Reform of the Reform

From the Blog "Paix Liturgique"

SECOND AIM OF THE MOTU PROPRIO (Summorum Pontificum):
The Reform of the Reform

The increasing availability of Msgr Nicola Bux’s book The Reform of Benedict XVI [1] is an opportunity for us to depart somewhat from our usual focus on the application of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” and to take stock of the “reform of the reform” that the Holy Pontiff has initiated in liturgy. It is also the occasion to consider what sort of relationship will slowly emerge between the two forms of the Roman liturgy.

The first aim of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is clear: to make it possible for the traditional Mass to be celebrated in every parish where it is requested. The MP will only truly be applied when we shall see the ten o’clock Sunday Mass celebrated in the ordinary form and the eleven o’clock Mass in the extraordinary form, or the reverse, in the cathedrals of Dublin or Detroit, as well as in the cathedrals of Boise or Aberdeen. In a word: as far as the MP’s application is concerned, we are still on the starting line.

A – The “Reform of the Reform” Project
The second aim of the MP, though implicit, is nonetheless obvious because of all that Cardinal Ratzinger has said on the subject in the past and because of the wish expressed in the 2007 text: a “mutual enrichment” of the two forms, which from that point coexist officially. Enrichment: everybody knows that the more obviously “rich” form is that which benefits from an uninterrupted, ten-centuries long tradition (or even seventeen-centuries long for its essential part, the canon), and whose doctrinal and ritual value is at least similar to that of the other great Catholic liturgies. In his book, Nicola Bux writes: “Comparative studies demonstrate that the Roman liturgy in its preconciliar form was far closer to the Oriental liturgy than is the current liturgy.” This is so much the case that no one can seriously contemplate denying that the form that needs to be enriched/transformed first and foremost is the liturgy that was hastily contrived forty years ago. Indeed, as Nicola Bux points out, “[one] has to admit that the Mass of Paul VI is far from containing all that is found in the missal of Saint Pius V.”

It has thus become customary to call “reform of the reform” this project of enrichment/transformation of Paul VI’s reform with a view to making it more traditional in content and form. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that the reform of the reform is only on the order of a pious wish, one must nevertheless fully understand that it is only—somewhat like the extraordinary form—at its beginnings.

Two preliminary observations about this future process come to mind:

1. The reform of the reform, as the expression indicates, concerns only the reform of Paul VI. It in no way involves an alleged “parallel” transformation of the traditional form of the rite. There is no comparison between the two forms in their relation to tradition or in their ritual structure. Fiddling with the traditional rite would truly sink it and everyone would come away a loser: the reform of the reform would see its backbone collapse. In any event, Cardinal Ratzinger has already clearly and prudently rejected the idea. [2]

2. Add to this that the reform of the reform does not seek to implement a series of reforms through laws and decrees with a view to establishing a third missal halfway between the Tridentine missal and the new one (not to mention that the latter is much more of an indefinite, diverse and open-ended collection than a “missal” in the traditional sense). Cardinal Ratzinger in the past, Pope Benedict XVI today, is averse to implementing a process of authoritarian and continual reforms akin—though in reverse—to what was done under the reform of Paul VI. The point is rather to undertake a gradual narrowing of the gap, the missal of Paul VI becoming progressively closer to the traditional missal. The new liturgy’s characteristic of being malleable at will allows this to occur effortlessly: its non-normative character paradoxically permits it to be infused with the traditional norm it lacks. One may legitimately wonder whether, at the end of the process, it will preserve any interest besides that of serving as a steppingstone to the traditional liturgy...

B – The book by Nicola Bux
The import of this book’s publication is due first of all to its author’s stature. Msgr Nicola Bux, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology at the Ecumenical-Patristic Institute of Theology of Bari in Italy, is a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, consultor too for the Bureau of Liturgical Celebrations for the Supreme Pontiff, advisor to the journal Communio, author of many books (notably Il Signore dei Misteri. Eucaristia e relativismo—The Lord of Mysteries: Eucharist and Relativism [Siena: Cantagalli, 2005]) and of many articles (e.g. “À soixante ans de l’encyclique Mediator Dei de Pie XII, débattre sereinement sur la liturgie”—“Sixty Years After Pius XII’s Encyclical Mediator Dei. On the Liturgy: A Debate Without Prejudice,” Osservatore Romano, 18 November 2007). And he is one of the most influential partisans of the reform of Paul VI’s reform.

Others deserve to be named in his company, such as Fr. Alcuin Reid (The Organic Development of the Liturgy [Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, 2004]), Fr. U. Michael Lang (Turning Towards the Lord. Orientation in Liturgical Prayer [Ignatius Press, 2004]), Msgr Nicola Giampietro (who published the memoirs of Cardinal Antonelli, Apoc 2004), Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Dominus est. It Is the Lord [Newman House Press, 2009]), Fr. Aidan Nichols (Looking At the Liturgy : a Critical View Of Its Contemporary Form [Ignatius Press, 1996]), and Dom Mauro Gagliardi (Liturgia, Fonte di Vita [Fede&Cultura, 2009]), not to mention the initiatives promoted by Father Manelli and the Franciscans of the Immaculate and, of course, the daily action of such important prelates as Archbishop Ranjith, Archbishop Burke, Cardinal Cañizares, et al.

Msgr Bux’s book also benefits from three forewords: one by the famous Italian journalist Vittorio Messori (author of the Ratzinger Report, an interview with then Cardinal Ratzinger) for the Italian edition; one by Marc Aillet, bishop of Bayonne, for the French edition; another by the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship himself, Cardinal Cañizares, for the Spanish edition.

For Nicola Bux, the crisis that wounded the Roman liturgy is due to its no longer being centered upon God and his adoration, but on people and the community. “At the beginning is adoration, and therefore that is where God is (...) The Church stems from adoration, from the mission of glorifying God,” Joseph Ratzinger had written on this subject. The crisis in liturgy begins the moment it ceases to be an adoration, when it is reduced to the celebration of a specific community in which priests and bishops, instead of being ministers, that is, servants, become “leaders”. This is why today “people are requesting more and more respect to ensure a private space of silence, with a view to an intimate faith participation in the sacred mysteries.”

