A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

 

This is a post that has been coming for quite a while. I have mulled over it, slowly editing and transcribing and cleaning up for publication what I have found. The events blogged earlier this week have caused me to look again at it. I have made the decision to publish what follows. 

It is to document an occurrence forty years ago and to provide a historical record of certain activities at St. Augustine's Seminary in the Archdiocese of Toronto and the corruption of the times, the power and influence from the 1980's that is still felt today. One of the priests named is retired, yet, as recently as a few months ago, remained on the Archdiocesan Priests Council. This is not an accusation of anything untoward on the part of the new Archbishop, Francis Leo, Indeed, this history may be news even to him and if this provides any service to him, then that alone is worth its publication. The Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto must be made aware of things that happened forty years ago and that have been long forgotten or covered up and still affect the Church today. 

Let me raise some points without names of scandals that happened here.

• A certain highly placed cleric, a Monsignor, in the chancery, fathered at least two children whilst in his high clerical office of Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs and Vicar General. What became of the mother?
• A priest professor at St. Augustine's Seminary raped and sodomized a young seminarian so badly that he was taken away by ambulance to stitch him up. Years before, the Cardinal at the time, Ambrozic, was told to get rid of him, to which he responded. "I have nobody else to teach liturgy." That injured seminarian was later ordained in the United States where he remains in a religious order. He was ordained by a Toronto Auxiliary Bishop. Odd, no? Police were not called. Charges were not laid.
• That same priest professor in a former post as a religious order prior was a pastor in a Mississauga (west of Toronto) parish and could very well be responsible for at least two other priests he may have "groomed." One of these is an openly homosexual man who left the priesthood, played the piano as a lounge singer, married and resided with a woman and now, with a man, and another, whose theology was so-warped at the time, he was, as you will read at the bottom and connect matters with, the James Martin of his day.
• A certain "hunk" of a Monsignor with the same Irish surname as the then Toronto Police Chief was frequently brought home to the Rosedale mansion of Cardinal Carter, "daddy," drunk and in drag.   
• Another priest professor at the seminary was known to fondle young men and was found coming out of the St. Charles Tavern on Toronto's Yonge Street and bragging about it. 
• Several deaths of priests and professors  from AIDS

Anne Roche Muggeridge refers in the page above to a document called, "A Dialogue of Trust." It was written by the then Rector who was fired for it and more, sent away to Washington to study at Catholic University and then returned to the Archdiocese of Toronto and served at a senior level in the chancery structure as the Judicial Vicar. He kept the keys to the vault on matters such as lawsuits, assaults and abuse. As referred to earlier, as of a few months ago, he still remained on the priests' council.

These crimes and abuses happened in the age before the internet and search engines. The money of the Archdiocese silenced who it had to and forced non-disclosure agreements upon them. Stories abound about car accidents and bicycle accident deaths, one in particular of a prominent priest, but none can be proven. Everyone knows something but nobody can link anything. As for the letter referred to by Anne Roche Muggeridge, nobody had a copy. "A Dialogue of Trust" was never written, it didn't exist, nobody had it, and it was not published. Until now.

The Body Politic was a "gay" newspaper published monthly and founded in 1971 until it ceased publication in 1987. It was located on Yonge Street not far from that same St. Charles Tavern. After intensive searching and through nothing that could be described as anything less than serendipity, "A Dialogue of Trust" was found. It had been published in The Body Politic as part of a larger article on the attempt by Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter to "hide his gay purge" of St. Augustine's Seminary. It makes one ask, if not for the intrepid reporters at The Globe and Mail back then, certainly not on the side of the Church or Seminary, what would have happened? Would we have ever known? If all of those events above occurred under the administration of Cardinals Carter and Ambrozic how much worse would it have been without the reporting. It seems that after Cardinal Carter's "purge," only two seminarians left. What of the others? How many went on after 1983 to be ordained and were men who had or may have continued to act out their same-sex desires and attractions ordained and what has it meant for the Church in Toronto?

What follows was transcribed from a microfiche copy by the writer. Bear in mind, that it was written for an audience sympathetic to the cause.

Toronto’s archbishop tries to hide his gay purge, but the story gets out

Cardinal slams the closet door

Tensions over the apparent presence of gay students in a seminary in Metropolitan Toronto have escalated, with the help of Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, into an anti-homosexual witch-hunt which has led to the dismissal of three faculty members and the expulsion of two students. 

Some details of the purge at St Augustine's Seminary in Scarborough, the preeminent school for the training of Roman Catholic priests in English-speaking Canada, were made public in two reports published by The Globe and Mail on September 7 and 8. The stories said that the Rev Brian Clough, St Augustine's rector, and the Rev Thomas Dailey, dean of studies, had been dismissed the first week of June and that the Rev John Tulk, a professor of church history, had been fired early in September. 

Globe reporters Stanley Oziewicz and Peter Moon uncovered the following facts: 

• Carter, the archbishop of Toronto, ordered the dismissals after an investigation of the seminary conducted at his request by the Most Rev Marcel Gervais, auxiliary bishop of London, Ontario; 

• Carter asked Gervais to investigate after coming into possession of a document about "tensions" between gay and straight seminarians that was distributed to St Augustine's sisters, students and faculty by Clough; 

• The tensions had arisen from allegations of homosexual behaviour at a party held in Tulk's rooms at the seminary. 

Beyond these few facts, little has been revealed about the origins of the dispute. Although he had reported the June dismissals when they occurred, Oziewicz first learned some of the details several weeks later from an anonymous letter. In their September stories, Oziewicz and Moon wrote: "Sources, including members of the faculty and student body at the seminary, members of religious orders and laymen, agreed to talk for this article provided they were not identified. Many feared for their future careers if their names were used...." TBP's own investigation has encountered similar fears. Most of those interviewed said they feared retaliation by Cardinal Carter. A priest told TBP: "The diocese is actively trying to find out who gave that information to The Globe and Mail." A member of a religious order commented: "He (Carter) doesn't show any sensitivity toward people, so they're afraid to speak out." When told TOP had been able to learn much of the story and would publish it, the member added, "It will do a lot of good because it shows how they really operate." 

In addition to those quoted, TBP's account of the tensions leading to the dismissals and expulsions has been gathered from a well-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous, and from documents which have come into our possession. Brian Clough could not be reached for comment. A copy of this article was sent to Margaret Long, Assistant to the Director of Communications of the Archdiocese of Toronto, for comment, but she did not return any of TBP's calls.

Cardinal Carter: a secret operation against creeping Protestantism and homosexuality

The presence of suspected gay students in the seminary apparently first became an issue during the 1982/83 seminary year when some first-year students complained about the campy behaviour of some other students. The issue was taken up by an informal group of about a dozen conservative seminarians who were united by their dissatisfaction with the faculty's generally liberal interpretation of Catholic theology. They came to be known as "the machos." Defenders of those accused were dubbed "the effeminates," the group to which the two students who were expelled belonged. Most students belonged to neither. (According to Oziewicz and Moon, Gervais found that between six and 12 of the approximately 50 students were "homosexually oriented." Our source suggests that even Gervais's upper figure may be much too low.) 

Gossip and paranoia flourished. Dennis Hayes, a seminarian who says he belonged to neither group, explained: "When you group a number of people you have a fishbowl type of effect; when people start talking, these things spread.. an innocent comment can turn into a vicious attack." 

In March 1983 several students were criticized in their written year-end evaluation by faculty for their "feminine mannerisms." 

A month later, the authors of an annual letter from students to faculty complained that the faculty was tolerating a "vigilante group" that was harassing suspected gay students. The letter also said that criticism of some students for their mannerisms had exacerbated the situation.

By September it appeared that the letter had had some effect: at the week-long retreat which starts the school year, most of the faculty who spoke of the matter called for tolerance of differences in the seminary. 

But the complaints continued. Charles Lewis, a former RCMP employee said to be in the "macho group" — an allegation which he did not deny — told TBP he himself had lodged a complaint about sexual activity in the seminary: "guys doing things they shouldn't be doing." But he admitted he hadn't witnessed such activity himself. On the other side, rumours flew that "the machos" were searching

Toronto's gay bars for seminarians.

TBP has found no evidence to support this allegation. 

Tensions between the two factions became so acute that, in the late fall, Clough held separate meetings with members of the two groups and with unaligned students in an attempt to cool the dispute.

But after a party held in Tulk's rooms following a joint religious service with Anglican seminarians on January 26 of this year, events started to spiral out of control. Although Gervais later was to find that nothing amiss had occurred at the party, rumours circulated of drunkenness and homosexual activity. 

In a speech delivered to St Augustine's seminarians at a special house meeting six days later, Clough criticized "the rumour mill" and appealed for an end to gossip about the party. On February 8 he met again with members of the factions and other students, this time in a joint meeting. 

Then, on March 19, a three-page letter, "A Dialogue in Trust," apparently written by someone who had been at the February meeting, was distributed on Clough's authority to the seminary's students, faculty and sisters. 

Compassion and the Cardinal 

The Archbishop of Toronto knows how to pick friends, and if you're not one of them. . . . 

"CARDINAL CARTER AIDS DAVIS: No Solidarnosc for T.T.C. Workers" — that was the heading on a leaflet twitting Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, archbishop of Toronto, for backing strikes in Poland while opposing a threatened transit strike at home that would have cut into attendance at, and profits from, the recent papal tour. 

Carter, a close friend of John Paul II, was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council, which reformed the Catholic Church. Yet, his critics say, Carter is more zealous for the letter of the reforms than for their spirit. Last year, when the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops issued an economic report that blamed the profit motive for widespread poverty and unemployment, Carter disavowed the document, siding with the outraged bankers and industrialists. And early this year he authored a pastoral letter which condemned attempts to elaborate a Catholic theology that would allow birth control, abortion and the ordination of women.

