A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Reform of the Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reform of the Reform. Show all posts

Wednesday, 26 July 2017

Sorry Cardinal Sarah, I'm not buying what you're selling!

Image result for lectionary

You are probably familiar with how Cardinal Sarah, in his earnest attempt to keep the "Reform of the Reform" alive, was slapped down last year over the "ad orientem" posture matter. I wrote then that the idea of the ROTR was dead and that the "bastard rite" was not reformable. 

The tools needed to put lipstick on the pig are already there. The mock of the Mass brought to you by Giovanni Montini already has all that which is necessary to bring it more in line with the traditional. Use the Graduale Romanum of 1975 for the chant, face east, use incense, Penitential Rite A and the Roman Canon (EPI), incense, and so on. But this is all window dressing, it is lipstick on a pig. The fundamental problems remain in the Offertory, the theology behind that Missal and, yes the Lectionary.

Others have written erudite articles on this. Dr. Shaw, Father Zuhlsdorf and more, Father Raymond J. DeSouza has come out backing it and then, backed off. You can read them.

I'm a little behind on this post, so there is no sense me rehashing them, but I will give a few of my thoughts, given my over thirty years of work in both "forms" of the Roman Rite.


  • The one improvement that could benefit the traditional Lectionary is the structured Advent weekday readings. This follows the ancient Lenten lectionary in the traditional rite where each day has prescribed readings rather than ferial or Sunday repetition.
  • An Old Testament Lesson could be added to Sundays and First Class Feasts.
  • There are no other benefits, notwithstanding Sacrosanctam Concilium.

The loss would be greater. Embers. Rogations. Vigils. Octaves, the yearly repetition of beautiful Catholic doctrine. The Mass is not a bible study.

When one reads the Divine Office, particularly even with the 1961 revisions, one sees the intricate connections between the Office and the Mass. It is especially evident in the Divino Affaltu and the Sanctoral cycle. The readings in the Office are related to the readings of the Mass and the chants of the Mass are also intricately woven in to the readings.

At one time, I hoped for a unified calendar and lectionary. That was when I worked with both, "forms". I see now that folly.

The calendar is the other challenge put forth by the good Cardinal, and I do not doubt his sincerity, but it is simply not possible. The modern must give way to the traditional. The traditional feast days for saints would require restoration. What about the Embers, the Rogations, Vigils, Octaves, Christ the King?

No, get back to paying attention to bringing the Novus Ordo back where it belongs, at least to the point of the "1965 Missal."

But get your hands off the traditional.




Saturday, 23 July 2016

Idiot Bishops - learn your Latin!

Fathers Hunwicke and Zuhlsdorf have written frequently these last two weeks on the mis-translation that bishops are using to smack down the "ad orientem" issue in their dioceses. Father Z covers it again.

If it were not permitted, why is Pope Francis it so?

Just one more reason why the Novus Ordo is a dead letter. It is irreformable. There is no reform of the reform. It is a lost cause. The Novus Ordo Missae, whilst valid, is a deficient liturgy even when celebrated in Latin, ad orientem, with chant as is proper to it, incense, the Confiteor and Roman Canon, and so on. It is deficient because of the Offertory and the changing of ancient Propers and elimination of the historical, 1500 year old Lectionary! It is a bastard rite because of its Offertory and multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers, none of this authorised or asked for by the glorious Council! 

None of it!

When one takes these deficiencies,combined with priests and bishops who enforce an outdated and incorrect liturgical theology, how can one believe that there is any possibility of reform?

The treatment of Cardinal Sarah was the final straw for me, It happened to coincide with the badly-behaving Catholics at the parish I served at for eight years. Enough! 

No more work in the nervous disorder. Traditional Mass is it.

This is my third Saturday off. Fox and I will enjoy it immensely.




http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/07/girm-wars-another-front-opens-in-iowa/

GIRM WARS: Another front opens in Iowa

When the 2000 GIRM was issued (now usually cited as 2002 GIRM because it is in the 2002 Missale Romanum), a question was put to the Congregation for Divine Worship: Can a bishop, in his role as moderator of the Sacred Liturgy in the diocese, forbid ad orientemworship?
On 10 April 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued an official response (Protocol No. 564/00/L) about GIRM 299 (my emphases):

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Solemn Mass for St. Joseph at Richmond Hill


What better way to celebrate Holy Father's installation on the same day; let us celebrate the Patron Saint of the Universal Church and of Canada with a Solemn Latin Mass in the Ordinary Form with the music of Franz  Schubert.

If you've not been to St. Mary's or to an Ordinary Form liturgy celebrated in complete accord with the intent, then you should come and experience the solemnity and prayer.

See you there!



Friday, 15 February 2013

The Ash Wednesday Liturgy, Propers, Rubrics and Obligations


Two days ago, we began our long Lent, made longer this year no doubt because of the renouncement by our beloved Holy Father of the See of Peter. We owe much to this man who walks in the Shoes of the Fisherman and one is a new awareness of the Church's liturgy both through Summorum Pontificum and the beginnings of what he called in The Spirit of the Liturgy, the reform of the reform.  We have, by the grace of his predecessor Blessed John Paul II and his own work, a new Missal. 

On Ash Wednesday evening, I was once again privileged to be able to sing the Holy Mass at the parish where I serve as Cantor each Saturday at the Anticipated Sunday Mass in northwest Toronto. The Mass there is well celebrated in the Ordinary Form.

Let us take a little look of the liturgical music which we put together for that Mass.

Lenten Prose: ATTENDE DOMINE (please join in singing the refrain in Latin, verses in English)
Entrance Antiphon: You are merciful - Cantor
Processional Hymn: O MERCIFUL REDEEMER, CBW #484
Responsorial Psalm: HAVE MERCY ON US LORD, FOR WE HAVE SINNED, CBW #134
Gospel Acclamation: PRAISE TO YOU, O CHRIST, KING OF ETERNAL GLORY

+ + +
Blessing and Distribution of Ashes
Antiphons I: Let us changeAntiphon II: Let the priestsAntiphon III: Blot outResponsory: Let us correct (Emendemus)Another chant: TAKE UP YOUR CROSS (if necessary)
+ + +
Offertory Antiphon: Let us exult - Cantor
Offertory Hymn: PARCE DOMINE (please join in sing refrain in Latin and verses in English)
SANCTUS Mass XVIII: Roman Missal Chant
MEMORIAL ACCLAMATION: SAVE US, SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, FOR BY YOUR CROSS AND RESURRECTION YOU HAVE SET US  FREE.
AGNUS DEI Mass XVIII: Roman Missal Chant
Communion Antiphon: He who meditates - Cantor
Communion Hymn: LORD JESUS, THINK ON ME
Recessional Hymn: FROM THE DEPTHS OF SIN AND SADNESS, CBW #487

Note in the Mass that the proper liturgical chants; the Entrance and Offertory Antiphons and the Communion Antiphon with its Psalm were sung. At the same time, the congregation had a Processional Hymn, an Offertory Hymn, a Communion Hymn and one at the Recessional. They sang the Sanctus, Agnus and Memorial Acclamation according to the Roman Missal Chants. This is acutoso participatio or actual/active participation. Listening is also, "participation." What else is noted? The Antiphons and Responsory for Ash Wednesday were chanted by the Cantor and then, as there were so many people and more on that at the end, there was another appropriate "chant" or hymn and this involved the singing with the congregation of Take Up Your Cross.