The order of the day, then, is once again to teach a clergy wounded in its ritual praxis and consciousness that liturgy is sacred and divine, that it comes down from above as does the liturgy of the heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. “In this connection, there ought to be efforts made to find out why, despite appearances, the vernacular is at the end of the day unsuccessful in making the liturgy understandable.” The priest needs to be taught once again how to carry out the holy mysteries in persona Christi, in the Church, as its minister, and not as the coordinator of an assembly that is closed in on itself, which is what he has become.

C – The Reform Of the Reform Project:
Leading By Example Rather Than By Legislative Texts

Despite the seriousness of the conclusion reached by Msgr Bux in particular and by the “Pope’s men” in general—a conclusion that is in keeping with the Holy Father’s thinking in the matter—none of them wants laws and decrees designed to overturn everything in an authoritarian manner, as did those of the Bugnini era. Even though the Church today is quite ill, liturgically speaking, they prefer to act with the sweet medicine of example: the Supreme Pontiff’s example in the first place, then that of those bishops who will be willing to show the example as he does.

And so Benedict XVI multiplies corrective nudges that seem only to affect trifling matters, to be sure; after all, the liturgy is made up only of a collection of details: the very dignified manner of pontifical celebrations; the beauty of the liturgical vestments from St. Peter’s sacristy, which the pontifical master of ceremonies, Msgr Guido Marini, is using once more; the placement of large candlesticks on the altar, which diminish the theatrical effect of facing the people; above all, the distribution of Communion on the tongue, kneeling.

It is up to the bishops to follow suit in their liturgical celebrations. It is a matter of public knowledge that Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, one of Italy’s theologically solid bishops, has recently decided in an April 27, 2009 ruling that “in view of the frequency with which irreverent attitudes are reported in the act of receiving the Eucharist,” he was deciding “that from this day forward, in the metropolitan church of San Pietro, in the basilica of San Petronio and in the shrine of the BVM of San Luca in Bologna, the faithful are to receive the Consecrated Bread only from the hands of a minister directly onto the tongue.”

For their part both Bishop Schneider and Dom Mauro Gagliardi [3] ask for a strong reminder that the “normal” way is that of Communion in the mouth, and that Communion in the hand is only a “tolerated” way, even though it has remained the most widespread way for a good long time. Such an encouragement is very important for the rebirth of faith in the real presence. Respect for the divine and for the holy is expressed through signs of reverence, again according to Msgr Bux.

Yet, other points too are constantly brought up by the partisans of the reform of the reform; to wit:
—1. Encouragement to reduce the number of concelebrants, and even of concelebrations: “When it [concelebration] becomes to frequent, the mediating function of each priest as such is obscured.”
—2. Slow reduction of the manifold optional parts of the Mass (particularly the Eucharistic prayers, some of which present doctrinal problems).
—3. Reintroduction of elements of the extraordinary form that encourage the sense of the sacred and of adoration, such as genuflections, kisses on the altar, the very ancient signs of the cross in the Canon: “The sacred is also expressed in signs of the cross and genuflections” (N. Bux).
—4. And much else besides: a reminder that the kiss of peace is a sacred action and not a manifestation of middle-class civility; the massive reintroduction of the liturgical language that is Latin, etc.

Lastly, and above all, one mustn’t overlook the encouragement given to the priest to celebrate facing the Lord, at least during the offertory and the Eucharistic prayer. “The most visible indicator of the liturgical reform,” says Msgr Bux, “was the change in the priest’s position with respect to the people.” In light of these words, one can legitimately reckon the beginning of the reform of the reform from the time when the Pope and the bishops will commonly celebrate towards the Lord.

D – The Spearhead of the Reform of the Reform Project
In his book, Nicola Bux notes that the key of the new liturgy as it left the offices of Bugnini—the author of the liturgical reform—is adaptation to the world. This is the point on which Bux’s thinking, in unison with that of the reform of the reform partisans, is at its most radical: the essence of Catholic liturgy is to be “as a permanent critique that the Church addresses to the world, while the world continually seeks to convince her to belong to it.” Therefore one must bear in mind that revolution is not reform: “the reform cannot be understood as a reconstruction attempt according to the tastes of a specific time.”

That is why Msgr Bux quotes at length, and comments on, the “Ottaviani Intervention” published soon after the Council by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. “They deplored,” he recalls in approval of the two Italian cardinals, “the absence of the normal finality of the Mass, that is to say, propitiatory sacrifice.” Indeed it would take a blind man not to notice that the new rite of the Mass has a de facto effect of immanentizing the Christian message: the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice, the adoration of the Real Presence of Christ, the specificity of the hierarchical priesthood and generally the sacred character of the Eucharistic celebration are expressed in a far less tangible way than in the traditional rite. That is why attempts to reintroduce the prayers that best express its sacrificial value (see, e.g., the book amounting to a manifesto along these lines by Fr. Paul Tirot, OSB: Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIe au XVIe siècle—History of the Offertory Prayers in the Roman Liturgy From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century [Edizione Liturgiche, 1985]) into the new Missal are on the rise today.

If, therefore, there is a point on which one can expect legislation to promote the reform of the reform project, it is certainly this: the possibility of introducing the traditional Roman Offertory prayers into the ordinary celebration.

In sum, if this plan were truly to take shape, the inverse situation to what happened between 1965 and 1969 might eventually develop: to that time of brutal transformation when everything changed in a ‘progressive’ direction might correspond a period of slow evolution during which everything would change in a resacralizing direction.

Such an implementation of the reform of the reform would thus be truly reformative, in the traditional (and quite demanding!) sense of the term ‘reform’. It would proceed by ‘contamination’, to use a term familiar to historians of the liturgy when they mean to speak of one liturgy’s influence over another. In this case, it would be that of the traditional liturgy on the new.

In fact, one might even claim that the extraordinary form is perhaps the only chance to save the ordinary form in the long term, precisely by enabling it to become less and less ordinary. It might then become a step by which to reach the extraordinary liturgy. In any event, it would in no way compete with the extraordinary form, but would rather provide it with a far more favorable environment for its dissemination and its affirmation as the official form of reference.

[1] Until an English version is published, Msgr Bux’s book is available in its original version from its Italian publisher, Piemme.