Carter's record on gay issues is not completely black. He once wrote a report on police/minority relations which devoted a few lines of criticism to homophobic verbal abuse. But he has also barred the local chapter of Dignity, the gay Catholic organization, from the use of a church for their meetings and has told homophobic jokes to an audience of police officers. The fear and silence surrounding the purge at St Augustine's Seminary point not just to the man's power, but to the way he exercises it. "Insensitive" is the word which most often comes to the lips of his critics. But Carter may have inadvertently illuminated the issue when he dismissed Thomas Dailey. According to the press reports, he told the priest, "You are much too compassionate." Perhaps it is not others, who are too compassionate, but the Cardinal who is not compassionate enough. Although unsigned, the names of Clough and three students appeared at the bottom of the letter. A notable feature of this letter is its twice-stated concern that news of the tensions within the seminary might get beyond its walls. The fearful reference to "having 'outsiders' resolve those issues for us" appears to have been an allusion to Cardinal Carter.

"A Dialogue in Trust" proved to be the means of betrayal: within a few days, a copy had been conveyed to Carter. And by the second week of April, Gervais had begun his investigation into theological and sexual deviation at St Augustine's.

In the purge of St Augustine's, a harmonious constellation of authoritarianism, sectarianism and homophobia can be seen at work. Since the Second Vatican Council, part of the Catholic clergy and laity have been moving away from both the church's traditional insistence on authority as the source of truth and the concomitant paranoia about Protestant theologies. The council suggested that truth is not absolute, that a changing world can pose new questions and demand new answers.

St Augustine's Seminary has been influenced by this new current in Catholicism and has exposed its students to the interaction of social activism and feminism with traditional teachings. As one of the eight theological colleges that jointly make up the Toronto School of Theology, an ecumenical project, the seminary has encouraged an open-minded comparison of Protestant and Catholic beliefs.

But as the new Catholicism has developed, so has the conviction among some Catholics that the revolt against authority and the flirtation with Protestantism — often the same thing to their eyes — have gone too far. It is common knowledge in the Diocese of Toronto that Cardinal Carter and other conservatives are less than fond of St Augustine's, where the now thin trickle of future priests — the seminary's approximately 50 students rattle about in a building that could hold 200 — are thought to be in danger of contamination by rebellion and creeping Protestantism. Once Carter had indisputable evidence that the place of homosexuals in the priesthood was, however informally and tentatively, being explored at the seminary, he struck.

The purge was carried out in a secrecy induced by fear: everyone who knew, even the victims, was too intimidated to speak out. To this day, Carter refuses to say why the firings occurred. Gervais's report remains a secret.

According to the Globe, although Clough, Tulk and the tenured Dailey were instructors at the Toronto School of Theology, the Cardinal ordered them to resign without any explanation to the school. Carter told TST officials that any protest from them over his neglect of due process could result in the withdrawal of St Augustine's from the joint project.

Some of the homophobia was blatant. Gervais is reported to have asked students about homosexual activity, but not about heterosexual activity. And he told faculty they should not admit gay students to the seminary. When the teachers protested that there is nothing in the rules about the sexual orientation of priests, he backed off slightly but still insisted that a gay seminarian would have to have been chaste for five years before admission. Apparently, he made no such stipulation for heterosexual applicants.

But to speak of discrimination is merely to scratch the surface; the homophobia here is deeper and subtler than that.

A trust betrayed The confidential dialogue that didn’t stay confidential

What follows is the complete, unedited text of ' 'A Dialogue in Trust, ' ' the letter circulated by St . Augustine's Seminary Rector Brian Clough to students and faculty on March 19, of this year. (1983)

The following are reflections on discussions that occurred during the past year in regard to issues and tensions that were present in the house. These discussions were alluded to in Fr. Clough's address to the house in February. Initially, Fr. Clough met with three distinct groups composed of second, third, and fourth-year students. These groups represented different viewpoints on tensions that were growing within the first few months of the seminary year. The three distinct meetings allowed students to articulate their perceptions of what was occurring within and between emerging factions. These meetings were completed by the end of the first term. A collective meeting of the three groups took place a week after Fr. Clough's February address.

The purpose of the collective meeting was to provide a forum for dialogue and for the definition of issues that each group perceived. A second issue was to receive feedback on Fr. Cough's February intervention in regard to the house social with Trinity College. It was hoped that the meeting would be an initial step toward resolution of various problems. The meeting began with an attempt to identify what the problems were. The general consensus was that there was misunderstanding of viewpoints, attitudes, and behaviors. This was characteristic of all, not of a certain few. It was recognised that many of us did not know each other well enough and were unsure about positions held, which generated unease and, perhaps, a little suspicion. Within an institution there will be a broad range of personalities and attitudes. Such a situation can all too easily lead to conflict, which itself produces intolerance and insensitivity. It was felt that we were categorizing each other as to lifestyle and orientation. It should be noted that in Fr. Clough's February address there was mention made of a general nosiness of other's business and a consequent breakdown in trust. The problem, then, was one of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity that led to insensitivity and intolerance. Discussion ensued with each group expressing its feelings on the problem. It was felt that each group was given a free and equal opportunity to express their views. As the discussion progressed, it became evident that group boundaries were breaking down and that each was expressing his views as an individual, rather than as a representative of a group.

It became clear that the issue would be lost if the discussion were limited to the surface problem: that is, a tension between those perceived to be "macho" and those perceived to be "effeminate". It was agreed that such exclusive terms are damaging and denigrating. It is all too easy to categorize someone because he acts differently. The issue was then not how to limit those who act differently, but how to come to know the other with greater appreciation and understanding of his uniqueness.

 Five main points were made during the discussion:

 1: to equate homosexuality with effeminate behavior is false. A person's sexual orientation should not become a preoccupation for others. The issue is not one of homosexuality or heterosexuality within or outside the seminary, but one of sensitivity to others who may be different than ourselves.

 2: it is important to be sensitive to the effect that our behavior has on others and the possible effects or perceptions that can result from the cumulative effect of group behavior in a particular situation.

3: it should be recognized that feelings of being threatened by another's uniqueness have their source within ourselves and must be resolved within ourselves. The problem should not be 'how can I change the other', but 'how can I come to terms with myself so that I can appreciate the other more'.

4: out of an ignorance of another's pain can come a desire to avoid that individual because he is different. Thus the challenge must be recognized: to confront someone with a problem is harder than not dealing with him. 

5: the seminary community has a right to resolve its own issues without having them communicated outside the house or having "outsiders" resolve those issues for us. 

The immediate results of the meeting were generally positive. It was felt that dialogue which occurred within the context of the meeting could be transferred to a less formal setting. Much misunderstanding was identified and corrected. It may be correct to say that tolerance was learned and that out of that learning came a greater appreciation and comfort with others who were different than ourselves: that is, a tolerance that was embedded in charity and mutual respect. With the reduction of tension through the expression of difficulties came a more relaxed atmosphere in the house. An important result was that the "silent majority" spoke-up and took an active part in the discussions. It was agreed that the meeting was an initial step to the resolution of the issue. Though the issue was not totally resolved, the meeting provided an opportunity to dialogue in trust. 

The less immediate results were just as important. The meetings that occurred this year served as a first step to dialogue that can and will hopefully occur in years to come. It was recognized that there will always be problems in institutional living and that these problems should be addressed. Thus, the path was opened to future dialogue. It was suggested that the services of professionals, such as Sister Dickson, be employed in addressing issues such as sexuality, spirituality, tolerance, etc. It has been suggested that an opportunity be provided for year groups to reflect on the year with their representatives to the extended faculty meetings. It was also suggested that new students precede returning students at the start of the year by a day or two in order to better prepare them for seminary life and to ease the process of assimilation. In all, these discussions came out of an experience of grace; an experience that was felt by the whole seminary community. The meeting of the collective closed with the hope and the positive anticipation of greater interpersonal communication and friendship 

19 MARCH 1984 

M. CENERINI

FR. B. CLOUGH 

J. MURPHY

D. REILANDER 

This document has been distributed to the sisters, faculty, and students of St. Augustine's Seminary. Its purpose is specifically for the members of the house, i.e. the document is confidential to members of the house. This is why the document has not been posted on the bulletin board.

END 

Single-sex institutions in the world. 

Homosexual activity is inevitable; that a certain fraction of its members will be gay is inevitable. Yet it remains a great unspoken concern. Mary Malone, a St Augustine's faculty member, says: "The presence of gay students among seminarians is not new. Until recently, we pretended it wasn't there." 

The St Augustine's purge was directed not so much against gay seminarians as against those, gay or straight, students or faculty, who dared to break the silence — to push or pull open the closet doors just a crack. The purge would be a warning to those still in the closet to stay there. That's perhaps why only two students were asked to leave the seminary, although Gervais estimated that there were as many as 12 "homosexually inclined" students there. That could be the meaning of Carter's explanation to reporters of Clough's dismissal: "To talk about it is one thing, but to put it in print (in "A Dialogue of Trust") is a problem." 

Malone describes Clough and Tulk as "honest, compassionate men." "Their integrity," she says, "helped something come into the open that others would have preferred to keep secret." Clough, Dailey and Tulk are gone from St Augustine's, but those responsible failed in their goal. The secret is now out in the open.

The Rector referred to above, Father Brian Clough, after being fired for the scandal went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. This article is from the Globe and Mail on May 8, 1976. As of a few months ago, Clough was still on the Priest's Council.

LifeSiteNews - Fr. Thomas Rosica accused of sexual assault, loses priestly faculties!

 Fr. Thomas Rosica accused of sexual assault, loses priestly faculties: report - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

Yours truly quoted:

To the priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto

To the priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto,

I know some of you, some better than others, and some of you are personal friends with my wife and me. We have written, spoken, and dined in restaurants or in our home. We share much and we share the sorrow for the state of the Church here in Toronto and universally.

To the rest of you, I have something to say.

How was it, even after the plagiarism scandal, that you invited Thomas J. Rosica to speak in your parish? How was it that you gave him a voice in rehabilitation? Don't talk to me about "mercy." Where was the mercy for those who were subjected to his errors? You knew of all of this and you stayed silent. You knew what he was doing and others of this ilk. 

Why are you so fearful? What does he have on you? What does the system have on you?

Where is your courage to out this filth? 