Now, let us take a look at what is below. What follows is taken directly from the page 20 of Antiphonary - Excerpted from the Roman Missal - English Translation of the Third Roman Missal, which we have been blest to have been using thanks to our current and previous Holy Fathers since the Advent of 2011.
Blessing and Distribution of Ashes 

While the Priest places ashes on the head of all those present who come to him, the following are sung:


Antiphon 1:  Let us change our garments to sackcloth and ashes, let us fast and weep before the Lord, that our God, rich in mercy, might forgive us our sins.


Antiphon 2 Cf. Jl 2: 17; Est 4: 17:  Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, stand between the porch and the altar and weep and cry out: Spare, O Lord, spare your people; do not close the mouths of those who sing your praise, O Lord.


Antiphon 3 Ps 50: 3:  Blot out my transgressions, O Lord.


This may be repeated after each verse of Psalm 50 (Have mercy on me, O God).


Responsory Cf. Bar 3: 2; Ps 78: 9:  R. Let us correct our faults which we have committed in ignorance, let us not be taken unawares by the day of our death, looking in vain for leisure to repent. * Hear us, O Lord, and show us your mercy, for we have sinned against you. V. Help us, O God our Savior; for the sake of your name, O Lord, set us free. * Hear us, O Lord . . .


Another appropriate chant may also be sung.

What do we notice between the two? The red in what was done corresponds directly to the red in the Missal, commonly referred to as "the rubrics." What else do we notice?  "While the Priest places ashes on the head of all those present who come to him, the following are sung:" In other words, this is not an option. There is no "or other suitable song" substituted. Note as well at the end it adds,  "Another appropriate chant may also be sung". As in the case above, we added a hymn, Take Up Your Cross as permitted. By this time, most people were back in the pew and it nicely covered the final imposition of ashes and the washing after the distribution.

This is what the Church expects for Her liturgy. This is what she expected on Wednesday. Now it refers specifically to this being "sung" it is not intended to be read; therefore if the Mass was read, then these would not normally be said, though there would be nothing preventing them being recited by a Lector but the norm for Mass in the Ordinary Form is that it be sung - solemn just as the norm in the Extraordinary Form is that it be Solemn. It is not being a rubrical stickler or liturgical cop to ask these questions. In fact, let us look further now at this direct quotation in the original Italian and atranslation with my bolding from the bulletin,  Notitiae 5 (1969) 406 published by the Concilium set up to implement Sacrosanctam Concilium:

CANTARE LA MESSA, DUNQUE, E NON SOLO CANTARE DURANTE LA MESSA
Da più parti è stato chiesto se è ancora valida la formula della Istruzione sulla Musica sacra e la Sacra Liturgia, del 3 sett. 1958, al n. 33: “In Missis lectis cantus populares religiosi a fidelibus cantari possunt, servata tamen hac lege ut singulis Missae partibus plane congruant.”La formula è superata.È la Messa, Ordinario e Proprio, che si deve cantare, e non “qualcosa,” anche se plane congruit, che si sovrappone alla Messa. Perché l’azione è unica, ha un solo volto, un solo accento, una sola voce: la voce della Chiesa. Continuare a cantare mottetti, sia pure devoti e pii (come il Lauda Sion all’offertorio nella festa di un santo), ma estranei alla Messa, in luogo dei testi della Messa che si celebra, significa continuare un’ambiguita inammissibile: dare crusca invece di buon frumento, vinello annacquato invece di vine generoso.Perché non solo la melodia ci interessa nel canto liturgico, ma le parole, il testo, il pensiero, i sentimenti rivestiti di poesia e di melodia. Ora, questi testi devono essere quelli della Messa, non altri. Cantare la Messa, dunque, e non solo cantare durante la Messa. Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1975: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982), edited and translated by Thomas C. O’Brien of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 4154 (p. 1299):
Query: Many have inquired whether the rule still applies that appears in the Instruction on sacred music and the liturgy, 3 Sept. 1958, no. 33: “In low Masses religious songs of the people may be sung by the congregation, without prejudice, however, to the principle that they be entirely consistent with the particular parts of the Mass.”  Reply: That rule has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something,” no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day (for example, the Lauda Sion on a saint’s feast) amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought, and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing at Mass. 






Whether we be priest or layman, bishop or liturgist, the question we need to ask ourselves, if the Mass we attended on Ash Wednesday last, if sung, was in accord with the rubrics of the Missal and if not, why not?" 
At you parish, did the heretical song "Ashes" make its way into the Mass you attended? George Weigel, catholic theologian, commentator and author wrote with my emphasis:
Thus, with tongue only half in cheek, I propose the Index Canticorum Prohibitorum, the "Index of Forbidden Hymns." Herewith, some examples.The first hymns to go should be hymns that teach heresy. If hymns are more than liturgical filler, hymns that teach ideas contrary to Christian truth have no business in the liturgy. "Ashes" is the prime example here: "We rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew." No, we don't. Christ creates us anew. (Unless Augustine was wrong and Pelagius right). ... What's a text that flatly contradicts that teaching doing in hymnals published with official approval?
So, what are we to do? As priests, liturgists, church musicians, the answer is clear. As laity the answer is obvious too. It is our duty to be educated. If the bishops' conferences fail in this, if the chanceries fail in this, we must take it up ourselves. We don't have excuses anymore. We have the Missal, the resources widely available on the Internet, much of it free. 
Let this be our gift of thanksgiving to God, our “Te Deum” for Pope Benedict XVI for all that he has done for us and to whom we owe so much. Let us remember this Lent, our Holy Father and Christ's Holy Church. Let us pray, not for the Pope we deserve, but for the Pope we need.


