details have been edited out.

Dear Dr. Kwasniewski,

I am a high school theology teacher and also lead Bible studies. The life of the Church, the Scriptures, and Holy Mass are all integral to my daily life. I find all issues related to liturgy to be terribly confusing. There are so many different narratives out there that one could lose one’s mind trying to figure out which one is correct, or if any is correct. There is the fine work done by many of you at New Liturgical Movement, among others. One could also find a different view point from rad trads, or a liberal view from people at the Pray Tell blog. So, lots of passionate views by highly educated people who feel they are interpreting Vatican II in the right way. (Unless they reject the council altogether, which is another story.)

My question, then, is: Where to begin, and whom do I trust? Having read Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium on a number of occasions, as well as in class work, it seems that some reform was certainly called for. How, then, can some people completely dismiss the council and the directives that were given? I have friends who do that quite often, while referring to the council as simply “pastoral.” Yet, I am sympathetic with these people because of some of the unfortunate innovations that occurred after the council. So, for me at least, while I like the reverence and use of Latin in the TLM, I still prefer the Novus Ordo. It seems to me that there must be some place of meeting between the two, while being faithful to both the received liturgical tradition of the Church and the reforms called for by SC. What do you think?

Sincerely yours,
A Curious Catholic

***

Dear Sir:

I completely understand your predicament, as it parallels how I felt at a certain juncture. We are living in a confusing age, and a certain diversity of opinions is not only to be expected but should be tolerated, even (at times) welcomed, as we try to work things out as best we can, in the absence of strong and able leadership at the higher levels of the clergy.

This much seems beyond any doubt: the reforms to the liturgy from 1964 to 1970 went far beyond anything that the Council Fathers ever had in mind or anything that Sacrosanctum Concilium could possibly justify. This has been so thoroughly documented and demonstrated that it’s no longer an open question.

Those who defend Bugnini and the Consilium are forced, then, simply to say, “Well, that’s true, but they did the bold thing – the thing that had to be done – and the Pope recognized it and approved it.” On the other hand, those who question Bugnini’s and the Consilium’s principles will say, “We’re not surprised at the disaster that has befallen the Church, since you cannot break with the organic tradition of the liturgy and not expect to introduce massive amounts of chaos and malaise.”

None of this touches on the question of sacramental validity, which is to be presumed and can be readily defended on theological grounds; but certainly the question of the prudence of the changes and their defensibility is fair game. The attempt to shut down that conversation has failed, particularly when it became apparent that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest theological luminaries of the twentieth century, and truly “the pope of the liturgical question,” was more than willing to participate in it himself.

Moreover, it really is the case that both John XXIII and Paul VI spoke of the Council as pastoral in nature and as an attempt to interpret and respond to modern man. In 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in an address to the bishops of Chile:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Consequently, it was possible for the Council to get some things right and others not so right, since we are not dealing with unalterable dogmas that must be believed, or anathematized errors that must be shunned. The simple fact that the Council says “we should do X” doesn’t mean that, some decades later, we can’t legitimately argue that X wasn’t the best response, or that it wouldn’t make more sense to do Y or Z today. Indeed, this kind of situation has occurred many times in the history of the Church, which gives us other examples of councils (think of the Lateran councils) whose reforms didn’t always work or, in some cases, weren’t even attempted.

It seems to me that the Pray Tell perspective is generally untenable because it exalts progressivism at the expense of tradition, which is a fundamentally uncatholic way of thinking and judging. Rorate Caeli represents a consistent traditionalism that considers safe, sound, and sacred that which has always (or nearly always) been done by everyone (or nearly everyone) everywhere (or nearly everywhere). New Liturgical Movement is a meeting ground for various interests, announcements, and hypotheses, but always within a general commitment to the normativity of tradition. One will not stray far from the truth if one endeavors to remain faithful to the Magisterium while seeing tradition as a non-negotiable good that should always be privileged.

You raise an interesting question about Vatican II’s request for a reform of the liturgy. As you know, the Council insisted that no change be made unless the good of the Church certainly required it (SC 23). Far more changes were made than were ever certainly required, and the floodgates were opened for abuses. Even from a sociological-anthropological point of view, everyone knows that a gigantic and tradition-bound body can only absorb change slowly and stepwise, unless one wants to provoke rupture and confusion – which is exactly what happened. It could have been, and was, predicted ahead of time.

It seems clear that Benedict XVI’s intention was that the two “forms” would peacefully coexist for a long enough time to allow a restart of organic development, but I will admit that it’s difficult in practice to see how this would have actually taken place, and I am not aware of many traditionalists who want to see the old rite modified, for reasons explained in one of my recent books, Close the Workshop. In any case, it seems that “full, conscious, and active participation” was the primary reason given for reform, and I think it is not difficult to argue that the TLM in fact allows for a superior fulfillment of this desideratum.

Yours in Him,
Peter Kwasniewski

Dear Dr. Kwasniewski,

About four years ago I emailed you, out of the blue, with some questions about Vatican II, the old Mass and the new Mass. I have spent the past four years reading as much as I can while also observing and praying over my own experiences attending Mass. I have devoted considerable time reading authors that would typically be published on Pray Tell, and while I agree with some of what they argue, mainly the need of some reform, I simply cannot understand their unwillingness to see that a number of the experiments that occurred after the Council did not benefit the People of God. Examples would be the loss of chant, the abandonment of ad orientem, and the complete neglect of Latin.

When I attend the old rite, I fully appreciate the elements in it that are clearly lacking in the new rite. For me, there is a real attraction to it. However, here’s my one concern. I don’t want to be involved with any part of the Church that rejects the Second Vatican Council. While I think there is plenty of healthy dialogue that can go on concerning the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concillium, I am wary of those who reject elements of the Council. I firmly support the teachings on religious liberty, Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Lumen Gentium. My question to you is, can I embrace the pre-Conciliar Missal while also embracing the Vatican II in full?

God bless you,
A Curious Catholic

***

Dear Sir:

It’s very good to hear from you again. I no longer read Pray Tell, as I found that the perspective of Fr. Ruff in particular was exceedingly irresponsible. He speaks as if Vatican II amounted to a carte-blanche to overturn anything and everything in order to retool the Church for modern evangelization. Even if one might admire the apostolic motivation of this view, we can see that it has failed in so many ways.

Where there is flourishing new life in the Church, it has tended to align itself with so-called conservative or traditional constituencies. We can see this most obviously in the clergy, religious life, and marriages: young clergy tend, on the whole, to be interested in recovering traditions that were lost; religious orders that are growing or maintaining their numbers are the ones unembarrassed or even eager about Catholic tradition; and the marriages that are bringing new life into the Church and the world are those that are faithful to the indissoluble unitive and procreative finalities of marriage as a life-giving and life-sacrificing covenant.

You raise a difficult and challenging question – namely, about the doctrinal content and subsequent reception of the Second Vatican Council. Unavoidably, the Council is controversial, because, on the topics you mentioned (and others), it staked out positions that are not always obviously in harmony with preceding magisterial teaching. For example, there are clear tensions (which is not yet to say absolute contradictions) between Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum and Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, or between Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos and Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio, or between Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis and Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium.

Because the Council was intended as a pastoral response to modern times, as both John XXIII and Paul VI repeatedly said, it did not engage the highest level of magisterial authority – that is, it did not issue de fide pronouncements or anathemas on errors, which are considered infallible exercises of the Magisterium. At most, as the Nota praevia indicates, it intended to restate teachings already known to be true from their presence in the doctrinal heritage of the Church.

The conciliar documents were presented as a restatement of the Catholic Faith in modern language, and to that extent, they may be responsibly criticized, although the Council’s validity as an ecclesiastical gathering cannot be disputed, nor can the documents be dismissed out of hand. They must not be placed on an untouchable pedestal. Indeed, there is a great irony (as again Ratzinger pointed out) in the fact that the so-called “progressives” feel free to dispute and dismiss the more obviously authoritative canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, where we find the words de fide and anathema on practically every page, while they pillory anyone who so much as questions the prudence or adequacy of any formulation in Vatican II. Surely there is here a strange inversion and confusion.