[2] During the 2001 liturgical days of Fontgombault, Cardinal Ratzinger had stated that there was no question, doubtless for a long time, of touching the Tridentine missal, essentially because its presence and life today could serve as a goad to an evolution of the new missal. This “line” is today clearly that of the Congregation for Divine Worship and of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which hold that the introduction of the new lectionary into the traditional rite is impossible, for example. The only adjustment of the traditional rite that can be envisioned, according to the Roman liturgists, might be the introduction of a few new prefaces.

[3] Interview granted to zenit.org on December 21, 2009.

Where's the fruit?

On Thanksgiving afternoon (it is the second Monday of October here in Canada), I was perusing one of the two thick blue and yellow books the "Documents of the Vatican II." I asked two friends at dinner, "Did anything good come out of Vatican II?" There was hesitation as the three of us tried to think of something. Now all three of us attend Mass in both forms of the Roman Rite, Ordinary and Extraordinary, so it is not a question of denying the "validity" of the "Ordinary" liturgical forms.

But we were clearly hard pressed to substantiate the results of the last forty-five years as fruitful. I think though I can see some positive fruits that we did not discuss, but it is not here, not in the west. Something good has obviously happened in Africa. Seminaries are full and they are now becoming mission priests back to us. But the good that has been done in Africa did not need a Council and may well have happened regardless. Liturgically speaking, I think the Council Fathers in their desire for more vernacular in the liturgy had Africa in mind and truly, this may have helped, but it could have been done with an indult, again, the Council was not necessary for this. Ironically, Catholic in Africa seem to have a greater love and appreciation for Latin and dignified worship. I have seen this first hand myself through people in my choir (Zambia) a friend who is a Latinist (Sierra Leone) and a priest with whom I am acquainted (Nigeria) and from their own discussions with me. I clearly recall Pope Benedict XVI recent visit to Africa with sacred music and solemn liturgies and Gregorian chant and only after Mass did more cultural celebration take place.

So, aside from the active mission work in Africa which would have happened anyway (and even +Marcel Lefebvre would have considered some vernacular appropriate (mainly the Readings) I don't think I can think of one good thing that came out of the Council. However, I will put forward the notion that the whole zeitgeist has prevented the true Council from showing its fruit and on that point I will say this; We may not have good fruit from the Council because we've not yet properly implemented the Council. Instead we had a revolution and destruction.

Do I reject the Council? No, it is not possible any more than one can reject Trent or Nicaea! But what good has come of it, at least in our current interpretation and practice?

Our relations with Jews? That didn't need a council; besides given the diatrabe over the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Good Friday prayer and Bishop Williamson, what good has it done us? The Zionists (and I make a distinction between them and the observant, orthodox God-fearing religious Jew) certainly have not come towards us, they still blame Pope Pius XII for not doing enough to prevent the Holocaust despite the documented evidence of history to the contrary.

How about ecumenism? Really, have you seen how "catholic" the Anglicans have become lately?
Religious life? Don't even go there.

It won't be long until the first real challenge to the Council, or at least its false interpretation and ambiguous documents, takes place. Formal theological discussions between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X will begin on October 26.

The SSPX is Catholic, though clearly they are in an irregular situation. It is debatable whether the disobedience to the Pope by +Marcel Lefebvre and +Castro de Mayor together with the four consecrated bishops was necessary to be where we are today. Some will say we would not have the motu proprio without the Econe consecrations and SSPX growth and other will argue that we would have had it sooner if not for the controversy linked with the traditional liturgy because of them. Yes, the FSSP came from their disobedience but there is nothing to say that this would have happened regardless. Pope John Paul II and at the time, Cardinal Ratzinger were trying to find a way forward and they would have done it without the SSPX. Having known many of their "supporters" first hand, I have come to see that there is as much wrong with them as there is right. The schismatic attitude is prevalent amongst the majority of their supporters and this is quite obvious right here in Toronto where their mission is no less than 10 minutes from the traditional Mass daily at The Oratory. The ignorance of their supporters goes something like this: "I won't support any novus ordo presbyter." Or how about, "I won't support any grou whose priests who celebrate the novus ordo." Or even something as sad and wrong as this, "I could never go to Mass there, what if the Hosts were consecrated at the novus ordo?"

In many places the liturgy has become an abomination. Many will argue even when it is done with Propers and in Latin and even "ad orientem: and with a hermeneutic of continuity it is still deficient. I am one that would make that argument; the Missa Normative, while it is not invalid and not illicit, and is the Holy Sacrifice remains deficient; and please note the difference. For a Mass to be valid, it is the Consecration which must be valid--form, matter and intent. Putting aside the Consecration, the Mass is worship and adoration to God and prayer and supplication and preaching. And other than preaching, there's a whole lot less adoration, prayer and supplication.

Of course, much of what has happened since the Council with the liturgy was never mandated by the Council. You won't find anywhere, in any document, the mandate to rip out altars or communion rails or artrwork or Gregorian chant or receive Holy Communion in the hand or get rit of patens or provide Extraordinary Ministers or for religious women to discard their habits!

Beyond liturgy, the "subsists in" verses the "is" describing the Catholic Church as in Lumen Gentium remains an obstacle to moving forward with the Society of St. Pius X and it is good that they intend to debate this. It is has always been my belief that the Catholic Church "is" the Church of Christ. Of course, Lumen Gentium also states that if one persists in remaining outside the Church with full knowledge that the Church is true, then one is lost. But it is these "timebombs" and ambiguities as described by Lefebvre and others that is the problem with the documents of the Second Vatican Council. As an example, I can read Sacrosanctam Concilium-the Constitutuion on the Sacred Liturgy and find no break with the past only calls for organic development within a set of principles; others of course found much more latitude.

From Inside the Vatican the other day:

http://insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-oct-14-09.htm
October 3rd -- Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant Jésus (Roman calendar and a local Saint here in Normandy)...

Father Louis Bouyer (photo): I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once (and the following conversation ensued):

Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church's liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!

Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?

Paul VI: But I don't understand: I'm not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: "Here is what the experts are asking for." And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.

Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: "The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy." And since I don't agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.

Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: "The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that". And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.

Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done!

Dr. Robert Moynihan comments on the "subsists" issue specifically in his letter today.