I have known about this current matter since 2015. I have known more in the last few months. Have you seen it posted here? Have you seen me betray the confidence? 

You know what to do.

voxcantoris@rogers.com

THOMAS J. ROSICA SUED IN ONTARIO COURT FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT ON TORONTO PRIEST!

On June 29, I wrote a short blog post that a certain Toronto priest which multiple sources confirmed had his faculties removed. I can report now, that priest was Thomas J. Rosica, CSB. I was unable to report what I also knew at the time, that a Toronto priest working under Rosica on World Youth Day, 2002 was sexually assaulted by the Basilian priest. The assaults began in the late 1990's. The suit filed in the Ontario court and which is now public information states that the relationship. “allowed Rosica an opportunity to be alone with the Plaintiff and to exert total control over him, prey upon him and sexually abuse him." further, it states that Rosica repeatedly "groped and fondled" the sexual organs of the young priest. This was known to the writer nearly a decade ago after the attempted frivolous and vexatious lawsuit against me. However, at the time, I was sworn to secrecy and unable to report it or reveal my source.  

The lawsuit also goes after the Congregation of St. Basil for not properly supervising Rosica. As someone who himself was physically abused and battered by Basilian priests at the age of 13 and took it to the Congregation directly 40 years later, and as someone unjustly sued by Rosica, I can assure you that the Basilian Congregation is as much at fault and derelict in their duty to God and to His faithful. The suit further states that “The Basilians knew or ought to have known that Rosica had engaged in deviant behaviour and failed to investigate such. In failing to investigate and identify any past failings of Rosica, they also failed to identify any victims who may have been in need of counseling, assistance and support because of the actions of Rosica." Yes, the Basilians knew, they all knew and they all covered it up! 

Rosica, of course, denies the allegations just as he denied he was a serial plagiarist which this writer first exposed in 2015. In response to the Court, Rosica claims that he “infrequent ministerial contact with the Plaintiff between 1996 and 2002, but denies sexually abusing or sexually assaulting or making unwanted physical contact or engaging in any improper conduct with the Plaintiff.”

Rosica asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that the process is governed by Canon Law.  Rosica did not choose the path of the Church or Scripture in his desire to sue this writer but rather chose Ontario's court system. The hypocrisy is there for all to see. 

In June 2024, Tom Rosica was witnessed coming out of a Toronto gay bathhouse. 

Justice comes. One just needs to be patient. All things come to those that wait.

"When a future pope reverses these restrictions"

The passing of Father Leo Rampsperger - over 100 years old

We mark the passing of Father Leo Rampsperger, peacefully, at Humber River Hospital, Toronto, on Friday, August 2, 2024, at the age of 100 - an ordained priest for 70 years. His funeral was held yesterday in Toronto in the church of his baptism, St. Vincent de Paul. The parish is administered by the Toronto Oratory of St. Philip Neri and was a solemn Requiem according to the traditional rite, at his request. Every year, Father would send a donation to the parish of his baptism. May he rest in peace.

Feast of the Transfiguration of the LORD - O Nata Lux by Thomas Tallis

Dear Canadian Bishops,

Have any of you made any public comments about the blasphemy at the opening ceremonies of the Paris Olympics?

I'd be happy to post them. 

Sincerely,

Vox Cantoris

The Last Supper

 

The collective guilt of the assassination attempt on President Donald J. Trump

Trump defiant in assassination attempt.

St. Michael got there in the nick of time. Praise God!

Viganò excommunicated!

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has been excommunicated due to the crime of schism. It is a sad day for him and the Church. Others who abuse women and boys and steal and defraud and bless the sin of sodomy and teach heresy are only "sinners" and are excused.

Viganò is wrong. Bergoglio is the Pope. The priests of the Diocese of Rome recognize Bergoglio as their bishop, therefore, he is the Bishop of Rome, and thus, the Pope of the Catholic Church. That's it, friends. Simple as that.

If he is a heretic he cannot be judged in any process that would remove him. That's the Law. If he is a heretic, he has lost the grace of office, but that doesn't mean he does not have the power and there is no mechanism to remove him.

"The boss is not always right, but he's always the boss." Ergo, the problem.

Sedevacantists, pope-splainers and ultra-montanists have caused this. All of them have elevated the pope to a god and believe that he farts frankincense, it smells nice and we are to enjoy it and that kissing his feet is some kind of reverence to God.

The First and Second Vatican Councils have done this. In the case of the First, it has been abused against what was actually intended, to tie the hands of a pope and infallibility to faith and morals; and, in the case of the Second, abused because of a vague thing called the "spirit" that refuses to be slain.

A future Pope and Council must fix all of this. It may very well make a declaration on Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his actions and they may, including the excommunication of Viganò, be declared anathema.

Until then, friends, we are stuck with the boss who is not always right but remains the boss for good or ill.

No Faculties?

Multiple sources, I repeat, multiple, indicate a certain priest in Toronto has had his faculties removed. 

Rosica`s Tweet from 2015 reveals a Twit!

 With a tip of the hat to Barona!

Rosica is a sad tragic figure. Rosica has some serious questions to answer before God one day.  He sold himself for a big income at Pepper + Darkness which nobody watches, not then or now, and notoriety with all the wrong people like Carlo Martini, James Martin, Steven Colbert, Katie Curic and more. I had direct dealings with him and his blatant dishonesty in 2015. The former papal advisor is a tragic figure as are those who assisted him in trying to destroy a Catholic family man and blogger for outing him for his statements and plagiarism. 

Nota Bene: Not plagiarised but paraphrased from Thomas J. Rosica. 

Viganò did not go to Rome!

From Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to LifeSiteNews -- "'I, therefore, wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday, and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or document in my defence to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize,"

Quaeritur:

What if he is right?  

Some thoughts on the current news

The air in the Church is oppressive as this current heat wave (called weather) throughout eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Here in Toronto, we have the recent rather uncomfortable situation for Thomas Rosica, allegedly being found in a homosexual bathhouse with its special activities from dark rooms to sl--p ramps and more. Fitting that this should allegedly occur in June with its upside-down proclamations. 

It has been a while since I've blogged to any extent. Life is busy and I think most of us are weary. I don't earn an income from this and the time it takes to write daily is outside my current power. Comments are down and I write that not to bemoan that nobody is commenting but as an observation because comments are down everywhere on Catholic blogs. I remember when Father Z's blog would have 30, 50 or more comments but even there, they are few. People are tired, worn and weary of all the bad news. We seem to be hunkering down waiting for the next evil act to fall upon us. 

It is important at this time to "Keep Calm and Carry On!" as the meme goes. At the link below to Father Z he has a clip from Bridge of Spies. "The Boss is not always right, but he's always the Boss!" After being questioned about never worrying, he asks, "Would it help?" On my own part, I've said to people over the last few days, "I am trying to keep my peace." It is not always easy. Of course, you know that to which I refer. 

My wife and I drive two hours each Sunday to Mass, I've done this since 2011 and she shortly after that and since our marriage in 2013. After the church's reopened after the demonic lockdowns we were down to 40 people or so from about 80. On Corpus Christi Sunday we had 231, and choir directors always count from above. It was our largest congregation to date and wonderful. I am blessed that there are now 12 in our choir. This Sunday we will sing Palestrina's Sicut Cervus and Sitivit Anima Mea in honour of baptism and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist and the wonderful Ut Queant Laxis office hymn.   

I've read much of what is out there. I am aghast that a heretical professor of liturgy should be so ignorant, so wrong and so valued to affect how my family chooses to worship God. It is a scandal. I refer you to a response to that diatribe by Dom Alcuin Reid.

RORATE CÆLI: EXCLUSIVE: Dom Alcuin Reid’s Response to Prof. Grillo’s Interview (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com)

I also refer you to this advice by Father John Zuhlsdorf.

ASK FATHER: Attacks on the Vetus Ordo… “Aren’t you worried?” | Fr. Z's Blog (wdtprs.com)

Then, of course, we have the summoning of Archbishop Vigano to Rome to a trial. He may have gone too far but he is not totally wrong and Rome is clearly not in the right. Where is mercy? As a good friend of mine often reminds me, "They apply the law to their enemies and interpret it for their friends."  Remember, nearly two months ago, Archbishop Vigano made statements that he has witnesses that state that Bergoglio did things in Argentina comparable to those of Mr. McCarrick, the aging pervert in America. 

As for me, I will try to keep my peace. I will continue on safe in the knowledge that whatever is coming is temporary. The psalmist says, "May his days be shortened and another is bishopric take." No matter what these Roman rats think, they will be confounded. When people fear Francis II, I ask rhetorically, "How did a College of Cardinals appointed by John Paul II give us Benedict XVI and added to by Benedict XVI give us Francis?" One would assume we would have had a different Pope, one closer to the previous two. Yet, we did not. It was clear that they did not head the Holy Spirit. I remember Mahoney bragging on Twittter about "no more red shoes." and that the "pen was moving on its own." That should tell us all what motivated Mahoney. When Francis came out on the loggia, I had chills, I had the urge to vomit. Except for the help of St. Anthony in finding my palm pilot, wallet and wedding ring, someday I should write those stories, I've never been sensitive or given to spiritual premonitions or such. It was clear to me that this was a warning of what was to come. I write this to make it clear that we don't know who the next pope will be. I pray he comes soon and that he will lead the Church through those two pillars of St. John Bosco. Even though the majority of the College of Cardinals has been appointed by Pope Bergoglio there is no certainty that they will elect another like him. Africa will not follow, in fact, it will lead. When you wonder why certain Cardinals remain quiet or measured, it is because they will be stripped of their red hats and not be at the next Conclave. They must be there. Patience. Many Cardinals will have had enough. Not the Tagle's or Cardinal Kiss my Face or the Marxist Americans but they are not all of them. It will be a donnybrook and I expect they will bring forth a healer. I do not discount that many of them may not even be there. I think of the Fatima prophecy and the possibility that a terrorist strike at St. Peter's will wipe out many of them. We are in perilous times. God will fix this, but it won't be pretty. 