+ + +
As a postscript  I've sung the Ash Wednesday Mass at the Toronto parish for, I think, four years now. I am always impressed at the numbers of Catholics which attend. This year, they were even standing at the back, there were so many. Men were in great number as well which is always important to see and this was the parish's third Mass and it is not by any means a large suburban parish with thousands of registered parishioners  It was a cold February night, snow on the ground, damp and miserable as Toronto winters are, yet people came. Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation in Canada, not anywhere I expect. Yet, people come. Why? What is it that will bring us out on a weeknight in the middle of a Canadian winter?  It begs the question. What of the Holy Days of Obligation? In Canada, there are two, Christmas and the Octave Day of Christmas-Mary, Mother of God, that's it. When the Vatican allowed the local determination in 1969, we Canadians went for the lowest common denominator. How sad. Perhaps the people have a greater Catholic heart than the bishops think, even though they've known no different. Perhaps there is something that is awakening that desires us to live the liturgical life, the liturgical year. Could we at least see a return to Epiphany and Ascension of the LORD, if not to Holy Days of Obligation then at least to their proper celebration on January 6 and the Thursday, forty days past the Sunday of the Resurrection?  

How do we know the people won't come?

They came on Wednesday.

Saturday, 26 January 2013

Facing East

More thoughts on "ad orientem" worship in the Catholic Mass with a hat-tip to Father Allan J. McDonald of Southern Orders.

The following article written by Victor R. Claveau, gives a wonderful historical and theological analysis of the Mass facing East or toward God, with both the congregation and priest facing the same direction:
Facing East

Victor R. Claveau 

According to the rule laid down in the Apostolic Constitutions (written in Syria about AD 380), churches were to have the sanctuary at the east end, the reason being that by this means the Christians in church were able to pray as they were used to pray in private, i.e. facing the east.

―After this, let all rise up with one consent, and looking towards the east, after the catechumens and penitents are gone out, pray to God eastward, who ascended up to the heaven of heavens to the east; remembering also the ancient situation of paradise in the east, from whence the first man, when he had yielded to the persuasion of the serpent, and disobeyed the command of God, was expelled‖ (Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, §LVII.).

Joseph Jungmann‘s book on the Early Liturgy informs us that the early Christians all faced east for prayer! Why east? Because east symbolized the return of Christ in glory. 

St John of Damascus describes the practice of the Church in these words:

When ascending into heaven, He rose towards the East, and that is how the Apostles adored Him, and He will return just as they saw Him ascend into heaven, as the Lord has said: ―Just as the flash of lightening rises from above and then descends downward, so will be the arrival of the Lord


Waiting for Him, we adore Him facing East. This is an unrecorded tradition passed down to us from the Apostles.


Just as Moslems today turn toward Mecca for prayer, and just as the ancient Jews turned toward Jerusalem, so the early Christians turned toward the east. In the early Egyptian liturgies, we find the instruction ―Look towards the East! Included at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer. St Augustine would conclude his homilies with the command Conversi ad dominum ―Turn to face the Lord. And St Basil the Great confirms the Damascene‘s claim that the practice of facing the east to pray is an unwritten custom passed down from the Apostles.

In the churches of the patristic Church, the Holy Table was typically located in the east end of the building, with the building built on an east-west axis. The altar was free-standing (though we know that in at least one Syrian ante-Nicene church it was actually attached to the east wall). The celebrant would stand on the west side of the altar and together celebrant and congregation would face the Lord for praise and worship.

However, this rule was by no means universally observed. The ancient churches in Rome, including St. John Lateran, are arranged with the entrance at the east and the sanctuary at the west. This allowed the early morning sun to flow into the building through the open doors. So do we not have here a counter-example with the priest facing the congregation? Not so! The apostolic rule was to face the east for prayer, and so the bishop faced the east and only incidentally therefore did he face the congregation. The big question is —which direction did the congregation face? I‘m not sure if anyone knows the answer to this question for certain, but I can tell you that Joseph Jungmann, Louis Bouyer, and Klaus Gamber (all very respectable liturgists) believe that in these churches the congregation too would have turned to face the east! Western Churches built after the 4th century conformed to the eastern practice and sited the altar in the east end.

The practice of priest and congregation facing the Lord in praise, worship, and prayer belongs to the fundamental grammar of Christian liturgy.
The versus orientem promotes a sense of God‘s transcendence. We stand together facing the mystery of the Holy Father, offering to him the body and blood of his Son through the ministry of our great high priest. We participate in the heavenly liturgy of the Triune God, sharing in the eternal self-oblation of the Son to his heavenly Father.
The priest is an instrument of the risen Christ. As St John Chrysostom states, the priest but lends Christ his voice and hands.

St Augustine:

―When we rise to pray, we turn East, where heaven begins. And we do this not because God is there, as if He had moved away from the other directions on earth …, but rather to help us remember to turn our mind towards a higher order, that is, to God‖ (Quoted in Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy [1993], p. 80)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) Feast of Faith (1986):
―The original meaning of what nowadays is called ‗the priest turning his back on the people‘ is, in fact–as J. A. Jungmann has consistently shown–the priest and people together facing the same way in a common act of Trinitarian worship, such as Augustine introduced, following the sermon, by the prayer ‗Conversi ad Dominum.‘

Priest and people were united in facing eastward; that is, a cosmic symbolism was drawn into the community celebration–a factor of considerable importance. For the true location and the true context of the eucharistic celebration is the whole cosmos. Facing east‘ makes this cosmic dimension of the Eucharist present through liturgical gesture. Because of the rising sun, the east–oriens–was naturally both a symbol of the Resurrection (and to that extent it was not merely a christological statement but also a reminder of the Father‘s power and the influence of the Holy Spirit) and a presentation of the hope of the parousia. Where priest and people face the same way, what we have is a cosmic orientation and also an interpretation of the Eucharist in terms of resurrection and Trinitarian theology. Hence it is also an interpretation in terms of parousia, a theology of hope, in which every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ.(pp. 140-141)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000):

―The Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot be adequately be described by the term meal.‘ True, the Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, that he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with logos. Thus it came to pass that the synagogue liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ‘s death and Resurrection to become the Eucharist,‘ and precisely thus was fidelity to the command 'Do this‘ fulfilled. This new and all-encompassing form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal but had to be defined through the intercommunion of Temple and synagogue, Word and sacrament, cosmos and history. (pp. 78-79)

―The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a 'celebration toward the wall‘; it did not mean that the priest had his back to the people‘: the priest himself was not regard as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together 'toward the Lord.‘… It was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. (p. 80)


―A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer. (p. 81)
(An excerpt from the chapter on eastward orientation can be found at the Adoremus site: http://www.adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html

Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993):
―The custom of facing East in prayer is as old as the Church; it is a tradition that cannot be changed. It symbolizes a continuous 'looking out in the direction of the Lord‘ (J. Kunstmann), or, as Origen says in his tract about praying (c. 32), it is an allegory of the soul looking towards the beginning of the true light, ―looking forward to the happy fulfillment of our hope when the splendor of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus will appeal(Tit. 2:13). (pp. 172-173)
K. G. Rey, ―Signs of Puberty in the Catholic Church, cited in Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

―While in the past, the priest functioned as the anonymous go-between, the first among the faithful, facing God and not the people, representative of all and together with them offering the Sacrifice, while reciting prayers that have been prescribed for him–today he is a distinct person, with personal characteristics, his personal life-style, his face turned towards the people. For many priests this change is a temptation they cannot handle, the prostitution of their person. Some priests are quite adept–some less so–at taking personal advantage of a situation. Their gestures, their facial expressions, their movements, their overall behavior, all serve to subjectively attract attention to their person. Some draw attention to themselves by making repetitive observations, issuing instructions, and lately, by delivering personalized addresses of welcome and farewell … To them, the level of success in their performance is a measure of their personal power and thus the indicator of their feeling of personal security and self-assurance. (pp. 86-87)

Aidan Nichols, Looking at the Liturgy (1996):

Today the question [of orientation] should be determined, in my judgment, in relation to the threat of what we can call 'cultic immanentism‘: the danger, namely, of a congregation‘s covert self-reference in a horizontal, humanistic world. In contemporary 'Catholic communalism,‘ it has been said: Liturgical Gemutlichkeit, communal warmth, friendliness, welcoming hospitality, can easily be mistaken for the source and summit of the faith.‘ Not unconnected with this is the possibility that the personality of the priest (inevitably, as president, the principal facilitator of such a therapeutic support-group) will become the main ingredient of the whole ritual. Unfortunately, the 'liveliest church in town‘ has little to do with the life the Gospel speaks of. (p. 97)

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Is "ad orientem" to be the norm?





From the 1920's, "liturgists" began experimenting with the priest at Mass facing the people and above are three examples from the 1950's to highlight the traditional Roman liturgy being celebrated in this manner which by 1966 was the norm in Canada, the United States and most other places. 


Of course, this has been seen to be the "norm" everywhere since the promulgation of the new order of the Mass in 1970 and many will agree that it is the single most damaging aspect to the Mass in either Form. The The priest has become the showman, he is no longer seen as "another Christ" re-presenting the Sacrifice of Calvary, but a Presider over a Supper and as Pope Benedict XVI in the Spirit of the Liturgy wrote, we are now a community "turned inward on ourselves" instead of being focused on the LORD and His propitiating sacrifice.

In the Third Roman Missal, in two places; at the "Pray brethren (my brothers and sisters)" and at "May the peace..." the priest is instructed, "facing the people the priest says...". If the instruction is to "face the people" where then does the Missal presume the priest if facing?

Cardinal Canizares, the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Liturgy and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been quoted in Zenit as saying that the "The Council did not speak of the priest celebrating Mass facing the people, that it stressed the importance of Christ on the altar, reflected in Benedict XVI's celebration of the Mass in  the Sistine Chapel facing the altar. This does not exclude the priest facing the people, in particular during the reading of the word of God. He stressed the need of the notion of mystery, and particulars such as the altar facing East and the fact that the sacrificial sense of the Eucharist must not be lost." Speaking at a conference on liturgy at the Spanish Embassy, the Cardinal confirmed the publication soon of an Instruction for priests and laity alike on the celebration of and participation in the Mass. "We are preparing it, I hope it will come out this year, in the summer," according to Zenit. 

As a middle way, Pope Benedict XVI, in the same book previously referred to wrote of what we now call the "Benedictine arrangement" of six candles and a crucifix on the altar between the priest and people to focus everyone, especially he priest, back on Christ. The reality is, this is not being implemented.

Perhaps then the Holy Father and the Prefect realise that the example is not going to be followed and that what is going to be necessary is Instruction.

Are we seeing then the beginning of new liturgical movement to address this matter? Will the the Congregation order this with an implementation period of perhaps five years for all altars to be moved or reconstructed to face literal or liturgical east and the priest will no longer face the people. In the meantime, will the Benedictine arrangement be mandatory?

Let us pray that this becomes the norm and that the indication of further work in sacred music and architecture are also high on the agenda.  

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

The Capo arrives


The Holy Father has announced the appointment of Abbot Michael Zielinski, OSB OLIV as Capo Ufficio  (Office Head) of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. The Capo is under the Prefect, Secretary and Under-Secretary and the appointment includes histrionics from those who wish to continue under the liturgical rupture which has been existing for over four decades now.

When one reads this quote, can there be any wonder that those who pray and tell are a little upset?

“I believe that the Dogmatic Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium was a response to a widely held conviction that the liturgy needed a reform. The Council Fathers were seeking to bring out the community aspects of the mass, as well as make it more effective in teaching the truths of the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, the theological necessity for a continuity in the underlying doctrine and structure of the celebration of the Mass in its preconciliar and post conciliar forms had undergone a rupture or break with Tradition. That is what we are dealing with today. The Second Vatican Council clearly called for some modest reforms in the liturgy, but it intended them to be organic and clearly in continuity with the past. The Old Rite becomes a living treasure of the Church and also should provide a standard of worship, of mystery, and of catechesis toward which the celebrations of the Novus Ordo must move. In other words, the Tridentine Mass is the missing link. And unless it be re-discovered in all its faithful truth and beauty, the Novus Ordo will not respond to the organic growth and change that has characterized the liturgy from its beginning. This is what should be prompting many of us to the founding of a new liturgical movement which will be able to give back to the liturgy its sacramental and supernatural character, and awaken in us a faithful understanding of the Catholic Liturgy.”

Slowly, the Holy Father is achieving his goal of correcting the liturgical rupture which manner in which the liturgy after 1969 has been. While one can argue that when the Ordinary Form is celebrated in the manner which was intended, facing east or liturgical east at least, with beauty and Gregorian chant with some vernacular it not a rupture with organic change the facts show otherwise. The abuses are still occurring and this is particularly the case with music which can debase the liturgy no matter how faithful Father is to the rubrics. We can add to this communion in the hand, the overuse and inappropriate use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and more. Fundamentally, there are too many options not mandated by the Council or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctam Concilium.

It seems clear now that a Fourth Edition of the Roman Missal of 1969 is either being developed or in fact an entirely new Missal which will see the Missal of Paul VI abrogated and along with it, much of that which flowed from it.

Sunday, 21 October 2012

Saint Kateri, Protectress of Canada


Earlier today in Rome, the Holy Father canonised our Lily of the Mohawks saying, "May her example help us to live where we are, loving Jesus without denying who we are,” he said. “Saint Kateri, Protectress of Canada and the first Native American saint, we entrust you to the renewal of the faith in the first nations and in all of North America!”