Letter #33, And So It Begins

Posted by: Robert Moynihan Ph.D. on Oct 15, 2009

Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month, it was announced today. Why is Benedict XVI allowing this new debate on the most vexed questions of the Second Vatican Council? By Robert Moynihan, reporting from Rome

====================================
"The first real task of the Council was to overcome the indolent, euphoric feeling that all was well with the Church, and to bring into the open the problems smoldering within." —Father Joseph Ratzinger, in a talk on the Second Vatican Council delivered in October 1964, while the Council was still in session (he was then 37 years old and a peritus or "expert" at the Council; see http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=38537616&msgid=592165&act=YPML&c=305005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealmagazine.org%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D935)


"What has happened since the Second Vatican Council can, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, be described as a cultural revolution, considering the false zeal with which the churches were emptied of their traditional furnishings, and the way that clergy and religious orders put on a new face. That 'rashness' is already regretted by many, the cardinal contends. There was, he believes, a 'widening gulf' between the Council Fathers, who wanted aggiornamento, updating, and 'those who saw reform in terms of discarding ballast, a more diluted faith rather than a more radical one...'" —The London Tablet, April 19, 1997, reviewing the book Salt of the Earth, a book-length interview with German writer Peter Seewald (conducted when Ratzinger was in his late 60s)


"After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the Pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an Ecumenical Council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the Pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The Pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith..." —Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000 (published when Ratzinger was 73 years old)



====================================

Pope Benedict XVI has just made a dramatic choice, one which will certainly be numbered among the major decisions of his pontificate.
He has decided, in effect, to reopen formal debate on the Second Vatican Council and its teaching.

The new dialogue, which will take place in Rome between the leaders of the Fraternity of St. Pius X (the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) and Vatican experts will take place on October 26 at the Vatican, Jesuit FatherFederico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said today.
(Here is a link to a full report on the announcement:http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=38537616&msgid=592165&act=YPML&c=305005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicnews.com%2Fdata%2Fstories%2Fcns%2F0904605.htm.)
====================================
For the Pope's critics, the decision is unwise, as it seems likely to open a large can of worms.
These critics have argued that the lid on this can should be kept tightly closed. In essence, they have advised the Pope not to "dignify" the Society's objections to certain conciliar teachings -- or to the interpretations of those teachings -- by granting such a formal dialogue.

But Benedict has decided to let the dialogue begin.

For the Pope's supporters, the decision is an occasion for praise.

Why?
Because the Pope, almost five years into his pontificate, has finally decided to face head on and "bring into the open" the doctrinal problems "smoldering" (to cite his own words of 45 years ago) just beneath the surface of Church life throughout the entire post-conciliar period (1965 to the present, or 44 years).
So, with this decision to engage in a dialogue about the Council, a very significant phase of Benedict's pontificate begins.
Because this dialogue will inevitably come to grips, more than a generation after the close of the Council, with profoundly important doctrinal issues -- issues which seriously divided the Council Fathers at the time of the Council, and which eventually, and tragically, led:
(1) to a formal schism in the Church between those whom we may call "traditionalists" and "progressives" (though the two terms are woefully inadequate) when in 1988 the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (the Lefebvrists) were excommunicated, and
(2) to widespread confusion among the Catholic faithful, to many exaggerated and erroneous interpretations of Christian and Catholic identity, and even to the formal or de facto abandonment of the Catholic faith by many.
With Benedict's decision, the Second Vatican Council is, in a certain sense, as it were, being called in "for further questioning" -- for an new examination and cross-examination, like a witness in a trial, to determine what the Council actually said, and intended.
And this means that theology, the strong point of this "theologian-Pope" (his career before he was consecrated a bishop was as a professor of theology in Germany), is about to take center stage in Benedict's pontificate.
And the goal in all this will be to arrive at clarity and a common understanding of the faith which will allow the reunion of the Lefbevrists with Rome, and so end of the only formal schism since Vatican II.
==============================
But we will not be able to observe this crucial theological debate.
It it will take place behind closed doors.
==============================

The Announcement

Here is the official Vatican communique on the matter:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009

DECLARATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE
HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I.

The first meeting of the foreseen discussions with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X will take place on Monday, October 26, in the morning.

Those who will participate [in the meeting] will be, from the part of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, other than the Secretary of said Commission, Mons. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, H.E. Archbisop Luis F. Ladaria Ferrer, S.I., and the already named experts: Fr. Charles Morerod, O.P., Secretary of the International Theological Commission, consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Rev. Mons. Fernando Ocáriz, Vicar General of Opus Dei, consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; the Rev. Fr. Karl Josef Becker, S.I., consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

The meeting will take place at the Palace of the Holy Office. The contents of the conversations, which regard open doctrinal questions, will remain strictly reserved.

At the end of the meeting, a communiqué will be released.
=========================================
The Response

And here is the reposnse of the Fraternity:
COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
Bishop Bernard Fellay has named as representatives of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X for the theological discussions with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, director of the Seminary Nuestra Señora Corredentora de La Reja (Argentina), Father Benoît de Jorna, director of the Séminaire International Saint-Pie X of Ecône (Switzerland), Father Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of Ecclesiology at the seminary of Ecône, and Father Patrick de La Rocque, prior of the Priory of Saint Louis in Nantes (France).

Bishop de Galarreta had already been the president of the commission which was in charge of the preparation of these discussions withon the Fraternity, after the month of April 2009.

The works will start in the second half of the month of October and will require the discretion needed for a serene exchange on difficult doctrinal questions.

Menzingen, October 15, 2009

====================================
Some Additional Background

In a recent interview granted to a Society magazine in South Africa and picked up by Reuters, Bishop Fellay spelled out his view of the issues to be raised during the upcoming dialogue.
“The solution to the crisis is a return to the past,” Fellay said.