Thus, everything depends on what is meant by “embracing Vatican II in full.” Whatever is clearly in line with the perennial Magisterium we should embrace; anything that seems in tension with it we may accept on condition that it be in harmony (which we may or may not be able to see ourselves); and we may suspend assent to false interpretations or extrapolations that have caused great harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. What I have just summarized is the view of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, such as can be found in his book Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age, which I highly recommend for its clarity and serene common sense.

We must also be prepared to acknowledge that the state of the world today, sixty years after the close of the Council, is vastly different than it was back then, and that the burning issues that animated the prelates of the 1960s are no longer ours; moreover, that certain solutions, such as the recovery of tradition, are proving to be more effective in reaching, converting, and nourishing postmodern man than any of the programs aimed at “modern man” as conceived circa 1970. Thus, it may also simply be the case that Vatican II, whatever its status might be, has already simply ceased to be of much relevance, and therefore is no longer worth all the anguish and laborious exegesis it once occasioned.

It seems to me that the sooner bishops and cardinals recognize this dramatic shift, the sooner they can respond to the actual needs and desires of the People of God, and hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches today.

Yours in Christ,

Dr. Kwasniewski

What Killed Sacrosanctum Concilium

There have been many laws, decrees, constitutions and such in the Church’s long history which, without ever being formally revoked, simply faded into disuse and obscurity. Very often, it is impossible to say when such laws became dead letters. But in the case of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy, we know the exact day on which it became a dead letter. That day was September 26, 1964, when the Sacred Congregation for Rites published the decree Inter Oecumenici, billed, falsely, as a step towards its implementation, but in reality, a guarantee that it would not be implemented, but rejected.

I say this because it was the decree that enshrined the celebration of the Mass versus populum. “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.” (parag. 91) The problem with this was not principally that it was based on an egregious scholarly error, one of many that marred the process of liturgical reform well before Vatican II was even thought of. It is rather that there is not one word of Sacrosanctum Concilium that hints in any way that this should be done, and yet it was done in the name of implementing said constitution. The document was signed by Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro (archbishop of Bologna, and an avowed liturgical revolutionary), the first president of the “Consilium ad exsequendam – the committee for implementing” SC. Its 2nd paragraph contains the statement that “(t)he Consilium … has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the constitution,” and yet it declared as “preferable” a novelty which the constitution in no way envisioned.

I have no doubt that this part of the post-Conciliar litany of failure is well-known to our readers. I repeat it nonetheless as a reminder of something essential, which I also stated in my recent assessment of the oddly forgetful liturgical memorandum shared by Cardinal Roche with his fellow Eminences during the recent consistory. The liturgical reform was not born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, as was stated incorrectly in Pope Francis’ apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi (quoted by His Eminence). It was born out of the rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Enter Gianmarco Busca, who was appointed bishop of the northern Italian city of Mantua on June 3, 2016. By an interesting coincidence, this date is the anniversary of the death of Pope John XXIII, initiator of the Second Vatican Council, and one of the patron Saints of unintended consequences. After nearly ten years of his episcopate, His Grace has decided to involve his beautiful cathedral, which is dedicated to St Peter the Apostle, in a year-long pastoral “experiment”, to update the building to the “Conciliar (sic) liturgical reform.” These pictures were taken by a friend during a recent visit.

Here is the official explanation of it, posted on a placard in the cathedral.

Diocese of Mantua - Cathedral of St Peter the Apostle

Experimental interventions for updating to the conciliar liturgical reform.

“Dear pilgrim, tourist, or whoever you are. (This is just as weird and rude in Italian as it would be in any other language.)

As you enter this cathedral, you will find yourself a little disoriented compared with the traditional arrangement. In fact, you find yourself in a space that is hosting a process of liturgical updating, inspired by the criteria of Vatican II. ...

This important council in the 1960s dedicated one of its principal documents to the theme of the liturgy, as an expression of the Church’s highest prayer. This is the Constitution called Sacrosanctum Concilium.

In light of the criteria of the liturgical reform, a team of men and women, specialists, liturgists, and pastoral operators have worked together for months, with the goal of thinking up an effective way to re-order the liturgical space of the cathedral. The objective of their work has been to translate into the cathedral (n.b. here) the indications of the Council, the intent of which, we must not forget, is to favor the rediscovery of the deep sense of the liturgy, and the people of God’s participation in it.”

It goes on to explain that this is only an experiment, and the faithful will be invited to express their opinions of it, with a view to a more definitive project in the future. It also explained that these graceless wooden lumps squatting in the nave are “temporary models”, and that they were not expensive. But sadly, if past experience with these kinds of projects has taught us anything, we can guess that A. the project will be done as we see it here with some minor adjustment; B. the completely negative assessment which the ordinary faithful give of it will be ignored, and C., the permanent furnishing which are finally commissioned and installed will be just as ugly, and shockingly expensive.

On the rare occasions when I write about these kinds of things, I have been wont to use rhetorical phrases that begin with something like, “It hardly needs to be said…” or “It hardly bears repeating…” But in this case, it does need to be said, and it does bear repeating: this is a betrayal of what Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for, and has nothing to do with what the bishops at Vatican II asked for, or expected to come out of a reform of the liturgy.

I ended my previous commentary by stating that sooner or later, the Church is simply going to have to start asking itself a lot of hard questions about the failure of the post-Conciliar reforms. Since Pope Leo has determined that there will be now consistories on a regular basis, and since consistories are exactly the forum in which such questions are meant to be asked and answered, I make bold to formula one as follows:

More than six decades have passed since Sacrosanctum Concilium was issued, and bishops are still claiming to “implement Sacrosanctum Concilium” by doing something that it in no way envisioned, or even mentioned. Is there any realistic possibility left of untangling what that council actually said from these ubiquitous, willful falsehoods?

The answer, Your Eminences, is No. We pray that you will find the courage to recognize this, and act accordingly.

Some more pictures of the hitherto beautiful cathedral of Mantua, to cleanse your palate...

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Cardinal Roche is Very, Very Worried

I am sure that by now, most of our readers have heard about the document circulated by His Eminence Arthur Cardinal Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, during the recent consistory of all the cardinals called by Pope Leo. It was published yesterday on the Substack of Diane Montagna, who is also, I am sure, well-known to our readers as one of the best reporters on Church-related matters in Rome. Within a few hours of its publication, I had a message from Peter saying that it needs a thorough fisking; this was done immediately, and very ably, as always, by Fr Zuhlsdorf, and likewise, by Dr Gavin Ashenden and Dr Joseph Shaw. I thank them all for sparing me the necessity of doing it myself, and strongly recommend their commentary to all our readers.

But there are a few things about the text which I found striking, and on which I make bold to offer some commentary of my own.

The document begins with the general premise that “the history of the Liturgy ... is the history of its continuous ‘reforming’ in a process of organic development.” This is the kind of statement for which the legal term “suppressio veri” (suppression, i.e. omission or concealment, of something which is true) was invented. Because while it is true that there have been many reforms in the history of the liturgy, it is also true that the history of the liturgy is a history of strong continuity, as His Holiness Benedict XVI reminded us time and time again. And it was precisely the savage rupture in this continuity within the Roman Rite, brought about by the post-Conciliar reform, that moved him to issue Summorum Pontificum as a necessary step towards healing that rupture.