Sancta Kateri Tekakwitha, ora pro nobis

As reported as well, the Holy Father wore the Papal Fanon an amice like garment only worn by the Pope in a Pontifical Mass. And yet, another indication of liturgical restoration,the Old Testament Lesson (First Reading) the Responsory (Psalm) and the Epistle (Second Reading) were proclaimed from the Epistle side of the altar and the Gospel from the Gospel side of the altar. 

After all, the seven Canonised today would have known it that way.




Saturday, 7 January 2012

Responsorial Psalm Comparison

In an earlier post, I linked to some wise words by Jeff Ostrowski of the Corpus Christi Watershed. Here is a video comparing some fairly well-worn Responsorial Psalms and a chant version from CCW.

What do you think?

Which do you think would foster greater participation amongst the faithful?


Wednesday, 12 October 2011

The Gloria you should all be singing!

If you have not yet discovered the really fine work done by Jeff Ostrowski and the other good folks at the Corpus Christi Watershed, then I urge you to do so. Their work along with that of Jeffrey Tucker and Adam Bartlett at The Chant Cafe and Church Music Association of America is critically important right now. The change to the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal is a great opportunity but if the beauty is to be realised fully, then  you are going to have to spread this news in your parish to affect real change.

Here is the setting of the Roman Missal Gloria based on Mass XV, Missa Dominator Deus which dates from at least the 9th century. It is presented here with an organ accompaniement. This Gloria was deemed by Father Bill Burke of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to be "too hard" for Canadians and has been scandalously left out of the so-called "Chant Setting" in the Canadian hymnal supplement.

Father Burke, with all due respect, I have more confidence in my fellow Catholic Canadians than you do.

I have used this Gloria for the past two weeks at the Vigil Mass on Saturdays and it will take some time but I fully expect the congregation will learn this and come to appreciate its prayerfullness and ethereal beauty.

Thursday, 6 October 2011

The Proper thing to do!

A very important talk at a very important symposium hosted by the Most Reverend Thomas Olmstead, Bishoip of Phoenix and a leader of the Church to be watched for greater things through the grace of God.

Until the approval of The New Roman Missal by Pope Paul VI on 3 April 1969, there had existed for four hundred years a substantial unity between the texts of the Proper of the Mass contained in the Graduale Romanum and those given in the Roman Missal. The Missal, in effect, reproduced the complete texts of those sung parts of the Mass that in the Graduale Romanum are fully notated.

Read the rest here.





Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Paix Liturgique Newsletter

Mutual enrichment: on the right track
A book on the new liturgical movement is proving attractive to French readers. Authored by the abbé Claude Barthe, who is known for his earlier writings on the traditional liturgy, this booklet is titled "La Messe à l'endroit" ["Mass--The Right Way"] and deals with the reordering of the Paul VI Mass. It is here presented in the form of an interview granted by the abbé Barthe to the French journal Monde et Vie.


1/ Father, your most recent work (*) takes us by surprise, since we know you as a thoughtful defender of the traditional Mass, and here you are addressing the so-called "Paul VI" Mass. Why this interest on your part?

A very active defense of the former, the traditional Mass, has never kept me from taking an interest in the transformation of the latter--the Paul VI Mass. In 1997, ten years before the Motu Proprio, I had published a book of interviews: "Reconstruire la liturgie. Entretiens sur l’état de la liturgie dans les paroisses" (F-X de Guibert editions) ["Rebuilding the Liturgy. Interviews on the State of the Liturgy at the Parish Level"]. Its theme was precisely the same as this booklet's. Clearly the 2007 Motu Proprio has revived the issue, which consists in noting that the two parallel critiques of the changes effected under Paul VI, namely the frontal critique that seeks to promote a broad diffusion of the ancient liturgy, and the reformist critique, termed reform of the reform, that seeks to bring about a change from within the Paul VI liturgy, are more than ever allied.

The reform of the reform project cannot be implemented without the spinal column of the most widespread possible celebration according to the traditional Mass, which in turn cannot hope to be reintroduced on a large scale in ordinary parishes without the recreation of a vital milieu through the reform of the reform.


2/ "Extraordinary form" ultras believe that the Paul VI missal is unsalvageable and ought to be jettisoned, whereas you believe that it can be reformed and even "enriched." How?

First of all I think it is totally unrealistic to believe that one could, with a stroke of a magic wand, get all masses to be celebrated according to the ancient usage in every parish in the world. On the other hand, I note--along with many others, the principal ones being quite high placed--that the Paul VI missal contains a nearly infinite number of possible options, adaptations, and interpretations, and that a progressive, or systematic, or progressively systematic selection of the traditional options it offers makes possible, at the parish level-- quite legally, I might add (according to the letter of the law, if not its spirit)--its own retraditionalization. (Vox: examples being in Latin, ad orientem, with Gregorian chant from the 1974 Graduale Romanum using the Confiteor and Roman Canon, altar BOYS, no EM's, etc. all legal, all the "first" option in the Pauline liturgy) This is actually a simple observation of fact: many parish priests pursue this reform of the reform, often by stages, and in the great majority of cases also celebrate the traditional mass.

Now to answer your question: I should say that I believe that the Roman liturgy can be saved. This takes a two-pronged action, as one can observe concretely: spreading the Saint Pius V missal, and reform of the reform. This latter will allow, to take up a famous speech by Paul VI, progressively to abandon all that is old and outmoded, because it is untraditional, in his reform. We shall see what is preserved after that operation. . . .


3/ You are opening up to us a rather unrecognized side to the history of the liturgy in these past forty years. Whereas the partisans of the old Mass weren't much concerned with reforming the new missal, its "moderate" supporters--a minority movement, to be sure--have unflaggingly been proposing its reform. Would you briefly recap the history of this position?

It is the history of what might be called the reformist critique of the new missal. Briefly, and to speak only of France, remember that a theologian like Louis Bouyer, who had actively participated in the conciliar reform, was very soon opposed to a certain number of its aspects (notably the direction of the celebration). The abbey of Solesmes and, in varying degrees, some of its daughter houses accepted the reform, though without departing from Latin and Gregorian chant. Msgr. Guérin's Communauté Saint-Martin also opted for the Paul VI missal, but with a very traditionally orientated interpretation. Msgr. Maxime Charles, rector of the Monmartre Basilica, and later his principal spiritual heir abbé Michel Gitton, onetime pastor of St-Germain-l'Auxerrois in Paris, held to a line of preserving what seemed salvageable from among the ruins. Above all there was the Ratzinger phenomenon. Already in 1966 Joseph Ratzinger had made a very harsh intervention at the Bamberg Katholikentag on the ongoing reform. The struggle against what he believes to be the "false spirit of the Council" has so to speak become essential to the man who became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981 and then Pope in 2005. Yet in liturgical matters Joseph Ratzinger went much farther than the other reformists. Today we know that he had organized a meeting of Cardinals on November 16, 1982, on "the subject of liturgical issues," and obtained that all the Prefects of Congregations present at the meeting affirm that the "old" Roman Missal must be "recognized by the Holy See in the whole Church for masses celebrated in the Latin tongue."