I know that if this one abolishes that which we hold dear, a power he really does not possess to do, he will be confounded for it. Judged. Sentenced. Imagine the harm and hurt and pain done to me, my wife, you, all those home-schooled children in my community and yours who desire nothing except to worship God as our ancestors did. Who are these Roman rats to prevent that? Who do they think they are? Papal primacy and infallibility (yes, we know its' limits) ultramontanism are all great when we have a good pope, not so much when we have one such as this.

As much as sedevacantism is a heresy. so is hyperpapalism. Francis is pope because the priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as bishop and the Bishop of Rome is the Pope of the Catholic Church. See how simple that is? He has not lost the papacy, he may have lost the grace of office. He is Pope but that does not mean he is the "Holy" Father. I actually detest that phrase. There is no "holy" pope, there are no "holy" priests. The story below declares that. Only God is holy, only His Saints in Heaven are Holy. We Catholics are guilty of papolatry, we prove Jack Chick right, frequently. It needs to change. The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God, not the dictator. I will not kiss his feet. The only feet I kiss belong to my wife. The Orthodox, the first and most important ecumenical need, want nothing to do with us. They understand really "synodality" and it is not Rome's.

This was longer than I intended. May God protect us. May he preserve us. May he keep us faithful to Him and guard our worship. May he confound our enemies and may their days all be shortened and others, their bishoprics take. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy upon us. 

HAS THOMAS J. ROSICA ABANDONED PROVIDENCE HOUSE BED PANS FOR A BATH HOUSE?

Thomas J. Rosica, Basilian priest, former Executive Producer of Pepper and Darkness TV, also known as Salt + Light and former Vatican communications officer appointed by Pope Francis himself has been found, according to Lifesite news by a “credible” and on-the-record source, allegedly coming out of a Toronto homosexual bathhouse.

At this time, Rosica denies his presence there. My sources at LifeSiteNews say they’re sticking with their story.

By the way, Shane, Vox Cantoris was the first to out the serial plagiarist. 

EXCLUSIVE: Eyewitness claims Fr. Thomas Rosica spent 2 hours in homosexual bathhouse - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

 

Booger just deleted this post from 2015.

They referred to "violence against children."

Yes, we know. 

That is what abortion is.

Former Toronto SSPX priest sentenced to prison

Look at that punchable face. I remember it. Rostand was a priest at Transfiguration of Our Lord SSPX chapel in Toronto sometime before 2010. I attended there for a few months assisting in the choir between appointments. He was a creep. Aloof. Arrogant. Immature. I had no idea he was a pervert but it all fits. 

One year is hardly enough for this filthy degenerate. The scandal on the children and youths, the Society, the Church and the priesthood is scarcely satisfied.

Europe's courts are no better than our own.

Enjoy the millstone you stinking cesspool!

Former US SSPX district superior sentenced to 1-year in prison for molesting multiple underage boys - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

"The former U.S. district superior for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was sentenced to one year in a French jail after admitting in April to having molested seven underage boys between 2002 and 2018 in France, Spain and Switzerland.

 French outlets reported that a criminal court in Gap sentenced Father Arnaud Rostand, 58, to 12 months in prison with deferred incarceration. He is also required to undergo four years of “socio-juridical” monitoring and psychiatric treatment, as well as provide compensation for his victims."

“There is already too much frociaggine”

Oh my.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

“C’è già troppa ‘frociaggine’”. Papa Francesco invita così i vescovi italiani a non ammettere seminaristi gay - la Repubblica

Pope Francis Accused of Using Homophobic Slur | TIME

What would Jim Martin say?

Father John Hunwicke, Go in peace, good Father, to God in our prayers and remembrances

The "last post" if you will. 

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Was Gueranger a Great Liturgist? (liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com)

May he rest in peace.

What a voice! What a teacher!

Fr. John Hunwicke - Medieval Liturgy and Society (youtube.com)

Thanks to the Tom “Rosica Effect” it will be 11,000,000 today!

Hi Tom,

I know you still read this in between cleaning bedpans at Presentation  House. Gosh, it was 600,000 after ten years. You did this. Thanks so much. 

Have a nice day. 

And to all of you who visit, thank you.

In honour of the great work of Tommy Rosica in promoting this blog, please give to Andrew at GiveSendGo, above.

Will Toronto's "Vegan priest" push his ideology on the people at Guardian Angels in Brampton? Will he be welcomed with a pig roast?

The annual priest transfer is underway for the Archdiocese of Toronto. It is larger than it has been in several years, certainly since the No Mass For You period of Tom Collins.

In early 2021, the Catholic Register, owned by the Archdiocese of Toronto, featured the pastor of St. Ambrose in south Etobicoke who declared that our God is a vegan god Animal welfare and the Church (catholicregister.org):

“I remember in the beginning I was a little bit more urgent (with preaching about transitioning to plant-based living) because I was kind of going through it,” he said. “I understand it kind of takes (small) steps with certain people and obviously people have been open to it as well. If you’re always talking about it, I think there are people that don’t want to hear it all the time unfortunately. It’s a delicate matter at times because you are dealing with people’s palette.”

How much did this priest preach of Jesus Christ?

Good luck to him as he takes up his new role at Guardian Angels in Brampton, a parish where Filipinos and Africans dominate. I am sure they will welcome him with a parking lot pig roast.

Vox Cantoris: Food for thought! Toronto pastor preaches "veganism" from pulpit - says we have a: "Vegan-god!"

Palestrina - Sicut cervus | The Marian Consort

It's been one year now. Can you help?

Hello Friends,

As you can see above, I have been raising funds for a friend, Andrew Rivera, for a year.

Easter Sunday was April 9, 2023. I had seen Andrew at the Holy Saturday vigil. A few days after Easter 2023 Andrew faced a great health crisis. Currently, $42,322 has been raised towards a $50,000.00 goal. Andrew is facing more surgery due to nerve damage as a result of the coma and stroke. The issue is now more profound regarding a return to work. Andrew will need to retrain and seek a new career and that is not even in the immediate future.

I am reaching out once again. If you have given already, I thank you profoundly, as does Andrew. If you can, I ask you to do so again and if you have not, or this is new to you, please consider this worthy cause. 

Please click above on the picture of Andrew and his son.

God bless you all.  

David Anthony Domet

This Joyful Eastertide - King's College Cambridge.

Three gregorian chants and Passion for Good Friday

Tenebrae Factae Sunt - Good Friday Gregorian Chant Matins

Christus Factus Est by Felice Anerio, Gradual for Holy Thursday

Nos autem - Introit for Holy Thursday, Gregorian chant

Nos Autem Gloriari - Introit for Holy Thursday by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina

The Holy Week Liturgies - what we've lost, what we need to restore

Originally published on March 29, 2015

We begin today with the beautiful solemn celebrations of Holy Week. Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ enters today the Holy City on a donkey to the glad shouts of "Hosanna" which in a few days would turn into "Crucify Him!"

Oh, how our liturgical masters have betrayed Him and us.

It is not enough to see the impoverishment of the Holy Week liturgies in the new liturgy as structured, but in most places, as celebrated.

If you want a vernacular Ordinary Form liturgy did you have a full procession with Gregorian chant antiphons? Will Holy Thursday include the antiphons during the "optional" Washing of the Feet (of men only "viri selecti," notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's personal dispensation of the need to follow the Law)? Will Good Friday include the sung Reproaches? Was it really necessary for the foot washing rite to be inserted in Mass?

Yet, not even the traditional liturgy has been left alone to be celebrated in its majestic history and biblical symbolism. In 1955 a liturgist named Annibale Bugnini convinced a tired and ill holy Pope to make unprecedented changes to the Holy Week rites. For the first time, there would be prayers facing the people and an insertion of a para-liturgy within the Holy Mass. The change of hours was positive so that the faithful could attend, pray, worship and benefit from these venerable rites. Changing the hours would have meant removing Vespers from the Holy Saturday Mass and replacing it with Lauds of Easter Sunday which was done regardless.

The rest was and remains an impoverishment. To imagine that the ancient office of Matins now called the Office of Readings with its three nocturnes and twelve prophesies was jettisoned from the Vigil for an illogical four is still regretted every Holy Saturday by anyone who has examined the two or chants these glorious rituals to commemorate our Blessed Lord's passion, death and resurrection.

Gregory DiPippo at the New Liturgical Movement wrote a copyrighted Compendium of the 1955 Holy Week Revisions of Pius XII. They are worth studying and are linked below.

Part 1:       The Palm Sunday Blessing and the Procession of Palms

Part 2:      The Masses of Palm Sunday, Holy Tuesday and Spy Wednesday

Part 3:      The Mass of Holy Thursday and the Mandatum

Part 4.1:   Mass of the Presanctified, Good Friday, Mass of the Catechumens and the Solemn Prayers

Part 4.2:  Good Friday, The Adoration of the Cross and the Rite of the Presanctified

Part 5:     Tenebrae and the Divine Office of the Triduum

Part 6.1:  Holy Saturday and the Blessing of the New Fire, Procession, Exultet, Prophesies

Part 6.2: Holy Saturday and the Blessing of the Font, Litany of the Saints, Mass and Vespers

Part 7:    The Vigil of Pentecost and the Readings from Sacred Scripture in Holy Week

Part 8:    The Hours of the Celebration of the Holy Week Liturgies

Part 9:    The Reform of the 1955 and Post-Conciliar Holy Week

The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956

Rorate Caeli first presented the following translation of Fr. Stefano Carusi's work on the reform of Holy Week under Pope Pius XII five years ago. As our readership has grown dramatically over that time we are compelled to bring it back and share with new readers. This translation is the work of Fr. Charles W. Johnson, a U.S. military chaplain, and one of the first priests in the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html

http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP14_Part1_HolyWeekReformFinal.pdf

http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP14_Part2_HolyWeekLiturgiesFinal.pdf

 THE "RESTORED" HOLY WEEK

Msgr Léon Gromier, Papal Master of Ceremonies of Pius XII

a conference given in Paris in July 1960 (original in French)

Translated by Fr Anthony Chadwick

Reprinted below from this link: http://civitas-dei.eu/gromier.htm

The links below are presented for academic and research purposes and are not an endorsement of Father Cekada's position on the papacy being vacant. Vox.