This, in turn, makes it very difficult to see how His Eminence can be correct when he states that “the use of the liturgical books that the Council sought to reform was, from St John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion.” Is it possible that His Eminence has wholly forgotten the reign of Pope Benedict XVI? (Prima facie, this seems unlikely, since it was the latter who appointed him to the Congregation, as it was then called, for Divine Worship.) Can he have wholly forgotten statements such as this one made by His Eminence Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos? who, as President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, said in an address to the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales:

“(Summorum Pontificum) gives rights to the ordinary faithful and to priests which must be respected by those in authority. The Holy Father is aware that in different places around the world many requests from priests and lay faithful who desired to celebrate according to the ancient rites were often not acted upon. That is why he has now authoritatively established that to celebrate according to the more ancient form of the liturgy – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well the sacraments and other liturgical rites – is a juridical right, and not just a privilege, accorded to all.

Certainly this must be done in harmony with both ecclesiastical law and ecclesiastical superiors, but superiors also must recognise that these rights are now firmly established in the law of the Church by the Vicar of Christ himself. It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful. (my emphasis) This means that parish priests and bishops must accept the petitions and the requests of the faithful who ask for it and that priests and bishops must do all that they can to provide this great liturgical treasure of the Church’s tradition for the faithful.”

Cardinal Hoyos preaching during a Mass celebrated in the Sacrament chapel of St Peter’s Basilica in November of 2011.

Can His Eminence also have forgotten his predecessor-but-one in his current job, Antonio Cardinal Cañizares? who said, “Summorum Pontificum is of great value which we should all appreciate; it has not only to do with the liturgy, but with the whole of the Church’s being and what it means to tradition, without which the Church is converted into a changing human institution, and of course, also has an application to the reading and interpretation that is made of Vatican II.”

Can he have forgotten statements from Pope Benedict himself such as this one, that he issued Summorum Pontificum to favor “... the unity of the Church with itself, in its interior, with its past; that that which was holy for Her before should not be in any way an evil now”? How could this possibly be, if it were not his intention to promote the continued use of the traditional liturgy? Can he have forgotten that St John Paul II urged the bishops to a “wide and generous application” of the permission to celebrate the traditional liturgy under the Ecclesia Dei indult?

Perhaps he can, and far be it from me, of course, to suggest that His Eminence, in writing and circulating this document during a consistory, was trying to persuade his fellow Eminences of things he himself knows to be untrue. At the same time, as we pray that His Eminence recover from whatever injury or illness has compromised his memories of the previous pontificate but one, we may trust that such specific lapses of memory are rare, and it is unlikely that any other Eminences suffer from them.

This Ratzinger-specific lapse of memory would also explain how His Eminence has managed to forget the interview which he himself gave last year in which he repudiated TC, and admitted that Pope Benedict had been right all along. For example, he said (this is a direct quote), “There is nothing wrong with attending the Mass celebrated with the 1962 missal.” This was, of course, the very point which Pope Benedict himself made in his letter to the bishops of the world accompanying Summorum Pontificum, one of his most famous quotes, because one of his wisest: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.”

This repudiation of TC was, of course, hardly surprising, and not only because by March of last year, it was obvious that there would soon be a new sheriff in town. As His Eminence has cause to know better than most, from the day it came out, its apologists have struggled to explain why it was in any way necessary or beneficial to the Church. At the time of last year’s interview, he made no mention whatsoever of the original and unapologetically specious justification of it, the threat of a looming schism. In his telling, “(w)hat Pope Francis said in Traditionis Custodes is that (the traditional rite) is not the norm.” Again, this was the very same point that Pope Benedict himself had made by calling the traditional Roman Rite, “the Extraordinary Form.” And indeed, His Eminence downplayed the problem of the supposedly looming schism by stating that “The numbers devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass are, in reality, quite small, ...”

And yet, he is clearly back to being very, very worried about them. The post-Conciliar Rite holds a near total sway in the Roman part of the Catholic Church, the part which outnumbers all the other parts combined by well over 1¼ billion members. But as long as there are any faithful left who cling to the traditional rite, the unity of the Faith and of the Church are in mortal danger. And therefore, His Eminence reminds his fellow Eminences that “Pope Francis ... pointed the way to unity in the use of the liturgical books promulgated by the holy Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in accordance (sic) with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith!

His Eminence ends by quoting Pope Francis again, from the apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi: “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council ... and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” And here lies the crux of the matter. It is in point of fact perfectly easy to see how this is possible, for those who have eyes to see. One simply has to be willing to recognize the obvious truth, that the liturgical reform was not born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was born out of the rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Church has paid an appallingly steep price for this rejection. Earlier in his document, His Eminence quotes Pope Francis quoting the opening paragraph of SC, and calling them “words which do not cease to enthuse.” Paraphrasing slightly, the late Pope stated, “They are objectives that describe a precise desire to reform the Church in her fundamental dimensions: to make the Christian life of the faithful grow more and more every day; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to reinvigorate that which serves to call all to the bosom of the Church (cf. SC I).”

None of this has happened. The post-Conciliar revolution has not made the Christian life of the faithful grow more and more every day. It has not made the Church’s institutions more suitable to the needs of our times. It has not fostered whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ. It has not reinvigorated that which serves to call all to the bosom of the Church.

When does this start?

At the consistory, the cardinals were given four topics for discussion, and asked to choose two. Liturgy was one of the four, and was not chosen, but Pope Leo has determined not only that there will be another consistory in June, but that they will be, for the time at least, annual events. Presumably, it will be brought up at the next one.

And sooner or later, some very hard questions will have to be asked at these events. There are now only four bishops alive who were at Vatican II; the youngest of them, Francis Cardinal Arinze (another of His Eminence’s predecessors at Divine Worship) is 93. So one of those questions might well be, “Whom does the opening paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium ‘still enthuse’?” Another might well be, “Whom does the statement ‘there must be no innovations (in the liturgy) unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them’ ‘still enthuse’?”, or, harder still, “Did it ever really enthuse anyone?”

The asking of such questions is a necessary first step to getting over the enthusiasms of the post-Conciliar revolution, and redressing its many failures. Let us pray unceasingly that the Holy Father and the cardinals have the courage to take it.

Sadness in the Diocese of Knoxville

Great sadness has descended upon the parishes in the Knoxville diocese where the Latin Mass has been celebrated for the past several years. At the end of this year, the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be banned in the diocese altogether, with the Chattanooga parish changing over at the end of the liturgical year.

During Pope St. John Paul II’s reign, the possibility for the Catholic faithful to experience the liturgy of our forefathers once again became possible in certain places due to the possibility of an indult. This was how I first experienced a traditional (1962 Missal) Latin Mass at the age of 48. No doubt, I attended the Mass in that form when I was a young child, but I had no memory of any Mass except for the Novus Ordo until that time.

During my lifetime, I experienced in many locations the many varied ways the Mass is celebrated since Vatican II. I can say quite sincerely that none of them approached transcendence. Marked by the culture of the priest’s personality (which is hard to avoid with the versus populum liturgies - a Paul VI invention that is not prescribed in the GIRM), really poor music (many times performed by musicians who don’t read music), the faithful Catholics have suffered an insipid and uninspiring Mass all that time.

We could, perhaps, blame the poor music for these experiences in large part. Most parishes even today have only volunteer musicians, bringing their guitars, synthesizers, and other instruments, even such things as tambourines, rain sticks and drums finding a welcome at Novus Ordo liturgies. The skill level of the musicians varies wildly from one parish to another, but generally depends on the generosity of volunteers, since most pastors seem to think that musicians don’t deserve any remuneration for the vast amount of time required to plan, practice and sing for liturgies. Unlike parish secretaries or janitors, musicians are somehow considered greedy if they expect payment for their work.

But it is more than just the poor music that is responsible. The entire liturgy seems to have been designed to be inoffensive to Protestants in its language and the various inventions that were added (Prayers of the Faithful, Sign of Peace, various options to suit every personal taste in the various Eucharistic prayers).