1982 . . . exactly a quarter century before the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum!


4/ Your book is subtitled: "A new liturgical movement." Is this a pious wish, or is it the observation that there is around Benedict XVI, who seems to be spearheading this "reform of the reform", an influential group of prelates and clerics who fully intend at least to launch it for good, if not to implement it forthwith?

Quite. In fact, on the strength of Joseph Ratzinger's published works (The Ratzinger Report; Milestones; The Spirit of the Liturgy; Feast of Faith) and relying on them as authority, a new generation of theologians, of historians of divine worship, and of sometimes high-ranking Church officials as arisen. (Vox: much to the chagrin of certain Catholic media personalities...) They constitute today the milieu of thinkers for the reform of the reform--a "new liturgical movement", as the Pope is fond of saying--and of Motu Proprio supporters. That said, none of them--particularly not the first among them, the Pope--intends to promote a reform of the reform through texts, decrees, let alone by publishing a new mixed missal, a Benedict XVI missal to add to the Pius V and Paul VI missals; they wish to proceed by example, exhortation, and especially, to evoke Saint Paul's theme in the Epistle to the Romans, by provoking a healthy "jealousy" of the form we call today "ordinary" for the so-called "extraordinary" form. Moreover this is characteristic of the Ratzingerian restoration since 1985, which seeks to curb things on the conciliar path, but by exhortation as opposed to coercion. (Is he cooking a frog and using the same method as the modernists and liberals who destroyed it? Can we live long enough?)

In point of fact, the reform of the reform already exists in a great number of parishes. It needs only to be encouraged, extended, and above it has to go over at the diocesan level. It might be well for it to be implemented by the bishops rather than only by pastors at the bottom and the Pope at the top. Imagine the prodigious effect of restoration, not only in liturgy but also in all that goes along with it (vocations, doctrine, catechism, renewal in practice), that would be produced by one bishop, then two, then three, turning around the altar in their cathedral, reinstating communion on the knees, reintroducing Latin and Gregorian chant, and having the traditional Mass said there regularly. (An Altar Rail is going to be restored to St. Michael's Cathedral in Toronto! The Archbishop has celebrated the Ordinary Form in Latin, ad orientem at the Toronto Oratory.)


5/ Benedict XVI, during his apostolic visit to the United Kingdom, celebrated all of his Masses with the Preface and Canon read in Latin. What is your reaction to this "innovation"? (which comes after many others since his election as Pope).

My reaction is gaudium et spes, joy and hope. Hope, for example, that on a future apostolic visit the Pope may also publicly celebrate the Mass according to the extraordinary from of the Roman rite, which, they say, he regularly uses in private . . . .


(*) “La Messe à l'endroit – Un nouveau mouvement liturgique”
Éditions de l'Homme Nouveau

Monday, 18 January 2010

The Canizares Interview

From the blog The New Theological Movement:

The Cañizares' Interview Below is my translation of the recent interview given by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares to Paolo Rodari of Palazzo Apostolico (Il Foglio).This interview is certainly of great importance and interest liturgically. It is also very important doctrinally because of the Cardinal's insistence on Summorum Pontificum's importance for reading and interpreting the Second Vatican Council with a 'hermeneutic of continuity.'
Here is the True Reform of Pope Ratzinger:
Cardinal Cañizares explains how to restore to Divine Worship the significance and vigor lost in the post Conciliar banalization.

January 9, 2010, Il Foglio

The ex-archbishop of Toledo and primate of Spain, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera has led the Vatican "ministry" which occupies itself with the liturgy for a little more than a year. A delicate task in a pontificate, such as that of Benedict XVI, in which the liturgy and its "restructuring" has a central role after the post conciliar drifts. Besides, the liturgy is the center of the life of the faithful. The Pope said it again at the Christmas Vigil: as for the monks, so it is for every man, "the liturgy is the first priority. Everything else comes after." It is necessary, "to put in second place all other occupations, as important as they may be, to set out toward God, to allow Him to enter into our life and our time.

Cardinal Cañizares says as much to Il Foglio and more in an assessment after having passed one year in the Roman Curia:

"I have received - he explains - the mission to complete, with the indispensable and most valuable help of my collaborators, those tasks which have been assigned to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus of John Paul II with respect to the order and promotion of the sacred liturgy, in the first place of the sacraments. For the religious and cultural situation in which we live and for the same priority which corresponds to the liturgy in the life of the Church, I believe that the principal mission which I have received is to promote with complete dedication and engagement, to re-vivify and develop the spirit and the true sense of the liturgy in the conscience and life of the faithful; so that the liturgy may be the center and the heart of the community; so that all, priests and faithful, consider it as the substantial and inescapable thing of our life; so that we live the liturgy in full truth; so that we live from it; so that it may be in all its fullness, as the Second Vatican Council says, "the source and summit" of the Christian life. After a year at the helm of this Congregation, I experience and sense with greater force every day the necessity of promoting in the Church, in every continent, a strong and rigorous liturgical impulse. An impulse which revivifies that most rich heritage of the Council and of the great liturgical movement of the 19th and first half of the 20th century - with men like Guardini, Jungmann and so many others – which the Church rendered fruitful at the Second Vatican Council. There, without any doubt, stands our future and the future of the world. I say this because the future of the Church and of the entirety of humanity is found in God, in the life of God and of that which comes from Him; and this happens in the liturgy and by means of it. Only a Church which lives the truth of the liturgy will be in a position to give the one thing which can renew, transform and recreate the world: God and only God and His grace. The liturgy, in its most pure character, is the presence of God, the salvific and regenerating work of God, the communication and participation of His merciful love, the adoration and acknowledgement of God. It is the only thing that can save us."

Guardini and Jungmann were two pillars of the liturgical renewal of the past decades. Figures which also inspired Joseph Ratzinger in his The Spirit of the Liturgy. Figures which, probably, have also inspired the promulgation of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. It is said that the Motu Proprio has represented also (there are some who say before all else) an extended hand of the Pope to the Society of Saint Pius X. Is this so?