He said Pope Benedict agrees with the SSPX on the need to maintain the Church’s links to the past, but still wants to keep some reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
“This is one of the most sensitive problems,” he said. “We hope the discussions will allow us to dispel the grave ambiguities that have spread through the Catholic Church since (the Council), as John Paul II himself recognised.”
Here is a fuller report on the interview, with some interesting comments attached:http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=38537616&msgid=592165&act=YPML&c=305005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.reuters.com%2Ffaithworld%2F2009%2F10%2F13%2Freturn-to-past-is-sspx-motto-for-doctrinal-talks-with-vatican%2F
========================================
One Issue: The "Subsistit" Clause

(Note: I draw most of the following material, which I condense and edit here, from an article by Anthony Grafton published inThe New Yorker, July 25, 2005, which may be found here: http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=38537616&msgid=592165&act=YPML&c=305005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accessmylibrary.com%2Farticle-1G1-134469260%2Freading-ratzinger-cardinal-joseph.html. The point Grafton focuses on below will certainly be among the points discussed in the upcoming dialogue.)

In May, 1984, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger summoned the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff to Rome.
At the time, Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
When Boff arrived, Ratzinger questioned him on relations between the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.
Boff replied by citing Chapter 1, No. 8 of Lumen Gentium ("Light of the Nations"), one of the key documents of Vatican II, which sets forth the Church's understanding of her own nature.
Lumen Gentium in one well-known passage of considerable importance for ecumenical dialogue with Protestant Christians, teaches that the true Church "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."
Boff -- like many others before him and after him -- interpreted this passage as teaching that the traditional teaching that the Catholic Church is the "one true Church" founded by Jesus Christ had been qualified by the Council and so, in effect, slightly altered.

Did those who drafted the document have this view? That is a vexed question.
For the first two years of the Council, the draft document stated simply and directly that the mystical body of Christ "is" the Catholic Church.
But in the fall of 1964 the word "subsists" ("subsistit" in Latin) was added, along with the passage about elements of truth being present outside the Church.
The official commentary explained that the change was meant to make the text "more harmonious with the affirmation of ecclesial elements which are elsewhere."
The Dominican theologian Yves Congar seemed to interpret the passage the same way Boff did: "Vatican II acknowledges, in sum, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the mystical body."
Yet Cardinal Ratzinger read this text in a different way.
To understand the chapter, he said, one must bear in mind a noun -- substantia -- closely related to subsistit, the verb that the Council Fathers had used.
Substantia, meaning "substance," refers to the essence of a thing (as in "transubstantiation").
According to Ratzinger, when the Council used the verb "subsists," it was stating that the true Church "both is, and can only be, fully present" in the Roman Church, with all its hierarchies.
After Boff returned to Brazil, the Congregation published a formal critique of his work stating that Boff had drawn from Lumen Gentium "a thesis which is exactly the contrary to the authentic meaning of the Council text."
Considering this incident, it seems clear that the upcoming dialogue of Vatican officials with the representaives of the Lefebvrists, occurring in almost exactly the same spot as Boff's encounter with Ratzinger, may have considerable importance for the future of ecumenism, that is, of efforts to reunite all Christians in one visible Church.

But we should keep in mind that a clarification of the actual intent of the Council Fathers when they drew up and approved the documents of Vatican II cannot in any case do harm to ecumenical dialogue: clarification of the truth of the Church's teaching must always be viewed as positive and freeing, and as helping to lead, in the long run, to authentic progrtess toward that Church unity desired and prayed for by Christ himself on the night before he died.
And that is why Benedict is allowing this dialogue: because he wants to clarify the true teaching of the Council, in the face of many erroneous claims, and after decades of real hope, yet hope marred by real confusion.

On October 26, this process of clarification will formally begin.
========================================
“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God's providence to lead him aright.” —Blaise Pascal (French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and writer, 1623-1662)

=========================================

On Sacred Music

Leaving the polemical combox behind, let us focus on something more sublime with my emphasis, courtesy of ZENIT:

SACRED MUSIC THAT SERVES THE WORD OF GOD

Father Samuel Weber on Sacred Music Institute

By Annamarie Adkins

ST. LOUIS, Missouri, JULY 4, 2008 (Zenit.org). Parish music directors -- and congregations -- in the Archdiocese of St. Louis soon will benefit from Archbishop Raymond Burke’s recent initiative: The Institute for Sacred Music.

Archbishop Burke, who has since been named to head the Apostolic Signature, the Church's supreme court, appointed Benedictine Father Samuel Weber as the first director of the new institute earlier this year.

Father Weber is a professor in the divinity school of Wake Forest University in North Carolina and also a monk of the St. Meinrad Archabbey in Indiana.

Q: Why did Archbishop Burke found the Institute for Sacred Music? What is its mission?

Father Weber: As Archbishop Burke explained, he established the institute to help him to cultivate more fully sacred music in the celebration of the complete Roman Rite.

The Institute will have many activities. First, it will form programs of sacred music, especially Gregorian chant, for parish musicians, musicians of other archdiocesan institutions and interested individuals.

Second, it will assist parishes with the singing of the Mass in English, for example, the entrance antiphon, the responsorial psalm and the Communion antiphon. Third, it hopes to foster the singing the Liturgy of the Hours.

A fourth activity of the institute is assisting parishes that wish to develop a "schola cantorum" for singing Gregorian chant; a fifth goal is aiding the full implementation of the English translation of the Roman Missal in the archdiocese.

Lastly, the institute aims to give particular assistance to the programs of sacred music at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis and at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary.

Q: Is there a difference between sacred music and religious music?

Father Weber: Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, we can make a distinction.

Sacred music, properly speaking, is music that is united to a sacred text -- especially psalms and other scriptural texts and texts of the Mass, such as the Introit, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc., and it includes certain traditional hymns that are -- or have been -- part of the official liturgical books.

The authority of the Church must confirm all the liturgical texts; these sacred words are not to be altered in setting them to music.

All sacred music is “religious music,” obviously. But religious music would encompass everything from classic hymns to contemporary songs with a religious theme in a wide variety of styles and varying quality. Not all religious music is suitable for sacred worship, certainly.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of competent authority -- i.e., the bishop or the Holy See -- to determine the suitability of all religious music for sacred worship, even though parish musicians will usually choose the music for a parish Mass and other liturgical celebrations.

All Church musicians need to be able to make truly informed choices about appropriate music for use in the liturgy, based on authentic Church teaching. This is not always easy, nor is the choice simply a matter of taste.