: QUIDLIBET :

http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/05/holy-week-palm-sunday-old-vs-1955-rite/

http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/07/the-office-of-tenebrae-old-vs-5562-rite/

http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/08/maundy-thursday-old-vs-5562-rite/

http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/09/good-friday-old-vs-5562-rite/

http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/10/bugninis-51-easter-vigil-first-step-to-the-novus-ordo/

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/03/31/short-critique-of-article-regarding-the-restored-order-of-holy-week/

THE "RESTORED" HOLY WEEK 

Msgr Léon Gromier, Papal Master of Ceremonies of Pius XII 

a conference given in Paris in July 1960 (original in French) 

Translated by Fr Anthony Chadwick

Referring page

Translator's note: Msgr Gromier uses the term pastoral in the substantive, or pastorals in the plural, meaning a person with pastoral ideals. In the context of this conference, the term denotes someone who wishes to modify the liturgy on a pastoral pretext. One may also speak of pastoralism, the notion according to which the liturgy is absolutely irrelevant to modern man and must therefore be reformed. It is a fact that a rite extremely similar to the Novus Ordo was already being discussed and marketed in 1948, the very year Bugnini was appointed to the Congregation of Rites. We can conclude that the reforms of Pius XII and John XXIII are a part of the Novus Ordo. Msgr Gromier immediately saw through the charade.

The "restored" Holy Week was to begin with a question of timetable. It was a question of restoring the use of the Paschal Vigil, based on the pastoral dogma of the Resurrection at precisely midnight. This dogma is not easily defended, for why insist on this when evening Masses, in practice, admit celebration at any time of the day or night, even after the singing of Vespers, when Conventual Mass is celebrated indifferently after Terce, Sext or None? Another problem, the rules of worship are governed not only by the movement of the earth, but also by the discipline of fasting that has been considerably slackened. It results from this that the restored edifice looks like a house of cards. Pastoral zeal extends from Saturday, the culminating point, to the whole Week from Palm Sunday.

The progressive anticipation of the three last days, then their relegation to the original evening opens for us a debate. The introductory general decree affirms that, towards the end of the Middle Ages, the above mentioned solemnities had been anticipated in the morning. Now, the bull of St Pius V, Ad cuius notitiam, of 29th March 1566, therefore 113 years after the end of the Middle Ages, prohibited what was still done, by permission or custom, in cathedral, collegial, conventual and other churches - to celebrate, the evening or towards the time of sunset, Holy Saturday and other solemnities. The goal is obvious: the Church's pastoral office must restore, repair damage; the more they were serious, the more the restoration would be welcome; God alone knows if the restoration to be done, before any other, was not to abolish the bull of St Pius V leaving to Bishops the longed-for freedom, to choose the most advantageous afternoon time for the offices of Holy Week: also allowing, for those who desired it, to make their communion; something that had been abolished for fear that the fast was not kept during the hours of the afternoon - when the celebrant was still fasting.

Its terminology deserves attention; for an apologist maintains us in ignorance. Up to now we knew the Passion Sunday, Palm Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week, Maundy Thursday In Cæna Domini in Latin, Good Friday In Parasceve in Latin and Holy Saturday. Since we want to amplify the solemnity of the Procession of the Palms, why place this Sunday under the dependence of the Passion, instead of leaving its old name of Palm Sunday, that everyone understands, and that deceives no-one? If Holy Saturday is so-called, Good Friday can be called in just the same way [Vendredi Saint in French], by all the Christians of the world. We have called it in Parasceve (Preparation) for nearly two thousand years; the name alone shows the antiquity of this rite. So, why replace it by Passion and Death of the Lord; a useless renaming, non-traditional, unknown in the Canon of the Mass? In ecclesiastical style, passion means suffering until death inclusively. If the substantive death was so necessary, common sense would demand that it should be added to the word passion in the title of the Gospel: Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, now called history of the Passion.

The occasion presents itself to examine the juridical capacities of the pastorals. It is not enough to speak about a thing to create it. Office in choro means a liturgical place where ecclesiastics act according to liturgical rules. Office in communi designates neither a place nor a person. It is a group of people reunited without any mandate, without legal entity and who has the pleasure of saying the private Office collectively. The Breviary distinguishes in choro and extra chorum, there is no third term.

To omit Vespers of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday - that is the height of the arbitrary, above all when the reason is given: Mass takes the place of Vespers, taking first place! Now, between Mass and Vespers, there is no rivality: Vespers enjoy equal dignity with other liturgical services. According to times and places, Vespers have disappeared after the Mass of Holy Saturday, as after the Masses of Thursday and Friday. They were never intended to be abolished. The hour fixed by the pastorals fully agrees with the historical fact - fasting until Vespers, preceded by Mass and communion. Vespers of Holy Saturday are in the afternoon, before the nocturnal Mass - but there is no reason to abolish Vespers of Thursday and Friday, after the Mass that is nocturnal by definition. Holy Saturday without Compline is inexplicable. Maundy Thursday and Good Friday with Compline and without Vespers defy reason, for even if we go to bed late, we still go to bed and need to say our prayers.

To qualify the Procession of Palms, the Good Friday service and the Paschal Vigil, the pastorals use the adjective solemn, whilst they do not for all the rest. Now, the solemnity of liturgical services is not an optional decoration; it is of the nature of the service - resulting from all these constitutive elements, not only from some of them. All the manuals explain which functions are solemn or not solemn. Outside of this, so-called solemnity is not an amplifying enticement, to impress and score the goal. It informs us that, by a recent habit, we made a prodigious use of the word solemn even for necessarily or intrinsically solemn acts. We use words, believing we can put more solemnity into the Procession of Palms than into that of Candlemas (Purification), more solemnity into the Procession of Maundy Thursday than that of Good Friday (abolished as we shall see). Always on the same slippery slope, we learn that the Passion of Good Friday is sung solemnly, as if it could be sung in another fashion.

Worthy of admiration and power, pastorals manifest themselves by the abolition of the sad and unfortunate canon 1252 §4, on the fasting of Holy Saturday.

On this day, it is said that, under the symbol of the Paschal Candle, representation is made of our Redeemer, light of the world, who by the grace of His light, chased away the darkness of our sins, etc. This was surrounded by a measure of mystery, without risk for teaching. Now, one insists on crossing all our t's, causing no small incertitude. The various times and places gives us a kaleidoscope of rites, where we have to discern what they have in common. Like in primitive times, fire produces - whether hidden in a place where it is conserved, lit by rays of the sun and a magnifying glass or by a flint - a means of light for the Paschal night. This is the Paschal Candle, accompanied by the proclamation of the Paschal Mystery. The simultaneous and historical presence of two paschal candles does not go at all well with the thesis of the pastorals. The lighting of the Candle is the act of first necessity against darkness, and must evoke the living Christ - but excessively anticipates the announcement of the Resurrection. The amplification the Candle receives from the pastorals makes it resemble an end more than a means. Formerly incensed after its blessing, and even consecrated according to some authors, to-day simply blessed, the Paschal Candle becomes an object that occupies a place between a cross, a gospel book and a relic. All this will become clearer when we get to the day of Holy Saturday.

oOo

During the whole Holy Week, all the texts sung by the deacon, sub-deacon or singers are omitted by the celebrant, who has not to read them. It is of little importance how the celebrants sing (often badly), if they get themselves heard and understood through their loud-speakers. People must listen. What a victory! They revel in this as a return to antiquity, a pledge for the future, a foretaste of reforms to come. This can be of interest to faithful accustomed to using a book, who - with their faces buried in their missals - are isolated from the community, sic! Distinction is made between reading with the eyes or with the lips. It is not admissible, they say, to read with the lips something that someone else is singing. But, reading with the eye can be defended; it has a respectable age, began by necessity, continues by utility, is esteemed; it is part of the pontifical assistance of the Pope and the Bishop.

To forget nothing, we are told that the altar of repose of Maundy Thursday has a solemn character - something the Missal has never said, better written than certain rubrics. These express two prescriptions and one prohibition: the clergy holds lighted candles, to begin with during the singing of the Exsultet, then during a dialogue between the celebrant and the faithful before Mass. It is forbidden to hold the palms during the singing of the Passion. Overall, they pretend to create two obligations for two novelties; they abolish an ancient practice, that finds its explanation explication in Saint Augustine (homily at matins of Saturday before Palm Sunday) : "The leaves of palms are praises meaning victory; for the Lord was at the point of conquering death by dying, and triumphing over the devil by the trophy of His cross".

The vigil of Pentecost is stripped of its baptismal character, and has become a day like any other, and makes the Missal tell a lie in the canon. This vigil was an annoying neighbour, a formidable rival! Instructed posterity will certainly be more severe than is opinion in regard to the pastorals.

Whether we like it or not, the communion of the clergy, desired at the Mass of Maundy Thursday, will always be in conflict with permissions given to celebrate Mass in private.

The pastorals call on Christ the King to give a strong meaning to their solemn procession of Palms; as if this was needed to perfect a situation to which the author of the Gloria, laus et honor wrote sufficiently, but not in the new fashion. Certain modifications of tradition, so well-known, are just as dishonest as they are daring.

The sprinkling of holy water is a paschal rite that is done every Sunday. Palm Sunday is no less a Sunday than any other. When Candlemas [ed. Feast of the Purification] falls on a Sunday, it does not impede the Asperges me. This has never involved sprinkling water onto a table placed somewhere with palms or other objects on it. It is a matter of sprinkling the altar, the clergy, the church and the faithful. Except for the Bishop, unless impossible, the proper place for blessings - as for consecrations - is the altar, or yet within a short distance, the credence table for example.

For centuries, the consecration of the oils is done at the altar, before it was done on a table as to-day, and not in conspectu populi. What have the pastorals to show the people here, those who have stripped the blessing of palms to the bone? A collect, sign of the cross, sprinkling of holy water and incensing; an uninteresting show. Those who abolish the Sunday Asperges, a real liturgical mistake, willingly admit that the celebrant should wander around the church to sprinkle the palms held by the faithful, then makes the same journey to incense them.