"In fact, it is. However, I believe that the Motu Proprio has a most important value for its own sake, for the Church and for the liturgy. Although this displeases some - judging by the reactions which have arrived and which continue to arrive - it is only just and necessary to say that the Motu Proprio is not a step back or a return to the past. It is to acknowledge and receive, with simplicity, in all its fullness, the treasures and inheritance of the great Tradition, which has in the liturgy its most genuine and profound expression. The Church cannot permit herself to prescind, to forget or to renounce the treasures and the rich inheritance of this tradition, contained in the Roman Rite. It would be a betrayal and a negation of her very self. She cannot abandon the historical inheritance of the ecclesiastical liturgy, or desire to establish everything from anew - as some have pretended - without cutting off fundamental parts of the Church herself. Some understood the conciliar liturgical reform as a rupture, and not as an organic development of the tradition. In these years after the Council, "change" was almost a magic word; it became necessary to modify that which had been, to the point of forgetting it; everything new; it was necessary to introduce novelty, in the end, a human work and creation. We cannot forget that the liturgical reform and the years after the Council coincided with a cultural climate marked or intensely dominated by a conception of man as 'creator' that only with difficulty co-exists with a liturgy which, above all, is the action of God and His priority, "the right" of God, the adoration of God and also tradition of that which we receive and has been given to us once and for all. We are not to make the liturgy ourselves, it is not our work, but the work of God. This conception of man as 'creator' which leads to a secularized vision of everything, where God, often, has no place, this passion for change and the loss of tradition has not yet been overcome. And for this reason, in my opinion, among the other things, stands the cause by which many see with such distrust the Motu Proprio or that it greatly displeases some to receive and accept it, to re-encounter the great riches of the Roman liturgical tradition which we cannot squander or to search for and accept the mutual enrichment of the one Roman rite between the "ordinary" form and the "extraordinary.” The Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, has a most important value which everyone ought to appreciate, whose value has not only to do with the liturgy, but the entire Church, of that which the tradition is and signifies, without which the Church turns into a human institution always in change. Obviously, the Motu Proprio has to be seen with the reading and interpretation one makes or would make of the Second Vatican Council. When one reads the Council and interprets it with the interpretive key of rupture and discontinuity, he understands nothing of the Council and he completely distorts it. For this reason, as the Pope indicates, only a hermeneutic of continuity brings us to a just and correct reading of the Council, and to understand the truth of that which it says and teaches in its entirety and in particular in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the divine liturgy, which is inseparable, for the most part, with this same entirety. Consequently, the Motu Proprio also has a most high value for the communion of the Church."

The Pope stands behind the slow but necessary process of the Church's rapprochement to an authentic liturgical spirit. Also, divisions and contra-positions are not lacking. Cardinal Cañizares speaks about it:

"The great contribution of the Pope, in my opinion, is that he is bringing us closer to the truth of the liturgy, with a wise pedagogy, introducing us to the genuine 'spirit' of the liturgy (the title of one of his works before becoming Pope). He, before all else, is following a simple educative process which seeks to move toward this 'spirit' or genuine sense of the liturgy, to overcome a reductive vision which is still very entrenched in the liturgy. As Pope, he is the first to put into practice his teachings, so rich and abundant in this area. As his evocative gestures which accompany the celebrations at which he presides, move in this direction. To receive these gestures and these teachings is a duty which we have if we are disposed to live the liturgy in a way corresponding to its very nature and if we do not want to lose the treasures and liturgical inheritance of the tradition. Further, they constitute a great gift for the formation, as urgent as it is necessary, of the Christian people. In this prospective, one needs to see the same Motu Proprio which has confirmed the possibility to celebrate with the Roman Missal approved by John XXIII and which goes back, with the successive modifications, to the time of Saint Gregory the Great and even earlier. It is certain that there are many difficulties which those are having who, in utilizing that which is their right, are celebrating or participating in the Holy Mass according to "the ancient rite" or "extraordinary" form. Of itself, there need not be this opposition, or even less to be seen as suspect or labeled as "pre-conciliar" or, even worse, as "anti-conciliar." The reasons for this are many and diverse. However, deep down, they are the same which they will carry to a reform of the liturgy understood as rupture and not in the horizon of the tradition and the 'hermeneutic of continuity' which reclaims the renewal and true liturgical reform in the interpretive key of Vatican II. We cannot forget, in the end, that in the liturgy one touches that which is most essential to the faith and the Church and, for this reason, every time in history when one has touched something of the liturgy, tensions and even divisions have not been rare."

It is from the discourse of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005 that the necessity to read the Second Vatican Council not under the lens of discontinuity with the past but in continuity has become central to this pontificate. What significance does this have from the liturgical point of view?

“It signifies, among other things, that we cannot bring the liturgical renewal to completion and put the liturgy at the center and source of Christian life if we approach it with the interpretive key of rupture with the tradition which precedes and which carries this rich source of life and of the gift of God which has nourished and given life to the Christian people. The teachings, the indications and the gestures of Benedict XVI are foundational in this sense. For this reason, one needs to promote the serene and profound knowledge of what he is saying to us, including that which he has said before becoming Pope, and which he so clearly reflects upon in Sacramentum Caritatis.”

The Congregation which Cañizares leads gathered last March in a plenary session and presented some propositions to the Holy Father.

"The plenary session of the Congregation was occupied, above all else, with Eucharistic adoration, the Eucharist as adoration and adoration outside of the Holy Mass. Some conclusions which were approved, were then presented to the Holy Father. These conclusions foresee a level of work for the Congregation in the coming years, which the Pope has both ratified and encouraged. The conclusions concern themselves with revivifying and promoting a new liturgical movement which, faithful to all the teachings of the Council and the teachings of Benedict XVI, place the liturgy in the central place which corresponds to it in the life of the Church. The conclusions of the propositions regard the impulse and promotion of the adoration of the Lord, based on the worship one must give to God, in the Christian liturgy; inseparable from the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament; absolutely necessary for a living Church. To put an end to the abuses - which disgracefully are many – and to correct them is not something which derives from the plenary session of the Congregation, but it [the end of abuses] is something which the same liturgy and life of the Church and future of the Church and the communion it has protest. On this point, on the numerous liturgical abuses and on their correction, the Congregation published a most important Instruction some years ago called Redemptionis Sacramentum and we all must return to it. It is a most urgent duty to correct the existing abuses if we as Catholics want to bring something to the world, to renew it. The propositions do not have the purpose of putting an end to the creativity, but rather to encourage, favor, revivify the truth of the liturgy, its most authentic sense and its most genuine spirit. None of us can forget or ignore that liturgical creativity as it is often understood and as one often understands it, is an end to the liturgy and the cause of its secularization, because it is in contradiction to the nature of the liturgy itself.”