Q: Many complain about popular or secular forms of music creeping into the liturgy, but this has been a perennial problem for the Church. What causes this recurring problem, and how have the great renaissances in sacred music such as those fostered by Palestrina and Pope St. Pius X turned the tide?

Father Weber: Yes, you could say that the concern about secular -- or frankly anti-Christian -- musical styles supplanting sacred music in worship is perennial -- though it may manifest itself differently in different cultures and historical periods.

For example, in early centuries, all music other than chanting was strictly forbidden by Church authorities, because use of musical instruments had strongly pagan associations.

In the 19th century, the style of opera had so greatly influenced Church music that Pope St. Pius X warned strongly against this “profane” music, and forbade composing music imitating operatic styles. He initiated the 20th Century Liturgical Movement by his 1903 document, “Tra le Sollecitudini.”

In particular he encouraged Gregorian chant, which he said in the third paragraph of the document, “has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music,” thus “it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: The more closely a composition for Church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.”

It was Pope Pius X, also, who coined the phrase “active participation” of the people. And he also said in paragraph five of the document that “modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.”

After the Second Vatican Council it was the pop and folk style music of the late 1960s and 1970s that dominated newly composed music for worship -- Catholic and Protestant. Despite the Constitution on the Liturgy’s emphasis on the “pride of place” for Gregorian chant in the liturgy, the council’s teaching was ignored, and chant virtually disappeared.

The reasons for this are many and complex. But one major element was plain confusion and misunderstanding. The liturgical reform following the Council was astoundingly rapid, and serious upheavals in the secular world of those times also affected the anti-authoritarian mood within the Church.

This was played out dramatically in the liturgy. Changes were made precipitously with too little consultation with the bishops.

During the papacy of Pope John Paul II, we began to see a sober reassessment of the post-conciliar liturgical changes, culminating in his last encyclical, “Ecclesia de Eucharistia.”

The present “renaissance” in liturgical music we are now seeing is in large part due to Pope Benedict XVI and his many scholarly works on the subject even before he became pope.

The historic heritage of sacred music, then, always serves as an indispensable teacher and model of what best serves the celebration of sacred worship, and leads worshipers to greater holiness.

Q: Why did the Second Vatican Council state that Gregorian chant should be given "pride of place" in the Church's liturgy?

Father Weber: The Second Vatican Council's constitution on the liturgy, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," as well as numerous statements of the Popes and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM], teach us that Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony -- that is, sacred music sung in harmony -- such as compositions of Palestrina, are to enjoy "pride of place" in sacred worship.

This means that chant is not only to be in common use in the liturgy, but it is also to provide examples and inspirations for new compositions.

The reason for this is to assure a genuine organic development in the sacred music Catholics experience in worship -- in continuity with the Church's history, and transcending limitations of time and cultures.

Understanding and appreciating this universality in Catholic music for worship might be seen as one facet of the obedience of faith.

We need to remember, of course, that the Council teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God is telling us both how he wants to be worshiped, and what best serves the religious needs of those gathered for sacred rites.

Before all else, worship is about God. It is the duty of the creature to know, love and serve the Creator, and to render to God the service of prayer, praise and thanksgiving that is his due.

Worship is about us, the creatures, only insofar as we desire with all our hearts to serve God as he tells us he wants to be served.

Historically, Gregorian chant is in direct, organic development with ancient cantilation -- chanting -- patterns of the psalms in temple and synagogue. This was the background and experience of the first Christians. So our chanting today is in direct relationship with theirs.

One can see, then, that when we sing the chant, we are truly "in connection" with our fathers and mothers in the faith.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph heard and sang many of these patterns of sacred chant in synagogue and temple worship. The apostles, the martyrs, the great saints whose witness continues to inspire us today, were all nourished on these traditions of sacred chanting.

Even the saints and blesseds of our own day -- Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, St. Gianna Beretta Molla, for example -- all sang, heard and knew the chant and the traditions of sacred music inspired by the chant.

They were formed in this "school of sacred music" that is the chant, and, to borrow a phrase from St. Athanasius, the "gymnasium of spiritual exercises" that is the Psalter -- the Psalms of David.

I think, too, of my grandparents and parents, so many beloved family members, teachers and friends, who have gone before us "marked with the sign of faith."

How they loved the sacred chants, and passed them on to me with piety, devotion and reverence. What an opportunity to participate in the Communion of Saints. What could be richer or more spiritually satisfying?

Gregorian chant serves the word of God. It has no other purpose than to draw us to the sacred text, especially the Psalms, and to enable us to treasure God's word ever more deeply in our hearts.

It is entirely free of anything that is contrary to the faith, free of purely human agendas or experiences that lead us away from God's will and plan for us. To use the language of our computer age: The chant is "safe and secure." No viruses can enter.

Q: Benedict XVI has given a number of speeches discussing the importance of preserving the Church's heritage of sacred music, and a number of documents have been issued by the Holy See calling the universal Church back to that grand tradition, yet little seems to have changed on the ground. Why is there resistance to what should be seen as a form of Vatican II's concept of "ressourcement," that is, return to the sources?

Father Weber: Perhaps it is not so much resistance as a lack of communication and ineffective teaching that stalled things.

Pope Benedict is tireless in his teaching -- even before he became Pope -- for example, "A New Song for the Lord." An accomplished musician himself, he fully understands the power of music on the human heart, thus the central role of music in the liturgy.

Clearly, part of our task is to help "get the word out." I think we can already see many positive results of the recent actions of the Holy See concerning the liturgy.

For one thing, there is a growing interest among Catholic people in reviving their immensely rich heritage of music and art, and a real desire for greater beauty, reverence and solemnity in worship.

But when there is actual resistance? In the end, I believe that this comes down to the perpetual struggle between good and evil. God is constantly giving us all the grace we need to know, love and serve him.

But we are tempted by the devil, and suffer under the effects of original sin, so we sometimes make choices that, sadly, draw us away from God our Creator, and even extinguish the fire of love in our hearts.

It is the duty of all the pastors -- that God in his love has given us -- to call people back to that which will bring us true peace and blessedness. With great wisdom, over the centuries the popes, the Councils, have understood the importance of sacred music, art, architecture and ritual in the spiritual formation of the human person.