Along with the addition of a second reading at Sunday Masses and a 3-year cycle of readings, the implementation of the new form of the Mass seemed to open the doors to all sorts of incorrect information provided to the faithful after the Vatican II documents were implemented. Somehow, the idea that Latin and Gregorian chant were no longer allowed came into general belief, despite the documents themselves saying quite the opposite. In the recent years, and particularly under Pope Francis’ reign, the traditional norm of ad orientem (the priest facing the altar) liturgy began to be disallowed by bishops around the US, despite that being the norm according to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM).

The shoddy translation from the Latin that was implemented with the English vernacular liturgy included things that were not even close to the original Latin. For example: “The Lord be with you” answered by “And also with you” is completely inexplicable when the correct translation “And with your spirit” is so simple. Not until the new translation in 2010 was implemented were many of these clear errors corrected. Another obvious example is the completely fabricated English Memorial Acclamation (happily dropped with the newest translation) of “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.” There is nothing even close to that in the Latin version. It was completely made up. That lack of beauty in the text of the prayers and in the readings is also striking.

When Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum was announced in 2007, the same summer I first attended an indult TLM in Washington, DC, I truly had no understanding of the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass. It seemed obvious to me that it was far more beautiful and lovely than any Novus Ordo liturgy I had experienced, but at first I thought it was just the care in the music that was at the heart of it. I thought, incorrectly, that the Novus Ordo liturgy could also be as beautiful if the music were done as intended.

Over the next 15+ years of my life, I worked toward that end. I attended Colloquia planned by the Church Music Association of America (CMAA) every year, where we tried to make every liturgy lovely in all forms, English, Spanish, Latin Novus Ordo, and Traditional Latin Mass. It became clear that the very form of the Novus Ordo is incompatible with many of the traditional polyphonic Mass ordinaries. The traditional Latin Mass has the action on the altar continuing in parallel with the music sung by the choir, with the prayers offered on the altar by the priest happening concurrently with the singing of propers and ordinary. It is a perfect union of both integral parts of the liturgy.

When you try to use the same music at a Novus Ordo Mass, because of the way the rubrics are designed, it does not work as well. You’ll find the priest waiting around for the choir to finish singing before the next part of the liturgy can proceed, something that is not a problem in the TLM. Because of that, many priests do not want the choir to sing all the prescribed propers or the full chanted ordinary. It often makes the Mass much longer than it should be because all the various things must happen in sequence – not in parallel.

One thing that is particularly striking when attending a TLM such as the one at the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Chattanooga is the discipline, diligence and beauty of the work of the altar servers for the TLM. It is not unusual to have 18-20 altar servers at the Sunday Mass, with various tasks assigned to each in turn. Several of these young men have learned all the various jobs and take turns acting as Master of Ceremony (MC). The movement of the altar servers is carefully planned and executed with a sort of military precision that is beautiful to behold, with the older boys patiently teaching the younger ones. In the TLM, the altar servers not only carry candles, assist with incensation, and assist the priest at Mass. They also learn the Latin responses for the liturgy and make those responses on behalf of the faithful in the pews. There is nothing similar required of altar servers for the Novus Ordo Mass. The rubrics don’t allow for most of the altar server work currently done for the TLM. The sadness of this loss to those boys and young men is palpable, beyond the loss to the faithful who have watched and appreciated their work each week.

When the vernacular liturgy was implemented after the 2nd Vatican Council, there was no suitable vernacular substitute for the Gregorian chants that had been used in the TLM. And how could there have been? The glorious treasure of music built up over a thousand years cannot be replaced with suitable music in a few years’ time. In fact, the Church did not publish any books telling musicians what should be sung for those liturgies for years after the implementation of the vernacular Mass. So… left to their own devices, most parishes jettisoned the lovely Gregorian chant and polyphonic tradition in favor of such lovely pieces as Kumbayah, They’ll Know We are Christians, Morning Has Broken, etc. The idea that the Latin pieces were no longer allowed was common at parishes during that time, so many parishes thought they had no choice. Many places also started using Protestant hymns for the liturgy since at least they were in the apparently preferred language, despite the fact that hymns were not a part of Catholic liturgical tradition for the Mass. Hymns were typically reserved for the Divine Office or devotions outside the Mass.

Most Catholics are completely unaware of this and think that hymns are appropriate and even preferred for the Mass. They have not been taught that the Proper texts are actually prescribed for each Mass and that substituting hymns is the least desirable option. I’ve sometimes tried to describe this to people as equivalent to someone arbitrarily deciding that they don’t want the reading of the day and using some other Bible text of their own choosing. Somehow this knowledge is lacking among many faithful Catholics. The main difference in this analogy is that this substitution for the proper texts for music is actually allowed in the Novus Ordo, as the fourth option - alius cantus aptus (another appropriate song). I daresay many of the choices are not appropriate and that removing this option could greatly reduce the banality of the music that is so often experienced.

In the past 20 years or so, various lay people and a few priests have created Proper settings in the vernacular to try to alleviate the lack of suitable music for the Mass. I have personally worked to create Mass Proper settings in Spanish based on the Gregorian chants for the three-year cycle to try to offer something beyond the simple hymns and poor options we find in such books as Flor y Canto. These settings are made available for anyone to use at no cost.

But this was not at the behest of the Church leadership, but rather individual work taken on by people who saw a need and had the desire to somehow make the Novus Ordo liturgies beautiful. And, in order to not have to negotiate with the Church hierarchy over copyrights and royalties, we must keep the settings 100% free of charge, despite the fact that the texts that are used are those required to be used for the liturgies and the translation to produce those texts was ultimately already paid for by the faithful.

With the last translation of the Missals in English and in Spanish, chanted Mass ordinary settings were included to allow at least some dignity in the liturgies. The work done by ICEL and the USCCB (for the Spanish Misal) was long overdue and a definite improvement, even if 30 years too late.

Can you imagine the joy a person like me has felt when we were at long last able to attend a TLM regularly? Since moving to the Chattanooga area nearly two years ago, this has been the first time in my life I have had the opportunity. For these two years, my family has enjoyed this great gift and tried our best to contribute to the parish, through my participation in the parish choir, through our financial support, and, most recently as sponsors for candidates in OCIA. My husband has volunteered to assist in the Vocations Ministry, hoping that we can follow the diocesan program to build vocations among the young men to become future priests.

At other places over the years, I have served as a choir director, while my husband worked in the prison ministry and we both helped in other small ways at each location. We have tried to lend our time and treasure to the Church as much as we could. Our sons were altar servers and/or lectors at various parishes we attended. We had no option other than the Novus Ordo and we made the best of it.

As I sat in the choir loft listening to our pastor’s homily when he gave the news of the end of the TLM in our parish and in the diocese, tears came to my eyes. The message was a very hard one to hear, especially when the message of submission and obedience seemed so harsh. It was a warning against disobedience and schism rather than a message of shared suffering. Knowing Fr. Carter, I cannot believe that was what he intended. One thing I can say is that the Novus Ordo Latin liturgy that replaces the TLM in our parish will be as beautiful as it can be under his leadership.

None of this means that I do not accept the authority of the Church or that I want to leave communion with the Pope. Nor do I dispute the validity of Communion and the other sacraments in the Novus Ordo. When we cannot attend a TLM due to travel or other commitments, we always attend an alternate Novus Ordo Mass. I simply now understand the pain and confusion that must have been experienced by older generations when, after Vatican II, the long-held, familiar and lovely liturgy they had known their entire lives was banned. For 40 years or so they had no chance of attending Mass in the form they had grown up with and loved. They had no chance to explain the differences to their children or grandchildren.

And the bishops and cardinals who participated in the changes made during Vatican II must surely have had good reasons for making some reforms. I don’t deny that many of those bishops must have had good intentions, despite a few bad characters such as Bugnini, who seems to have had an outsized role in developing the Mass of Paul VI. They may have thought getting input about the liturgy from Protestants as they did might make it more attractive to potential converts. However, I think many, if not most, of the bishops who participated in the 2nd Vatican council must have felt completely blindsided by the liturgy that came after the completion of the council meetings. I don’t think this was what they intended at all.