A pastoral, professor of a Swiss seminary, announced one day that red is the colour of triumph. He should have been answered by saying: you are very much mistaken, whilst white is the colour of Easter, Ascension, Corpus-Christi. But no, as soon as it is said, it is done; the colour of Palm Sunday will be red, violet remaining for Mass. Not everyone thinks like the professor. The Roman Rite has used violet since it appeared. The Parisian rite, et the uses of so many dioceses, used black until the middle of the 19th century. A few rites used red, for the blessing of Palms and Mass. Some insisted on mourning, others on the bloody sacrifice. Each kept the same colour: no-one had the idea of changing it. The whole office of Palm Sunday is a mixture of triumphal and passion hymns. From Matins to Vespers inclusive, including Mass, we find that the number of passion hymns goes beyond that of triumphal pieces. When these two things are thus mixed, no separation should be brought to bear. The Swiss professor thought he could take example from the reasonable change of colour for Candlemas; but its pastiche is a mere imitation of the modern feast of Christ the King.

The distribution of the Palms, as we read, is done according to custom. Whatever the pastorals think, there are rules to observe before custom. As the celebrant, if he is not the only priest, received the ashes and his candle at the hands of the highest cleric, he is to receive his palm in the same way. If he does not receive it, he will be without his palm at the procession. About this, rubricists have asked whether the pastorals wanted the celebrant not to carry a palm at the procession, because he would have represented Christ who did not carry one. Logically, the hypothesis would have the celebrant on the back of a donkey. Happily, the pastorals stopped there, allowing him to carry a palm.

The pastorals, who reduced the blessing of palms to its simplest expression, did not pass up the chance of extending the distribution, given the superabundance of chants intended for this action. Whilst the length of the blessing seems enormous, this added plethora seems not to satisfy needs.

The subdeacon normally carries the processional cross, each time the celebrant does not need him, carrying the Blessed Sacrament or for the Baptismal Font. An additional subdeacon for carrying the cross is necessary only when the subdeacon has something else to do, as above.

For two weeks, the altar cross remains veiled. Even veiled, it is incensed and revered by genuflection or profound bow. It is forbidden to unveil it for any reason. On the other hand, the processional cross - unlike the altar cross - is carried unveiled at the procession; from departure to return. Two crosses are seen, one veiled and the other unveiled. What do we gather from this?

The disorder augments from the end of the procession. Going before an important personality, accompanying him to the closed doors of the town, stopping to compliment and acclaim him, finally opening the doors with great pomp in his honour - all this has always been one of the greatest possible forms of homage; but it is not good enough for the creative genius of the pastorals.

We can only qualify as vandalism the fact of tearing the Gloria, laus et honor away from its place at the church door, to mix it up with the baggage of processional music that has nearly tripled in length. Stinginess and waste of time go hand in hand. Therefore, no stopping in front of the door, closed then open; the processional cross unveiled to magnify it, it is cheapened by refusing it the virtue of opening the door. All that despite ancient and modern ceremonial, and for what good? The pastoral rubrics make much ado of the expression, nothing impedes, nihil impedit quominus. Here they are used to unleash the faithful who can sing the hymn Christus vincit or something else in honour of Christ the King. This tolerance has naturally its consequences; the faithful make pawns of the clergy, they have a whole choice of chants à la carte. If they are for Christ the King, they like to sing to his Mother who is Queen. So many desires and eminently pastoral wishes.

The Roman rubric said: when the procession enters the church, Ingrediente Domino is sung; the pastoral rubric says: when the procession enters the church, when the celebrant goes through the door, Ingrediente Domino is sung. The door is ignored during the return from the procession - now we watch for the celebrant coming through the door, who seems to be identified with Christ entering Jerusalem.

Between the procession and Mass, they give us a final and recapitulary collect, with defectuous modalities; the celebrant has no need to go up to the altar, above all turning his back to it, just to sing a collect and come back down just after. Have we ever seen that apres Rogation processions? Finally, holding the book in front of the celebrant is proper to the deacon and subdeacon, not to a simple cleric.

Previously, we called the singing of the Gospel Passion the Passion, and the Gospel at the end of the sung Passion was sung in the usual manner of the Gospel. To-day, both parts put together are called the history of the Passion, or yet the Gospel of the Passion and death. Such pastoral progress is worth it! Folded chasubles are one of the oldest characteristics of the Roman Rite; they go back to the time when all the clergy wore chasubles, and were the expression of austere penance. Their abolition makes nonsense of the painting in the Catacombs - an immense loss and an outrage to history. The pastorals simply say the folded chasubles are not easy to find. To the contrary, violet chasubles are found everywhere - and can be folded - whilst violet dalmatics are not as widespread [ed. Violet dalmatics are used during the time of Septuagesima before the beginning of Lent]. It has always been allowed to serve in alb.

oOo

The pastorals like cutting something off the beginning or end of Mass. Their being cut off, apart from the few moments of time saved, are insignificant. What is more important is that they are used as "spring boards" for more important reforms. Thus, neither the psalm Judica me nor the confession are said before the Palm Sunday and Holy Saturday Masses, because some other ceremony takes place. The same goes for the Masses of Candlemas, Ash Wednesday, weddings, funerals and Masses preceded by Communion. On Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday, the undesirable Last Gospel is omitted; perfect, but in the name of what principle? On Maundy Thursday, the Blessing is omitted, because the ceremony is not finished - the same goes for Corpus-Christi and any Mass followed by a procession of the Blessed Sacrament.

When the usage of three extra deacons singing the Passion is introduced, in the form of a lesson rather than that of a Gospel, the end of the Passion is reserved for singing in Gospel form by the celebrant's deacon - to avoid falling into the absurdity of the deacon not singing the Gospel. The three deacons begin and finish the Passion without ceremony, as for lessons; only the deacon does the habitual ceremonies for the Gospel. This was logical, coming from the Papal Chapel. Thus the deacon is eclipsed by the three of the Passion. He then recites the Munda cor meum and received the blessing before singing the Gospel, incensing of the book, kissing of the book and incensing of the celebrant. These three gestures succumb to the pastoral mentality; for the Passion is no longer the Gospel but only a history, history of the Passion. Lacking the Gospel, there is no Gospel book. Consequently, the book of history is not incensed or kissed - what is not kissed is not incensed.

To continue, the passion-gospel books are carried around in any old fashion; they are mentioned only on Good Friday. The pastorals have forgotten how to carry a Gospel book; why there must be three acolytes accompanying it instead of two, that the deacon kneeling to say Munda cor meum has not to bow. They repeat again and again that the passion-gospel is sung or read. Their rubrics are written to make us think that we can read at a sung office and sing in a read office as we like. Half the office can be read and the other half sung, mixing both. This is one of the scourges of the liturgy, as is the vernacular language. This is not new, and was recently encouraged [by Pius XII] in sung ordinations where the ordaining bishop interrupts the singing of the preface to say the essential words. It seems that singing harms the required attention!

The Passion according to the four Evangelists included the institution of the Eucharist, for it introduces the Gospel and takes its place in the Mass. The pastorals, in a hurry when they want, think differently - abolishing the institution of the Eucharist narrative. This is consequently excluded from the liturgy in the Roman Church, without doubt to give a better instruction to the faithful.

The omission of the Psalm Miserere at the end of the Hours relieves the poor clergy and unhappy faithful. This psalm could remain only after Lauds and Vespers or only in choir, or even optional. The pastorals would benefit by reading what Cardinal Wiseman, first Archbishop of Westminster, said about the singing of this psalm at the Office of Tenebræ in the Papal Chapel.

oOo

The Missa Chrismatis, a Pontifical Mass celebrated with 26 priests in chasuble remind us of concelebration, celebrated without any relation with fasting, in which is it forbidden to give Communion, forms a curious problem that is difficult to solve. Its proper preface, in the ferial tone, is found among other curiosities.

In the Roman Rite, the use of the stole is limited by rules; no-one can wear it without a reason. It is put on at the required moment, not before and not after. It is a sacred vestment, and has nothing to do with choir dress, either for individuals or the body of the clergy. Priests have no more the right to wear the stole during Mass where they will communicate than during an ordination Mass where they will impose hands. Saying the contrary, the pastorals abuse their unmerited latitude.

At the Maundy Thursday Mass, the celebrant solemnly begins the Gloria in excelsis. How would he do it differently? Here we find a transposition, perhaps not of great importance, but at least of great pastoral significance. Until now, after the singing of the Good Friday Passion, the liturgy allowed a sermon on the Passion. We had compassion for Christ who died on the Cross, before adoring both. Now, there is no longer any question of this, and it is no longer mentioned. On the other hand, after the Maundy Thursday Gospel, a homily is strongly recommended for us to marvel at Christ washing feet.

Ancient documents show that Mass was never the place or the time for the Mandatum. The washing of the feet was separated from Mass, generally followed by a clergy get-together. The king or emperor participated in the Mandatum, not at Mass. The Cæremoniale Episcoporum situates the Mandatum in a suitable place, in the chapter house or in church, but not in choir. The Missal specifies no place, supposing neither the choir nor the altar. From the moment of the reconciliation of penitents being done in the nave, common sense could not admit laymen into choir. The pastorals want the Mandatum within Mass, only tolerating it out of Mass. They hardly notice that we can wash the feet of clerics - real or considered as such.

A remark is necessary about the distribution of roles. The deacon and subdeacon are charged with introducing the twelve chosen men (no longer thirteen) into the choir, then to lead them back to their previous places. This job is that of a verger or sacristan. It expresses very well the pastoral mentality impregnated with a populist attitude, unfavourable to the clergy. There was a time when each candidate for having his feet washed was carried by force by worthy men before the sitting Pope to have his feet washed. The pastorals, not daring to push "fraternal charity" to this point, are content to use the deacon and subdeacon for introducing lay candidates into choir, then to lead them back afterwards. Some miss the ancient usage mentioned, for not only sport but also the social and pastoral activity of the clergy would have drawn benefit.