As a result, they have never ceased to teach us about the care that must be exercised in cultivating all sacred arts that serve divine worship.

Now it is our job to receive this teaching and implement it in our lives for our spiritual good.

Q: The book "Why Catholics Can't Sing" highlighted the abysmal state of congregational singing present in most American parishes. Why do you think parishes will be able to handle Gregorian chant? Isn't that harder to sing?

Father Weber: The author, Thomas Day, suggested -- among other things -- that people don't sing because the music they often encounter at Mass is not really worth the effort. Silence is one response to music that is inappropriate -- whether from the standpoint of aesthetics or theology.

Another factor is the disappearance of choirs from parishes, since choirs can effectively lead and encourage congregational singing.

It's encouraging to know that many people who are discovering chant for the first time are so strongly attracted by its beauty and solemnity that they want to become a part of its revival.

Speaking from experience, I would agree that Gregorian chant may require a greater discipline, more attention and sacrifice of time and energy in order to "make it happen" in our parishes.

But difficulty is not a real impediment.

In our American society we greatly value sports. I'm a Green Bay Packers fan myself, rabid, actually. I'm really grateful to the Packers for all the hours they spend in practice and preparation for their games. All the sacrifices they make. It's worth it.

The payoff is really something awesome. We, the fans, would settle for no less. Doesn't this same expectation apply to the things of God? It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?

St. Augustine taught the people of Hippo: "Cantare amantis est." Singing is characteristic of a lover. If the supreme love is, as we believe, between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, his Bride -- can any effort be spared to express this love in true beauty? Is any sacrifice too much?

We don't have to guess at the song. This tremendous Lover of ours tells us the song that he wants to hear from our lips and our hearts.

This is our Catholic faith. What more need be said? Let us begin!

The Missal of Benedict XVI

Courtesy of the blog, Summorum Pontificum and the "astute" observer on the Regina Caeli combox known as your humble Vox Cantor...

There is a very encouraging report making its way around the blogs. Rorate Caeli posted about it here and Fr. Z. here.

Here's the substance of the report:

BENEDICT CHANGES THE MASS - THE STUDY OF THE NEW LITURGY ASSIGNED TO THE CONGREGATION FOR WORSHIP

The rite of the Mass [Rorate: i.e. the Mass of Paul VI] could change. According to some indiscretions, Benedict XVI has charged the Congregation for Divine Worship to study some modifications in the liturgy. In particular, the Pope is said to have the intention to restore Latin for the formula for the Eucharistic consecration within the Mass in the "vernacular language", i.e. the one celebrated in the different national languages. The same could happen to the formulae of Baptism, Confirmation, Confession and of the other sacraments. In addition, the exchange of peace among the faithful during the Mass, which today takes place prior to the distribution of the Eucharist, could be anticipated (as in the Ambrosian rite) to the offertory so as not to disturb the recollection that precedes Communion.

These would be changes which would be added to the changes in the liturgy and regarding sacred vestments which the Pope, together with his Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Guido Marini, has made in recent months, to recover ancient traditions: the restoration of the crucifix at the center of the altar, the distribution of Communion to the faithful in the mouth while kneeling, the recovery of the pastoral staff of Pius IX (the ferula), the changing of the style of pallium (the strip of white wool with red crosses worn by the Pope), the restoration of the papal throne used in the Consistory and the celebration of Mass with the back to the assembly, as happened in January in the Sistine Chapel.

A poster on the thread at Rorate Caeli made an astute observation:

I recall a video on You Tube by Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX. It was from May of 2007 from their chapel in Oregon; he was giving a conference. At the time, he was not too confident that there would even be the motu proprio which came, thanks be to God, not long thereafter.

However, in this lecture he said, if I can paraphrase, “about a year ago spring 2006) I was made aware that a high-level panel was in secret, working on a new Missal for the Novus Ordo to repair the damage and make it more Catholic."

Essentially, it involved fewer options, though one option would be using the “Offertory” from the 1962 Missal in the vernacular in the Novus Ordo and the
suppression of all Eucharistic Prayers except EPI, the Roman Canon, and EPIII.

The three year lectionary would remain.

If this were to happen, it would make sense and it would coincide with the new Vox Clara Commission translation including the “pro multis.”

Could this then be true?

Could we also be on the verge of the elimination of the indult for Communion in the hand and a strong push or even mandatory ad orientem celebration?

If the above happens, would that not be a “Novus Ordo” that the SSPX, while not required to celebrate, could accept without theological reservation?

Certainly worth hoping and praying for.

Toronto Archbishop Thomas C. Collins celebrates Mass in Latin "ad orientem"

To the musical perfection of Giovanni Pierluigi Palestrina's Missa Veni Sponsa Christi and William Byrd's Confirma Hoc, Deus; Toronto Archbishop Thomas Christopher Collins today ordained the Reverend Brother Michael Eades to the Diaconate.

Reverend Brother Eades is a new Deacon of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Toronto.

Archbishop Collins celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (1970/2000 Roman Missal) in Latin and facing "ad orientem"--to the east.

The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

"Ad orientem" has been mistakenly been referred to as the priest saying Mass with his "back to the people." This posture is the norm in the Traditional Latin Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite as referred to in Pope Benedict's motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum. However, what is little understood by the catholic-laity and many priests is that the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can and should be celebrated in this posture. In two places in the rubrics of the Mass the priest is instructed to "turn" to the people presuming, therefore, that he is not already facing them!

Archbishop Collins was an inspiration this morning leading the congregation "on a pilgrimage" with his "face before God." He spoke in his homily of the need for all us to evangelise while linking that with the day's scripture readings and what is now a particular charism imparted by the Holy Spirit through His Grace upon Reverend Brother Eades as he is now able to proclaim the Gospel at Mass.

Founded by Father Jonathan Robinson, C.O. the Fathers of the Toronto Oratory serve two parishes, Holy Family where the Oratory is located and St. Vincent de Paul, the neigbouring parish. Saint Philip's Seminary is an apostolate of the Oratory. It is affiliated with the Pontifical University of the Lateran and has been authorised to grand degrees by the Province of Ontario. It accepts students for the priesthood who are sponsored by their diocese or by their religious order.

May God abundantly bless Archbishop Collins as he shepherd's this most difficult archdiocese.