After the Novus Ordo was introduced, post Vatican II, many people were very happy to have a more relaxed and informal liturgy in the vernacular. Some relished the chance to become church rock singers on Sunday, kicking off the shackles of the strict musical requirements of the TLM. You’ll find these are the people seen at the sparsely-attended Novus Ordo parishes that are on the verge of shutting down due to lack of interest. They are typically also the biggest complainers if any music is sung in Latin. When you visit a typical English Novus Ordo parish anywhere in the country, you’ll often find that most of the pews are uncrowded and the age demographics tilt heavily toward these people - the baby boomer generation (of which I am one). In many places the younger generations are simply absent or nearly so. The main exception to this in the past few years would be at the growing number of Spanish liturgies you’ll see in every city in the country. This group tends to be a younger demographic. This is due to the fact that we have had a huge influx of Spanish-speaking Catholics who have brought their guitars and mariachi-style music to many places. Let’s face it: however much any of us appreciate mariachi music, we have to agree that it is not Sacred Music and does not encourage contemplation or prayer.

A side note: If we want to speak of lack of unity, I dare you to see how much crossover there is at a typical Novus Ordo parish with a Spanish-speaking community and an English-speaking community. Ne’er the twain shall meet. It is a constant problem due to the lack of a common language. Some parishes are forced to have separate parish council meetings, separate Knights of Columbus meetings, etc. At the parish we previously attended before moving near to Chattanooga, the confirmation classes were only offered in Spanish, so the daughter of one of our friends did not receive that sacrament when she was in high school. No provision was made for English-speaking children at the parish.

The mish-mash of Spanish and English that must be used during the Triduum and Holy Days of Obligation is often a terrible thing. At least some portion of the attending faithful are always alternatively annoyed when their language is not the one being used and when the musical styles are so different as to be completely jarring, switching back and forth between Spanish and English. Wouldn’t a unified Latin be a huge improvement? But I digress.

At this point, most people in the world have never experienced a Traditional Latin Mass and think those who are attached to that liturgy are crazy “trads” if they are aware of them at all. Many are completely unaware and disinterested in the controversy. Some are quick to criticize TLM attendees as if we are denying the validity of the 2nd Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo liturgy. Speaking for myself, that is certainly not the case.

But, beauty is beauty. Truth is truth. After Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, more and more priests, and in particular, the younger priests, began to learn how to offer the Mass in the old form. Little pockets of people began to ask for it and work to get it in their parishes around the country and around the world. They spent hours learning the correct way to do it, training young men and boys to serve at the altar, the choir working to learn to read the Gregorian chant notation and to sing it. While still a very small minority in total numbers, the people attending the traditional Latin Mass were sharing information about where they occurred and were often driving hours each week to attend them where they were offered.

This form of the liturgy is marked by the high percentage of young families with lots of children, large numbers of altar servers, many women who wear head-coverings and homeschool their children and have very regular Mass attendance. This is the group of Catholics most likely to believe in the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist, follow the Church teachings on birth control and abortion and receive the sacraments regularly. This group of people have been so appreciative of the availability of the Mass to them that they were generous financial supporters of the parishes and source of many new vocations.

This isn’t nostalgia. This form of the liturgy was never offered to these young parents when they were growing up. But, having experienced it, they could see the beauty of it and wanted it to continue. They were willing to sacrifice to make it available.

Until Pope Francis put forth the motu proprio Traditiones Custodes (TC), which was essentially a complete reversal of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum after only 14 years, the two forms of the Mass were, for the most part, happily coexisting in the Church. Those who preferred the guitar Mass could have it pretty much anywhere; those who wanted the TLM (if they were willing to drive a bit) could sometimes have that. Many people moved to locations where it was offered specifically with that in mind. This issue had no small impact on our family’s decision to move to the Chattanooga area.

If there is essentially no difference between the TLM and a Latin Novus Ordo, I have to wonder why the Latin Novus Ordo virtually disappeared once the TLM was allowed again. Could it be that the vast superiority of the form and the beauty was unmistakable?

Why it was determined that this form of the liturgy should be again stamped out is a complete mystery to me. And for Pope Francis to issue that motu proprio while Pope Benedict was still living was a rather shocking thing. Knowing he had no love for the traditional sentiments among the faithful, it was not unexpected that he would move to suppress it to some degree, but many (perhaps most) of us thought he would have the courtesy to wait until after Pope Benedict died.

And why did Pope Benedict choose to freely allow all ordained priests to learn to celebrate the “extraordinary form” of the liturgy without the permission of their bishops and to offer it wherever and whenever they wished? What about the argument about the Lefebvre followers and the SSPX and their disobedience? Would allowing the TLM cause faithful Catholics to join the SSPX somehow or to deny the validity of the Novus Ordo? I believe the reason Pope Benedict offered the option was because of the abuses that are so common in the Novus Ordo liturgies - everything from the “Clown Mass” to allowing lay people to preach homilies, to improper use of home-baked bread for Holy Communion (not the correct unleavened bread that is prescribed), the use of improper vessels in the Mass, priests using water pistols to spray Holy Water and so on. I think his hope was that the TLM would inspire and inform the Novus Ordo so that those liturgies could be uplifted in the “Reform of the Reform”.

The people who have grown to love the TLM are good and faithful Catholics. Taking this form of the Mass away is simply cruel. I understand that the TC restrictions on training other priests to offer the TLM has placed an unreasonable burden on those who are celebrating it currently. This, again, is completely unnecessary. If I understand correctly, the restrictions of TC also make it difficult for the records kept by parishes regarding baptism, confirmation, marriage, etc., since only non-parishes are allowed to offer the TLM. This seems to have been part of the rationale for deciding not to declare any shrines or chapels for the TLM in the diocese, although perhaps I misunderstood. All of this seems to just be a way of suppressing the TLM for no good reason.

The most recent letter from the bishop of Knoxville displays either a complete lack of understanding of the differences between the two forms of the Mass or a breathtakingly condescending attitude toward those faithful who are attached to the TLM. To think that simply allowing ad orientem Latin Novus Ordo liturgies is an indistinguishable substitute for the TLM is simply ignorant. Since this is the assumed norm in the Novus Ordo liturgy according to the GIRM, the idea that it would have to be “allowed” seems disingenuous.

Every year since 2007, I have attended conferences where we have endeavored to make the Novus Ordo liturgy as beautiful and transcendent as the TLM through the use of Sacred Music, careful adherence to the rubrics on the altar, lovely vestments, etc.

It never quite makes it.

Certainly, using the traditional chants and following the actual rubrics are a huge improvement on the typical parish Novus Ordo liturgy, but it is clearly not an equal substitute.

In the Knoxville diocese, as was the case in Charlotte, the new bishop seems to have taken the harshest tack possible on implementing TC, without offering a good justification. Even though the allowance for shrines and chapels to offer the TLM could have been allowed, no provision for that has been made. While dioceses more friendly to the TLM have planned for this, creating new shrines and chapels and making at least some provision for a transition, in our diocese, there will be no TLM available at all after the end of the Church year in Chattanooga and the end of the calendar year in Knoxville and Johnson City. Those of us who have been watching to see what would happen locally after Francis’ motu proprio (TC) were fearing it would be more difficult to get to a TLM, if not every week, then at least fairly frequently. We never dreamed it would be this bad.

We, the faithful, strongly suspect our new bishop didn’t really try to get any more extensions from Rome on the allowance of the TLM for a longer period in order to make new provisions. Since no realistic plan for its continuance was made, of course there is no logical place to move the liturgy in place of the current parishes. It is as if the bishop simply let the clock run out and then said there is no solution that allows the continuance of the TLM. I understand the difficulty for the priests who have been offering the TLM up to this point. It seems the bishop is fully in agreement with the late Pope Francis that the TLM has no place in the modern Church and the TLM-attending faithful must choose to either obey or become schismatics outside the Church.