We find a big obstacle without any possible dissimulation. By decree of 4th December 1952 the Holy Congregation of Rites censured the incongruity of the fact that the Bishop puts on his shoes and takes them off in the church. Following this, it forbids such a use of liturgical shoes. This had always to be done outside the church, despite the former rules in force. This decree is excessively disputable, for it is based on ambiguity, attributing things that have never been said to the Cæremoniale Episcoporum. Let us not discuss them and be content with forbidding them. The Bishop, outside Mass, receives his shoes and buskins on legs and feet that are not bare, since they are covered with socks. These shoes are sacred vestments, just as much as the mitre and gloves, blessed, received with the episcopate, accompanied by a prayer and reverence. This practice has existed for centuries. On the other hand, 12 men in choir, during Mass, take their shoes off, strip their right feet bare, and put their shoes back on before going back to their places. In summary, twelve bare feet are less incongruous than the two of the Bishop with his shoes on, without counting other differences.

The concern for eliminating the word pax from the Maundy Thursday Mass, since the kiss of peace is not given, extends to a collect, to the Confiteor, etc., to the kissing of the Bishop's hand, to the Ite missa est, the blessing and the Last Gospel. But we do not know if they tolerate other kisses, of the hand and the object; for they could not proscribe them as mechanically. The knowledge of the pastorals is still at the point of confusing the kissing of the hand and the kissing of the ring.

The sparing of the Confiteor at Communion of Maundy Thursday, an exchange that takes the unnoticed Confiteor said in private by the celebrant at the beginning of Mass, so that it takes the place of a collective Confiteor, sung by the deacon before Communion, is, we can say, far-fetched. The subtlety of bartering does not suffice to hide the enormous difference between the two uses of the Confiteor. Too much finesse can be harmful.

Setting out on the procession to the altar of repose and the return give patent proof of the ceremonial dexterity of the pastorals. At the beginning, the celebrant takes the ciborium helped by the deacon, and clumsily; arriving he puts it down with or without the deacon's help, and just as badly. The reforms require from those who do it to be trained, and many are not. From Palm Sunday, we know nothing about the processional cross or the altar. Are they bare or veiled, and in which colour? No-one knows anything.

oOo

The Good Friday service takes the form of Mass in its main lines. This service received its early inspiration from the Orientals. The Mass of the Presanctified took its rightful place, above all if we observe that the Roman Rite had the "dry mass" for many centuries. Despite all, a cry of alarm broke out among the pastorals - it was the death warrant. The alarm was given by a Belgian Benedictine abbot crying out: "The Good Friday ceremony has taken on terrible appearances of a Mass". No more was needed by the pastorals. With an effort worthy of a better goal, they have fulfilled this programme: get rid of the fundamentally Roman elements, adopt foreign elements, restore inferior and obsolete Roman elements, exclude everything that can in any way remind us of a Mass. On this point, their fixed idea was to sing the refrain Delenda est Carthago. The Mass of the Presanctified succumbed under misunderstanding, victim of a kabbal. The liturgical dictionary, in the Migne edition, said in 1844: "The Roman Rite seems to us, as for the adoration of the cross, more grave and edifying than the rite of various dioceses of France". Advice to the pastorals for their entire construction, become a simple exercise of piety, under the name of "Singular and solemn liturgical action for the passion of death of the Lord", an action which, despite its qualification, gives no nobility to its subject.

The Roman Pontifical teaches us that we do not greet a new altar before having placed its cross. The altar itself is not the object of veneration, but the cross that dominates it, and to which all prayers are addressed. There was a time when the cross and candles were brought to the altar on entering the sanctuary, and they were carried away after Mass. This leaving the altar always uncovered is not permitted to-day. This is why I address the pastorals: "On Palm Sunday, you have uncovered the processional cross by pretext of emphasising it. On Good Friday when it is covered, you take the cross from the altar, send it to the sacristy and then have it brought back. How do you explain such a contradiction?" No creative or organisational genius here! We finally note that the cross on the altar brings to mind a Mass.

The pastorals divide the solemn action into four sub-titled parts, of which the second and third are solemn, but not the first and fourth. These doses are just as intelligent and admirable as their authors.

Chasubles - no question of them; they smack of the Mass. Then the poor celebrant has to be happy to be in an alb, as in a country church, despite the ultra-proclaimed solemnity - a contradiction the Roman Rite spared him.

The altar without a cross, if it is worthy of being kissed, has no right to a bow or genuflection, and even less to be prayed to - for an altar is not invoked. In the Roman Rite, when we kneel or make a double genuflection, or a bow, the bow must be slight and not profound. This ancient rule has been confirmed about a half century ago. It is scary to see the liturgy caught between two powers mutually ignoring each other.

The pastorals enrich Good Friday with an introductory collect and three concluding prayers. They abolish with one hand and lengthen with the other. They fall between two stools and are caught in their own net. The celebrant sings the introductory collect at the foot of the altar, for he will go up to the altar only for the great prayers. At the altar, the celebrant does not spread his hands unless he is in a chasuble at Mass and that Delenda est Carthago, hands spread gives place to joined hands. The second lesson takes the place of an epistle sung by the subdeacon, since the name of Mass is rejected and the deacon does not sing the Gospel.

The pastorals have the three deacons say the Munda cor meum and bidding the blessing on Palm Sunday. On Good Friday, the three do not say Munda cor meum and do not bid the blessing, but they go before the celebrant who addresses them a wish in a clear voice. Until now, the Munda cor meum has always come before the Gospel, at all the four Passions. Even the pastorals kept it before their gospel-history of the Passion - but they have excluded it on Good Friday. Why? Perhaps on this day the Passion is less of a Gospel than a history. With the loss of Munda cor meum, the Gospel is not announced. As he gives the blessing, the celebrant speaks media voce, but saying the formula he speaks clara voce. The new formula is without doubt better than the old. Finally the three deacons of the Passion who kneel to bid and receive the blessing do not have a reason to bow to hear the celebrant - we do not bow to respond to Dominus vobiscum.

Now begins the second period with a change of vestments, followed by two others, four in all. This is the punishment by the puritans who blame the Roman Rite for changing vestments too often. The pastorals, mitigating their anti-Mass prejudice, have the celebrant vest to go up to the altar. But, they have him in a cope, at the middle of the altar instead of the epistle corner, with the ministers each side of him, not behind. They have the priest with hands apart despite being in a cope.

They are more concerned with the dimensions of the cross than with its characteristics - a reliquary cross, the wood of the cross is of no interest to them, despite the origin of the rite. They have little knowledge or understanding of the Roman Rite. They transfer the cross from the sacristy to the altar where it was missing, where it should have its fixed place whether or not Mass is celebrated. Keeping the cross veiled does not mean hiding it, relegating it to the sacristy, depriving the altar of it - where it should more than ever be in a place of honour on this Friday. The pastorals should know that the veil should cover the whole cross, not just the crucifix, for it is the cross that is shown.

Other novelties await us. The notion of the pastorals about processions: the deacon between two acolytes brings the exiled cross from the sacristy - a procession. The faithful queue up to adore the cross - a procession. The deacon brings the Blessed Sacrament from the altar of repose - this is not a procession. We are now completely confused. We did not use lighted candles before transporting the Blessed Sacrament, of which the cross is not jealous. Now the pastorals use lighted candles for the cross. It results, among other things, that the celebrant uncovering the cross finds himself among four persons, a lot of people for little space! The cross, brought by the deacon then uncovered by the celebrant, now remains delivered to the hands of two acolytes who should not have this role, above all at the altar - which is not their place.

For centuries and rightly, Catholics have adored not only the cross but also the crucified body of Christ on the floor of the church. This is why we spread a carpet, a cushion, a white and violet veil for a shroud. This goes beyond the ideas of the pastorals, who have the Crucified standing upright. They have thus discarded the showing-adoration of the cross - not an exaltation but bringing it to adorers who prostrate themselves. The adoration of the cross is no less misunderstood - it was done as for the Pope, three genuflections spaced out before kissing the cross or the Pope's foot. But this Friday, the three genuflections are changed into three double genuflections of adoration. It is through this reverence to the Pope that the genuflection became part of the Roman Rite.

At the uncovering of the cross, after each of the Ecce lignum crucis, the action was together with the invitation - we kneeled and adored, responding Venite adoremus. The adoration in silence took place during the three double genuflections before the kissing. The pastorals move the silent adoration of the three destroyed double genuflections, they are associated with each Venite adoremus. In this way it wastes time rather than saving it - again, the pastorals have the adorers go one by one instead of two by two. They probably believe that singing is not good for adoration, attention and recollection.

The problem with the collective adoration of the cross was for a long time solved by the use of several crosses, presented to the faithful for kissing or exposed for adoration in several places. After the adoration, the altar cross is put in its normal place, from where it was taken to the sacristy. Its return gives place to a strange rubric.

Then they change colour. White and black are the original colours of the Roman Rite, but the pastorals prefer violet to black, the most recent colour. They reinforce the mourning of Good Friday by calling it the day of the Lord's death, but reject the black colour of death. They, who exterminate the Mass of the Presanctified, who until now had the celebrant in a black cope, have him wear a violet chasuble. But not for the ministers - they are disguised in dalmatics. Can there be more of a contradiction? If the pastorals saw a clash between communion and black, they should have considered that the Requiem Mass is said in black, and communion is given there even with previously consecrated hosts given as communion just before or after the Mass in black.

I ask the pastorals: what need, what opportunity do you feel to put a chasuble on the celebrant just to give communion? The distribution of communion has never required a chasuble outside Mass. You exterminate the Mass of the Presanctified, you obstinately eliminate the least detail that smacks of this, then you dare to put a chasuble on the celebrant - that you refuse for the ministers. Nothing warrants the celebrant to be vested for Act IV of your production, for you leave him simply in alb for Act I. Your discretionary powers are vast, as are the abuses.

oOo

The procession of Maundy Thursday, definitively instituted by Sixtus IV (+ 1484), and that of Good Friday, instituted by John XXII (+1334), therefore by the same authority, have the same object, same purpose, same solemnity, except the festive character of the first and the mourning of the second. Why abolish one and keep the other? The arrival of the Blessed Sacrament is accompanied by singing of the three antiphons in honour of the cross, in the place of Vexilla Regis having the same purpose, but without doubt un-pastoral.