Do the propositions speak of the use of the Latin language?

“There is nothing said with respect to giving more space to the Latin language, including in the ordinary rite, nor to publish bilingual missals, which, in truth, has already been done in some places after the conclusion of the Council. Moreover, one must not forget that the Council does not dispense from Latin in the Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, that venerable language to which the Roman Rite is connected.”

There are, moreover, so many other important questions, the orientation...

“We did not raise the question of “versus Orientem,” nor communion on the tongue or other aspects which sometimes bring out accusations such as “taking steps backward,” of conservatism or of elitism. I believe, besides, that questions such as these, the orientation, the crucifix visible on the center of the altar, communion received on the knees and on the tongue, the use of Gregorian chant, are important questions that we cannot make light of in a frivolous or superfluous manner and of which, in every instance, one must speak with knowledge of the cause and with foundation, as, for example, the Holy Father does. These things also correspond with and favor more the truth of the celebration. This can also be said of active participation, in the sense in which the Council speaks of it, and not in other senses. That which is important, is that the liturgy is celebrated in its truth, with truth, and that it favors and intensely promotes the sense and spirit of the liturgy in all the People of God in such a way that one lives from the liturgy. It is truly very important that the celebrations have and advance the sense of the sacred, of the Mystery, that they revive the faith in the Real Presence of the Lord and of the gift of God which acts in it, as in adoration, respect, veneration, contemplation, prayer, praise, thanksgiving and many other things which run the risk of being lost. When I participate in or see the liturgy of the Pope which has already incorporated many of these elements, I am always more convinced that they are not unimportant aspects but which rather have an expressive and educative force of themselves and in the truth of the celebration, the absence of which one notices.”

Cañizares has been for years a high-profile figure in the Spanish Church. He still is, although now he resides in Rome. In Spain, there has been a declaration by the secretary of the Episcopal Conference of the country, Monsignor Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, which said that those politicians who publicly express support for abortion, cannot receive Communion. Do you share this position of Camino? Because Spain has become the outpost of so called “secular” (laiciste) politics? How must bishops and the bishop’s conference carry themselves in the face of positions which negate life?

“Bishops, as pastors who guide and protect the people who have been entrusted to us, have the inescapable duty of charity to teach and transmit to the faithful, faithfully, with wisdom, doctrine and prudence, that which the faith of the Church believes and teaches, even if this costs us, even if this goes against the current or offends public opinion. That which is in play concerning the topic of abortion and that which one will legislate in Spain on this subject, when they will have approved all regulative procedures, it is something very grave and decisive, and we cannot remain quiet or hide the truth. It is the truth which, fulfilling the command of the Lord, the Church speaks of and requires of her faithful; it is the truth which she demands and expects of them. We must serve and direct the faithful with the light of the truth we have received, and of which we cannot set aside in moral questions and sometimes delicate ones at that. We must also help Catholics in public life to make their decisions with responsibility before God and men in conformity with reason as it corresponds to their condition as sons of the Church and believers in Jesus Christ. We cannot and must not, lest we be evil pastors, act in these questions with relativism, with political calculations or with skillful or subtle ‘diplomacy.’ The faithful exercise of our Episcopal ministry, besides, is not to be in absolute conflict, rather, with prudence, measure, mercy, gentleness and an extended hand which certainly must accompany us in everything. It is a difficult moment in which we are living right now in Spain. It is not easy for the bishops either. I do not believe, on the other hand, that Spain is the flag bearer or vanguard of political secularism. Secularism, evident and hidden, and political secularism have spread almost everywhere, in some countries more than others and in some with great power and force. There is a force, apparently unstoppable, engaged to introduce secularism all over the world or, which is the same thing, to erase the revealed God with the human face of Jesus Chris, His only begotten Son, from the conscience of man. It is true that this secularism has some special connotations, perhaps on account of her history and her very identity. Spain is undergoing a very radical transformation of mentality, in its thought, in its criteria of judgement, in its customs and ways of acting, in its culture, in summary, in its nature and identity. Further, this manifests itself in a great and profound crisis of values or moral rupture, behind which hides a religious crisis, both social and the fragmentation of man. However, at the same time, the roots and foundations which sustain Spain and its most genuine aspect derive from the Christian faith. These roots find there sustenance in it and in which it believes. And these roots have not been lost, nor will they be lost. A collection of laws, as that of abortion, which has already been approved in Parliament, beyond the other factors, are the sign of transformation already in motion. I have always believed that we bishops, being obedient to God before to men, must always announce the Gospel and Jesus Christ, not putting anything before Him and His works, to announce without rest and courageously the living God, the glory of Him being man fully alive, which constitutes the ‘yes’ most fully and totally which one can give to man, to his inviable dignity, to life, to his fundamental rights, to all that which is truly human. To announce and bear witness to Him who is love, by acting in all things with charity and carrying and bearing witness before all to the love of God, the passion God has for man, in a particular way for the weak, the indefensible and those who are treated unjustly. Everything aimed toward conversion, so that a new humanity rises up, made of new men, with the newness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their mode of being, of thinking and of acting which in Him, the truth of God and of men, we encounter and find its origin. One speaks simply to give impulse and bring to fruition a new and decisive evangelization. This is the condition in which the Church and bishops of Spain have found themselves in for a long time. It is a slow and arduous work, but which is bearing its fruits. Further, I believe, that the bishops in Spain, in virtue of the affirmation of God and the faith in Jesus Christ, have been in a great battle for man, of the right to life, of liberty, of that which is un-relinquishable for man as a family, the truth and the beauty of the family based on matrimony between one man and one woman, open to life, in love. They are in favor of the education of the person and of the freedom of teaching, and of religious liberty. The Church in Spain, looks every day and with more force and intensity on man and his fundamental rights, feeling the call to strengthen the experience of God so that the faithful may be ‘witnesses of the living God,’ as one of their most important documents from a few years ago says. Its task is not political nor to do politics, but only simply to be the Church, the presence of Christ among men, even if this penalizes the Church. The situation is hard but we look to the future with a great hope and a great call to allow ourselves to be strengthened by God and to keep Him at the center of everything and to proceed on our journey without tiring or without looking back, with our eyes fixed on Jesus Christ. I have absolute certainty that Spain will change and turn to the vigor of a living faith and a renewed society. We cannot let down the guard or let down our arms which must be held out to God in faithful and permanent supplication. It is essential that, before all else, it recuperates its vitality and its theological vigor and religiousness, that the God given in Jesus Christ, may truly be its center and its most solid foundation, to be capable and to make a new society arise. This is possible and, furthermore, nothing is impossible with God.”