But because those who attend a TLM are such a small minority, it probably seems relatively low-risk to the diocese as a whole. Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with some of the “trads” who have misconceptions about the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments is troubling to pastors and bishops. Our pastor gave a few examples of this in his recent homily including a related story about people from the Traditional Mass that have requested that leftover consecrated hosts from the TLM be stored separately from the Novus Ordo Masses. He also mentioned the fact that his desire to modernize the TLM liturgy with sung vernacular readings was met with rigid disapproval from the faithful. Perhaps this was the type of reform those bishops at Vatican II were actually hoping for and expecting. It was, perhaps, a sad lost opportunity to keep the beauty while offering a reform of the old.

We will remain Catholic. We will attend Mass, despite any lack of beauty, holiness and tradition. We were stuck with this situation for 40 years before the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, wandering in a liturgical desert. We will pray for our bishops and priests and offer up these sufferings, remembering that others have it worse. We will make home sanctuaries, where priests who want to celebrate private Masses in the old form will be made welcome. We will tell our children what they have lost and hope it won’t be another 40 years before we have freedom to have this form of the Mass reinstated again.

But bishops are not bringing peace and unity by doing these things. This is a choice they are making to inflict pain on members of their own flock when they don't try to find alternatives to fully abolishing the TLM. They are bringing bitterness and resentment into the diocese, where it didn't exist before. We have been made to understand that we who love the TLM are not as important as inflicting their will on the liturgical form. Our bishop is quite willing to risk the fact that some will be tempted toward schism. For the vast majority of us, however, that would never be the choice.

We were joyful and appreciative of the generosity of our priests who took the (not inconsequential) time to learn to offer the TLM and prepare different homilies because of the difference in Mass readings on many weeks due to changes in the Church calendar between old and new.

If peace and unity are attained (the stated goal of this by bishops), it will be in spite of their actions. May we all find the grace to forgive them.

Please pray for our priests, who are struggling as we are with these trials. If you are in a place where the TLM is still allowed, rejoice in it and let your pastor know that you appreciate him! And, above all, realize that your Catholic brothers and sisters who attend the Novus Ordo liturgies may not be able to have the good fortune you do. We are all still members of the Church who hope to share eternal life with our Father in heaven.

The Revolution is So Over

Traditionis Custodes did not come as thunder out of a clear sky; rumors of a plan to restrict the use of the Roman Rite had been circulating for weeks before it actually dropped. But when it did drop, on a Friday at noon in Rome, the shabbiness of the whole affair was immediately evident to the entire world, not least because of the absence of a vacatio legis.

The bishop of the area where I was living at the time was far out of town, and unable to return on short notice that weekend, but I have it on absolutely certain authority that he immediately contacted his secretary to have him clear his schedule for the Sunday following. Come the day, His Excellency spoke at both of the traditional Masses in the main church where it is celebrated in his diocese, and said, “I have read this document, and I see nothing in it that applies in any way to this community.” He immediately issued all the necessary dispensations, and the traditional mass remains as it was in that diocese.

In the following months, the reactions of so many of the world’s bishops were so similar that, in the name of collegiality synodality, the Holy See had to do a special end run around canon law, and remove their ability to use canon 87 in this matter specifically. And from that day to this, the would-be defenders of TC have never been able to make up their minds as to why it was necessary. They tell us almost simultaneously that those who attend the traditional Roman Rite are a tiny fraction of the faithful, (the least of the brethren, as it were,) so their concerns and the pastoral care of them need not trouble anyone, least of all their shepherds. But at the same time, they also represent a grave threat to the unity of the Church.

Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith!

That first year, when NLM’s anniversary came around, instead of the usual “happy anniversary to us, and thank you, Shawn!” piece, I wrote an article called, “The Revolution is Over.” The basic point was that TC was a gesture rooted above all else in despair, the despair that overmasters the minds of all revolutionaries when their revolution has failed. Seeing that the rising generations are not interested in their revolution, they attempt to impose ideological conformity by force, because they can no longer do so by persuasion. When that happens, it is already too late, and the revolution is already over.

I have thus far seen no evidence that I was wrong about this, and I write this now because I have just seen a new and very interesting piece of evidence that I was right. The National Catholic Reporter, of all publications, ran an outstanding opinion piece two days ago by a Catholic YouTuber named Roxie Beckles, who uses the handle That Black Catholic Chick. Commenting on the crowds of young people who attended the Jubilee celebration in Rome this summer, she writes, “These young Catholics were not extremists obsessed with nostalgic throwbacks. They were the future of the church – standing tall, unashamed and deeply in love with Jesus Christ. This moment wasn’t orchestrated by branding experts or synodal surveys. It was the Holy Spirit moving through the hearts of a generation tired of being lied to by the world. A generation that’s not content with shallow answers and empty rituals. They want real doctrine. Real reverence. Real formation. Real holiness.”

Turning specifically to the topic of the Latin Mass, she then writes something which has been, of course, obvious to all those with eyes to see and ears to hear, but which is nevertheless always worth repeating. “…when we really listen to the hearts of young Catholics, we see that the desire for tradition is not about ideology, but identity. … Young people want a liturgy that reflects the weight and glory of what we profess. They want to hear sacred music that stirs the soul rather than mimic the culture outside the church walls. They want to see beauty. They want to be caught up in mystery.

To move forward as one body, we have to stop pretending that reverence belongs to the past when, in fact, it’s one of the only things still bringing young people in. The future of the Catholic Church depends not on reinvention, but on deepening. We don’t need to discard what’s still bearing fruit. We need to water it, tend it and let it flourish.”

Even the National Catholic Reporter recognizes that the ideological crusade of frustrated revolutionaries against the traditional Roman Rite is out of gas. This column is part of a series on “Views on the first U.S. pope”, and ends with Ms Beckles saying, “My hope is that this pontificate offers space for that to happen; that we won’t be asked to silence what gives life, but invited to share it freely and joyfully with the world.” That is our hope too. Oremus pro pontifice nostro Leone!

From Pax inter Spinas, the publishing house of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in Brignole, France.

The 20th Anniversary of the Death of Michael Davies

Today is the 20th anniversary of the death of Michael Davies, who is, I trust, well known to our readers, and especially in the English-speaking world, as one of the great defenders of the traditional Roman liturgy in the mad years immediately after the most recent ecumenical council. It is no exaggeration to describe as heroic the efforts which he made, both by writing and frequent lecturing, to expose how the liturgical reform betrayed that council. His most thorough and effective works in this regard are the three volumes published under the umbrella title The Liturgical Revolution: Cranmer’s Godly Order, Pope John’s Council and Pope Paul’s New Mass.

After 60 years of scholarly research and publication, it is now generally understood that most of the scholarly premises which underpin the reform were simply flat-out wrong. Indeed, this has become such a commonplace, at least among the more honest, that we have perhaps forgotten, (or perhaps the younger among us have never known), that in those mad years, men like Davies and Fr Bouyer who spoke against such errors were almost universally dismissed as cranks. (Fr Bouyer’s 20th anniversary, by the way, is less than a month away, on October 22.)

It may be instructive, and hopefully a worthy tribute to Mr Davies, to look back at this fascinating episode of the program Firing Line, broadcast on April 22, 1980. The occasion for this discussion between the host, William F. Buckley, Davies, and Fr (later Monsignor) Joseph Champlin, a priest of the Diocese of Syracuse, New York, was Pope St John Paul II’s “disciplinary” action against Fr Hans Küng; the previous December, the Pope had decreed that the University of Tübingen, where Küng was then teaching, could no longer refer to him as a “Catholic” theologian. The conversation quickly turns to a general discussion of the state of things in the Church, with much said about the liturgical reform.