In the Roman Rite, the celebrant sings the Pater noster alone, entirely or at the beginning and end saying the middle part in a quiet voice. The best proof is that the congregation, having said nothing, responds sed libera nos. All the same, the pastorals had to reform this, and here is the result of their prowess: the Pater noster said and not sung, said by all, said in a sung service, a sad mixture of Latin and Oriental rites, recited solemnly (sic), but stripped of the solemnity of singing, said with joined hands, whilst the Libera nos is said with hands apart. The pitiful explanation given is that the Pater, since it is a prayer for communion, has to be recited by everyone. Two questions: is the Pater more for communion than the other days of the year? Is the Pater more for communion than the other prayers before communion?

The writing of the rubrics is naturally at the same level. Thus we read that the celebrant takes a host with the right hand - so does he strike his breast with the left hand? We don't know if the left hand rests on the corporal or on the ciborium. We read that as he strikes his breast, instead of a medium bow, parum incinatus, the celebrant makes a profound bow - a posture impeded by the height of the altar.

It is disrespectful to the liturgy and the celebrant to abolish the chalice and the large host. A small people's host is ridiculous. The chalice once served as a ciborium, and this could continue. There was a time and place when the Good Friday communion was taken in both kinds, having been reserved, therefore with the chalice. Of this we should be aware. The chalice served for the purification of the celebrant, and opened the way for the clergy. One did not eat without drinking. All this imitated the Mass, did not deceive anyone, did not even oppose general communion - but this is of little importance.

The pastorals introduced three postcommunions, sung by the celebrant with joined hands, at the middle of the altar, between his ministers, and during which all stand. Another curiosity: during Compline the candles are snuffed out. Therefore the cross, now uncovered, can do without light. Now, why were lighted candles needed before its uncovering and during the adoration? A game of compensation: they give the cross light it had not had, and they take away the incensing from the Blessed Sacrament, the cross and the altar.

The Church mourns and weeps during the three days during which the Lord remains in the Sepulchre. During this time of the obsequies of the dead Christ, all the Hours of the Office end with the collect Respice quæsumus, which is exactly the prayer super populum at the Mass of Holy Wednesday. The pastorals break this continuity and unity by a replacement - at the end of the Hours of Saturday they insert a prayer that gives the aspect of a banal vigil, clashing with the rest, above all with the ancient Christus factus est. If the pastorals were logical with themselves, they would see that this prayer, not being in the tone of the three days, had no longer to be said kneeling and with a silent conclusion. This was of finishing Vespers is no less strange.

As for Mass, finishing in the late evening, was the cause of doing away with Vespers, at another time Mass, finishing late into the night, did away with Matins of Easter. The three Nocturnes were reduced to a single one, and this for the whole Octave. With less cause, the pastorals went further by abolishing Easter Matins, but did not dare to extend this to the rest of the Octave. As for the Vigil of Pentecost, massacred, its Octave continues to enjoy a single nocturne.

oOo

As already seen, the pastorals continue the burial of folded chasubles with that of Christ. On the other hand, and with the same deftness, they resurrect some minimal ceremony that is less ancient and abandoned. Also, they answer a question that has never been resolved. The celebrant blessed the new fire to obtain blessed light, with which the deacon lit the paschal candle before which he sang the Præconium. This lighting and singing passed for the blessing of the Paschal Candle. Now there is no doubt, everything is clear - the deacon has only to carry it and sing. The candle brought from I don't know where, under the watchful eyes of the congregation, is subjected to incisions and inscriptions, with explaining formulas, as well as pushing the five grains of incense into the five holes in the candle, which would represent the five wounds of Christ. This brings us back to the symbolism of William Durandus, whose ideas were once in fashion then fell into desuetude. The grains of incense are explained by the relation between fire and the resin of incense. The inscriptions had degenerated into a large tablet suspended on the candle and its candlestick, perhaps imitating the sign INRI of the cross, since the candle had to symbolise Christ.

Here, the Paschal Candle lit and blessed, the pastorals have the lights of the church put out. The Breviary had already done this at the end of Lauds of Maundy Thursday, but this concerned the lamps, electric lights, extinguished until Saturday. They probably want, without saying it clearly, to extinguish all the lights, have the church in darkness, which will be dissipated by the candles of the clergy and people. This brings out the Paschal Candle, something oriental, reminding us of a Candlemas around a big candle.

Whilst the light was given to light the candle already in place, now they carry the lighted candle to put it into place. One of the promoters of the Paschal Vigil was enthusiastic about the imposing proportions of the massive candle, and the majesty of paschal candlesticks. They did not suspect that their sectaries would have reduced everything to the proportions of a village church. When candle and candlestick took on a monumental development, and the candle was no longer transportable, it disappeared from the procession. Light had to be brought to it with the triple candle. Thus it happened that the hero of the triumphal cortege was not carried. We note that with the triple candle and reed, the light of Christ was no less adored.

In the hands of the pastorals, their solemn procession for the carrying of the candle became the negation of reasons principles, a liturgical monster. Their whim of having the deacon and the celebrant walk directly behind the subdeacon and the cross, at the head of the clergy, is the same thing as putting the cart before the horse. One of them excuses this with two stupidities. Firstly, in the proper order the clergy would turn their backs to the candle. Answer - in any procession where a relic or the Blessed Sacrament is carried, backs are turned as praises are sung. The contrary has never been done. The second: in the proper order, the clergy would sing the Lumen Christi turning their backs to the candle. Answer: there is no evil in this, for the genuflection is not made to the candle carried behind, but to Christ who is everywhere. We need to distinguish Christ as light and the light of Christ. Lumen Christi means that the light of Christ is in the lighted candle, not that Christ-light be there.

Reading the pastoral rubrics, we are led to believe that everybody - clergy and people - makes for the candle to light his own candle, which he holds during the singing of the Exultet. We remind ourselves with amazement of not being allowed to hold our palms during the singing of the Passion.

The right place for singing the Exultet and situating the Paschal Candle has always been where the Gospel is sung, the customary place in choir, or on the ambo or choir screen where the paschal candlestick is situated. The position of the candle in the middle of the choir, on a small support, is purely arbitrary. This give rise to fleeting and false interpretations, and does away with the majestic paschal candlestick.

The deacon, holding the book, bids the blessing, then incenses the book as for the Gospel. Why this? The reason is that the Exultet has always been in the Gospel book. Another reason is that the deacon incenses the book containing the praise of the candle that he is going to sing. The direct purpose is not to incense the candle, of less worth than the Gospel book. By incensing the book, the deacon incenses, per modum unius, the candle places against the reading desk. The pastorals could dispense with a new incensing, above all made by turning one's back to the candle.

The pastorals have officiated before an altar without a cross on Friday, but on Saturday, the altar and its cross no longer suffice for them. They want a centre towards which they turn - the Paschal Candle - rivalling the altar. The place for the singing of the Gospel has its symbolism, once disputable. Their place for the Paschal Candle, at the centre of the choir, entirely lacks symbolism. The way the desk is turned, and the deacon singing the Exultet, the reader singing the lessons, with the altar to his right and the nave to his left, shows the charm of the profile position unlike that of the pastorals.

According to the pastorals, the celebrant vests in four ways on Friday, but on Saturday, he is spared from vesting. He remains in a cope instead of putting on a chasuble. Is eludes them that the Prophecies, Tracts and Collects are part of the Mass, and that the Pope once baptised in chasuble.

oOo

The baptistery was an edifice annexed to the church, a kind of hallway, neutral territory, where a person entered as a pagan and emerged as a Christian. Used in a particular way, it was not made to contain the whole congregation. The baptistery has been succeeded by the baptismal font, often badly situated and just as badly constructed, but by whose fault? These faults should never be a reason to abandon them. Baptismal fonts, baptismal water and Baptism go together as one. A spectacular innovation that deliberately separates them, installing substitutes for the font in the choir and baptising in them, then using this recipient for transferring the baptismal water to the font - is an insult to history, to discipline, to the liturgy and common sense. Thus people are baptised in the choir, the place for the clergy, a pagan with those accompanying him. Thus the baptismal water resembles the person brought in pomp to it, from where he was expelled. It was to preserve the baptismal water over the whole year that sumptuous baptisteries were constructed with artistic and majestic fonts. To-day, the pastorals make baptismal water and baptise in a basin, and in this container they carry it to the font, singing the song of a thirsty deer, which has already drunk, and which is going towards a dry font.

The Litany, once repeated so often, is an supplication for the catechumens, before or after their baptism. It is normally sung on the way to the font and coming back from it. As the pastorals introduced a substitute for the baptismal font into the choir, they have the first half of the Litany sung, then the blessing of the water, always under the protection of the Paschal Candle. This time the celebrant faces the people, no longer his profile. What subtlety! Not the return, but the transport of the water to his home raises a thorny question. Whose role is it to play the walking reservoir - the deacon, acolytes, and how many of them? Our task that can arouse jealousies, above all during the obsolete singing of Sicut cervus. Suppose our church has a separate baptistery, the pastorals still dare to give the choice between the liturgical method and their sad invention.

The renewal of baptismal vows, taken from the First Communion for children, is a massive para-liturgy, a purely pastoral creation and un-liturgical, an occasion to insert the vernacular into the liturgy. It is a boring repetition of what has just been done if there has been a baptism. They could go on to renew marriage vows for people at a wedding. Finally it causes an empty space between the transport of the water and the second half of the Litany, therefore a waste of time by returning in silence.

The Paschal Candle finishes by being taken off its little temporary support and put on its candlestick on the Gospel side, ignored until now. Flowers have never been prescribed for the altar. Now the pastorals need them to make it more pleasant.

Monsignor GROMIER