Especially noteworthy is the exchange which begins at 18:30, in which Mr Davies refutes the canard, stated by Fr Champlin, that anciently the Church celebrated Mass “facing the people,” citing Fr Bouyer among others. Faced with the evidence, Fr Champlin has no response to make at all, and none has been found in the subsequent quarter of century either.

At the time, of course, the Novus Ordo was only 11 years old; in the United States, as in many other countries, the more outlandish sorts of liturgical experimentation and abuse were still very common, and the almost total prohibition on any celebration of the traditional Mass still very much in effect. De facto, if not de jure, this unjust prohibition was very often extended to any attempt to celebrate the reformed liturgy according to something resembling the mind of the Council. Buckley’s magazine National Review republished electronically an article which he wrote about the Latin Mass in 1967; almost two-and-a-half years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, a priest dared not celebrate in Latin the wedding Mass for a member of his family, for fear that the bishop find out. Whatever difficulties we face today in the quest to improve the Church’s liturgical life, we must never allow ourselves to forget that enormous strides have been made since those days, a fact which should be an encouragement to all, and a cause for tremendous gratitude. These labors have not been in vain.

A couple of other points of interest.

1. Buckley rightly points out in his introduction, “the practical effect (of the Pope’s actions) on Fr Küng is barely noticeable; he continues to teach theology...” Nevertheless, as Davies says later (12:27), the reaction among Küng’s supporters was ferocious, with the Anglican Church Times calling the Pope the “ayatollah of the West.” The viciousness of this language may perhaps be difficult for some of our younger readers to appreciate; at the time of this broadcast, 52 Americans were being held hostage in the American embassy in Tehran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government. (Archbishop Bugnini, then in his second career as nuncio in Iran, had just celebrated Easter Mass for them in the embassy two weeks before.) In his second memoir, published in 2008, Küng himself refers to this act of defamation in an approving quote from the American novelist and sociologist Fr Andrew Greeley; his chapter is titled Roma locuta, causa non finita, in a booked called, with no sense that the irony is deliberate, Disputed Truths. I will of course not be the first to note that pleas for civility and deference to Papal authority are a relatively new phenomenon among the more (can we say?) daring voices in the Church.

2. Davies also speaks (starting at 28:10) of a specific aspect of his work which affords a perfect example of the kind of dishonesty actively present in the reform which led Fr Bouyer to call Abp Bugnini (with classic French restraint) a man “as devoid of learning as he was of honesty.” It is a well-known fact that a group of six Protestant ministers were “consulted” by the Consilium ad exsequendam in the process of reforming the Mass. Bugnini would later claim in Notitiae that they only intervened once, and were merely observers; this led Davies to write to one of the six and ask to what degree they were involved, “and he said ‘Oh no, we played a very active part, and we were given all the documents same as the Catholic observers, every morning there was a discussion, a great free-for-all in which we put forward our opinions.’ That sort of thing has happened again and again.”

The Church of the New Liturgy and the New Ecclesiology (Part 2)

This it the second part of an article which our founding editor, Mr Shawn Tribe, has graciously shared with us from his site Liturgical Arts Journal, his translation of an article originally written in French by Abbé Grégoire Celier. It forms a very illuminating collection of citations from protagonists and proponents of the post-Conciliar reform, some well-known, some less well-known, which demonstrate why they believed that the reform required old church buildings to be modified, and new ones to be built differently. The first part was published last week. The first two photographs in this part were selected by Mr Tribe, the rest by myself. – NLM editor.

The Status Quo Ante Not Feasible

As the celebration according to the new liturgical norms depended on an architectural environment suited to it, it was not possible to leave things as they were. Indeed, Father [Joseph] Gélineau notes “the all too obvious difficulty encountered in trying to inscribe post-Vatican II liturgy in spaces and volumes designed for a very different type of liturgy” (Joseph Gélineau, Demain la liturgie, Cerf, 1976, p. 29).

But these liturgists would not give up: “It should also be emphasized that priests are invited to continue fitting their churches according to the requirements of the [new] liturgy. In particular, they are advised to place the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel separate from the main vessel of the church, and to give a new place to treasures of sacred art if they need to be removed from their present location.” (“L’instruction sur le culte eucharistique montre que la mise en œuvre de la réforme est fermement poursuivie”, Informations catholiques internationales 290, June 15 1967, p. 8).

It was therefore necessary to consider modifying the layout of churches, wherever necessary and possible, to adapt them to the new liturgy. It should be noted that, from the outset, some layouts were deemed more favourable than others. “A semicircular church, where everyone can see each other and feel connected, certainly allows for better implementation of the post-conciliar reform than an elongated nave built according to other aesthetic and religious canons” (Jean-Claude Crivelli, Des assemblées qui célèbrent : une pratique des signes du salut, Commission suisse de liturgie, 1980, p. 11). 

The Necessary Changes

But since this [semi-circular arrangement] was often not the case, they needed to think about “transforming the interior layout of churches throughout the world, with a view to renewing the celebration of the Eucharist” (Pierre Jounel, “Le missel de Paul VI”, La Maison Dieu 103, 3rd quarter 1970, p. 32). The altar had to face the people, an ambo had to be set up, the tabernacle had to be relocated, and the seating had to be changed. “This spirit pushes us even further: the choice of pews rather than chairs (to avoid the turning movements and noise they entail), the elimination of kneelers (the faithful remaining standing or seated during the liturgical action)” (Thierry Maertens and Robert Gantoy, La nouvelle célébration liturgique et ses implications, Publications de Saint-André-Biblica, 1965, p. 21).

In short, the general layout of the domus ecclesiae needed to be reconsidered. “The severe prescription with regard to minor altars [i.e., their removal] applies a fortiori to the many devotional objects that still so often dot the walls and columns of our churches: the Stations of the Cross, statues, indiscreet confessionals, etc. If they have a place in the interior of churches, they must be removed. If they have their place in chapels separated from the main space of the church, they disperse the assembly when the latter, in the Eucharist, is called upon to give a sign of unity” (Thierry Maertens and Robert Gantoy, La nouvelle célébration liturgique et ses implications, Publications de Saint-André-Biblica, 1965, p. 21).

“Churches, in fact, even when listed, are only secondarily museums. First and foremost, they fulfill a specific religious function. So it’s only natural that their layout and furnishings should meet the needs of the liturgy, and particularly the liturgy of the moment. However, the latter implies new ways of gathering; it requires truly transitory furniture; it leads to the abandonment of the use of certain liturgical objects; by grouping parishes together, it leaves churches unused. All this has important practical consequences, and it has to be recognized that old churches do not always lend themselves to the desired adaptations” (Philippe Boitel, ‘Une église peut-elle être un musée?’, Informations catholiques internationales 402, February 15 1972, p. 4).

“The reform requires new creations: the layout of churches, with the altar turned towards the faithful, the place where the Word of God is celebrated, the celebrant’s seat, the Blessed Sacrament chapel, a new conception of the confessional“ (“Interview with Cardinal Knox”, La Documentation catholique 1674, April 20, 1975, p. 368).

(photograph from Wikimedia Commons by Martin Geisler)

Modifications of Churches To Express a New Ecclesiology

“In modifying the rite, will the reform also involve a new conception of the structure of our churches? Yes, and in different ways. Firstly, by insisting on the communal meaning of the Mass as an assembly of the people of God, the reform requires that everyone be able to follow the rite taking place at the altar. On the one hand, therefore, it aims to eliminate all screens (columns, pillars, etc.) that prevent a clear view of the altar, something made possible today by the evolution of architectural techniques. On the other hand, it puts the altar back to the centre, not geometrically, but ideally, and prefers it to be decisively and rightly turned towards the people. In addition, by emphasizing the role of the congregation, the reform makes it necessary to find suitable locations for the celebrant, his ministers, readers, ambo, etc. For the same reason, it reduces the space required for the altar. For the same reason, it reduces the number of minor altars, which are detrimental to the unity of the congregation, and simplifies the ornaments that used to overwhelm the altar” (Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, ‘Nouvelle étape de la réforme liturgique : le pourquoi du comment’, Informations catholiques internationales 235, March 1, 1965, p. 26).

This need for architectural redesign should come as no surprise, for if the external form influences the content, the content must in turn react to the external form. “The post-conciliar Church is undergoing profound change, and it is only natural that the church-building should suffer the effects” (Philippe Boitel, ‘Quelles églises pour demain?’, Informations catholiques internationales 388, July 15 1971, p. 22). Indeed, “the liturgical reform imposes on many a new layout for places of worship” (“Dimanche et mission pastorale dans un monde paganisé”, Notes de pastorale liturgique 57, August 1965, p. 10).

“That [the renewal of the liturgy] should have an impact on places of worship, and that these should find themselves partially unsuited as a result of the evolution undergone within the liturgy, no one should be surprised. Insofar as sacred actions have been modified, insofar as the emphasis has been placed on a more total participation of the faithful, buildings built in other times and with a different outlook will also have to be adapted to suit their new purpose” (Guy Oury, ‘L’aménagement des églises - Un aspect du renouveau liturgique’, L’Ami du clergé 6, February 10 1966, p. 89).

Recent embellishments to the church of the Holy Name, the principal Jesuit church of Rome.

This whole new ecclesiological vision naturally expresses itself in this new structuring of the sacred space. “It is clear that liturgical reform cannot be limited to a few changes in the content of the texts read by ministers, or in the gestures of the celebrants (...) It transforms the relationship between the celebrant and the faithful. It distributes the respective functions of the celebrant, the ministers, the schola and the people in a way that is new to us, yet profoundly traditional. It follows that it calls for an arrangement of the places of celebration that is quite different from what it has been until now” (Commission épiscopale de liturgie, ‘Le renouveau liturgique et la disposition des églises’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 58, October 1965, p. 41, or La liturgie, Documents conciliaires V, Centurion, 1966, p. 201).

The Resulting New Arrangements

“[The] construction and layout of churches today can be carried out in the light of a much more complete and elaborate conception of liturgical space” (Frédéric Debuyst, “Quelques réflexions au sujet de la construction d’espaces liturgiques”, Communautés et Liturgies 4, September 1981, p. 285).

Father Roguet, a shrewd judge, had discerned early on the inevitable result of this particular manifestation of the renewal. “Certain reforms, which had seemed to concern only arrangements of texts and rites, will inevitably modify certain accessories of our churches and even some of their architectural structures” (A.M. Roguet, ‘Le signe du vin’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 66, February 1967, p. 43). This is what everyone would come to understand a little later. “The liturgical reform aims with all its might at the full and active participation of all the people. For this to be possible, an appropriate architecture is needed. (...) Liturgical renewal and the way in which the Church situates itself in the world call for a new type of architecture” (F. Agnus, ‘Architecture et renouveau liturgique’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 76, October 1968, p. 46).

New Church Constructions: Transitory and Provisionary

“The monumental and definitive character of what we build does not lend itself well to the present mobility, noticeable in the Church itself: the problems, often insoluble, posed by the adaptation of old churches to current needs, if only to the new forms of liturgical celebration, are likely to arise, in five or ten years' time, for the churches we have just built (...) In the present conditions, it would seem normal to conceive this meeting place, in the image of the community’s activities, as a multifunctional place, usable for purposes other than liturgical ceremonies alone. A domus ecclesiae, for example, could be set on one or two floors of a large building, and would include, in addition to a few small rooms (one of which could be converted into an oratory for private prayer and visits to the Blessed Sacrament) and the offices of the permanent staff, a large room that could be fitted out for various uses (conferences, meetings, parties, receptions, liturgy, etc.) using truly mobile furniture” (Pierre Antoine, ‘L’église est-elle un lieu sacré?’, Études, March 1967, pp. 442-444).

For “it is clear that today we must abandon the more or less pagan and triumphalist concept of the temple, where elements of monumentality and sacred space predominate, in favour of the Christian concept of the assembly, where values of humility, interiority and personalizing relationships predominate. Churches would then once again become house-churches rather than sanctuaries of the Most High” (Dieudonné Dufrasne, ‘Contribution à une spiritualité du samedi saint’, Paroisse et Liturgie 2, March-April 1972, p. 115).

“We must sound a warning. Today’s liturgy is in a melting pot; we cannot say what the forms of worship will be in the future. For this reason, we cannot plan churches solely on the basis of today's conception of liturgy, without running the risk of seeing them outdated by the time they are completed. As the liturgical movement advances, new ideas about worship are born (...). In the final analysis, religious buildings must be modern buildings for modern man” (J. G. Davies, ‘La tendance de l’architecture moderne et l’appréciation des édifices religieux’, in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, p. 94, 95 and 99). “This assumes that a religious building is, by vocation, unfinished: not so much perfectible as evolving, available, at least to a certain extent. (...) Should we not be prepared for unforeseeable changes and redesigns within the probable lifespan of our buildings?” (Denis Aubert, ‘De l’église à tout faire à la maison d’église - Expériences à Taizé’ in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, p. 110 and 112).

Constant change in the cathedral of Berlin, Germany: the original interior, photographed in 1886.

The interior as remodeled after World War 2.

A proposed further wreckovation.

The Church Called to Constant Change

Indeed, “if the Constitution [on the liturgy] is observed in letter and spirit, the liturgy will no longer risk becoming fixed and immobilized. Like a tree that has strong roots and whose sap is nourishing, it will bear on branches that live and spread, new flowers and new fruits” (Msgr. H. Jenny, ‘Introduction’ in La liturgie, Centurion, 1966, p. 41).

Cardinal Lercaro, then president of the Consilium was also moving in this same direction in his message to the artists’ symposium held in Cologne on February 28, 1968. “Without a doubt,” he said, “one thing is quite clear: the architectural structures of churches must change as rapidly as people’s living conditions and homes are changing today. Even when building a place of worship, we need to bear in mind the extremely transitory nature of these material structures, whose entire function is one of service to humankind. In this way, we can prevent future generations from being conditioned by churches that we consider avant-garde today, but which they risk seeing as nothing more than outdated edifices. Today, for our part, we experience this conditioning: we feel the difficulty with which the marvellous churches of the past adapt to our religious sensibility, and the force of inertia with which they oppose the indispensable reforms of liturgical action (...). ) So let us not pretend to build churches for centuries to come, but be content to make modest, functional churches that suit our needs and before which our sons feel free to rethink new ones, abandon them or modify them as their time and religious sensibility suggest”  (Giacomo Lercaro, ‘Message to the artists’ symposium held in Cologne on February 28, 1968, La Maison Dieu 97, 1st trim. 1969, pp. 16-17, or in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, pp. 25-26).

This reflection by its president corresponded perfectly with the aims of the Consilium and its secretary, Msgr. [Annibale] Bugnini, as evidenced by the two texts of its official review, on which we shall conclude. “The work of liturgical reform is not finished and, in the spirit of the Council, must never end. The liturgy, like the Church in its human aspect, is inevitably subject to continual reform, born of ecclesial life, so that the Church is truly adapted to the present time, to today’s culture and to the historical moment” (Anschaire J. Chupungco, “Costituzione conciliare sulla sacra liturgia. 15th anniversario”, Notitiæ 149, December 1978, p. 580): ‘Liturgical reform will continue without limit of time, space, initiative and person, modality and rite, so that the liturgy may remain alive for people of all times and generations’ (“Rinnovamento nell’ordine”, Notitiæ 61, February 1971, p. 52). ?