May God abundantly bless Father Jonathan Robinson and all the Fathers and Brothers of the Oratory for their work and service to His people in Toronto.

May God abundantly bless Reverend Brother Michael Eades as he continues along the journey of the call of Our LORD to His holy priesthood.

This morning, for the first time in my life I kissed a Bishop's ring.

It was the first time in my life that I actually wanted to!

Special thanks to Greg Schilhab for the Copyright photos.
You can visit and see his wonderful work at:

www.gregschilhab.com

Corpus Christi in Rome: Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue!

Reprinted here from New Catholic at Rorate Caeli from Pope Benedict's homily today:

Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, made bread, broken for love, is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and of today. Kneeling in front of the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: who bends to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate before any earthly power, as strong as it may be. We, Christians, kneel only before God, before the Most Holy Sacrament, because we know and believe that in it is present the one true God, who has created the world and has so loved the world to give his only begotten Son.

We prostrate before a God who first inclined himself toward man, as Good Samaritan, to rescue him and give him life, and who knelt before us to cleanse our filthy feet. Adoring the Body of Christ means believing that there, in that piece of Bread, there is truly Christ, who gives true meaning to life, to the immense universe as well as to the smallest creature, to the entire human history as well as to the briefest existence. The adoration is a prayer which prolongs Eucharistic celebration and communion, and in which the soul continues to nourish itself: it is nourished with love, with truth, with peace; it nourished itself with hope, because the One before whom we prostrate does neither judge us, nor humiliates us, but transforms us and makes us free.

Benedict XVI
Homily (Most Holy Body of Christ)
May 22, 2008

Reprinted here from Father Z at What Does The Prayer Really Say:

During the Holy Father’s Corpus Christi Mass, the Holy Father gave Communion only to people kneeling at a kneeler set up before him. This is a very interesting development. The Holy Father has been trying to provoke conversation and a rethinking of many practices, not very good innovations, that have become more or less standard. You can see the kneeler set out.

And the people knelt and received on the tongue. I am sure they were instructed to.

I watched and rewatched the coverage and did not spot anyone receiving in another way from the Holy Father. In so many places it is simply accepted that Mass must be celebrated "facing the people", versus populum, instead of "facing God", ad orientem. So the Holy Father celebrated Holy Mass in the Sistine Chapel, when he was also going to do something very much in his role as Bishop of Rome, when he baptized. He got the conversation going.

i

Now, in another moment when he is very much Bishop of his diocese, for this great City celebration of the Eucharist, he adminsters Holy Communion on the tongue at a kneeler.

i

Surely this will start another conversation.

p

Remember that just the other day the newspaper of the Diocese of Toronto attacked Benedict’s reforms as "backward steps" and the mere suggestion that Communion in the hand wasn’t wonderful.

p

Remember that His Holiness’s Secretary in the Cong. for Divine Worship, Archbp. Malcolm Ranjith, wrote a preface to a book, Dominus Est: riflessioni di un vescovo dell’Asia Centrale sulla Santa Comunione, printed by the Vatican press which argues for a return to Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

d

The book is by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan and it will eventually be in English, I am sure. In the Vatican’s newspaper, Bp. Schneider asked "Wouldn’t it correspond better to the deepest reality and truth about the consecrated bread if even today the faithful would kneel on the ground to receive it, opening their mouths like the prophet receiving the word of God and allowing themselves to be nourished like a child?"

d

It may be that at the next Mass Pope Benedict will do the same. Maybe he won’t.

But people are now going to be talking.

p

Piece by piece, he is challenging assumptions.

p

Brick by brick he is rebuilding what was devastated.

p

His Marshall Plan for the Church is very much underway.

• • • • • •

A Bishop Speaks...

=
The Most Reverend Arthur Joseph Serratelli, S.T.D., S.S.L., D.D, is Bishop of the Diocese of Patterson, at New Jersey.

Methinks a Metropolitan See is not too distant in the future!

d

+++

d
In the 17th century, Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, rejected the philosophical traditions of Aristotle and the Scholastics. For Descartes, the very fact that we think is the proof that we exist. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. He rejected the use of his senses as the basis for knowledge. In so doing, he wounded the unity between mind and body found in classical philosophy. Over the course of time, the wound has widened. The spiritual and the material have drifted apart. The sacred and the secular clearly divided.

Besides modern philosophy, other factors have contributed to the separation of the sacred from the secular. The scientific manipulation of human life in test tubes has lessened the respect for life itself. Life is no longer, for some, a sacred gift from God. Likewise, the divorce of human sexuality from procreation, coupled with the continual campaign to redefine marriage has helped to push God out of the intimacies of human life. Marriage is no longer recognized as a sacred institution given by God for a man and woman to join with Him in bringing new life into the world. The sacredness of even the natural order as coming from the hands of an all-wise God is thus lost.

The anti-authoritarian prejudice that we have inherited from the social revolution of the '60’s imprinted on many a deep mistrust not only of government but of Church. Some even reject the very idea of hierarchy (literally, “a sacred origin”) as a spiritual authority established by God. As a result, Church means, for some, simply the assembly of like-minded believers who organize themselves and make their own rules and dogmas. Thus, the Church’s role in the spiritual realm is greatly eclipsed.
\
On the first day of the new millennium, Prince Charles of England said, "In an age of secularism, I hope, with all my heart, in a new millennium we will rediscover a sense of the sacred in all that surrounds us." He said he hoped this would hold true whether in growing crops, raising livestock, building homes in the countryside, treating disease or educating the young. He recognized by his statement that we have lost a sense of the sacred.
g
Living in our world, we breathe the toxic air that surrounds us. Even within the most sacred precincts of the Church, we witness a loss of the sense of the sacred. With the enthusiasm that followed the Second Vatican Council, there was a well-intentioned effort to make the liturgy modern. It became commonplace to say that the liturgy had to be relevant to the worshipper. Old songs were jettisoned. The guitar replaced the organ. Some priests even began to walk down the road of liturgical innovation, only to discover it was a dead end. And all the while, the awareness of entering into something sacred that has been given to us from above and draws us out of ourselves and into the mystery of God was gone.

Teaching about the Mass began to emphasize the community. The Mass was seen as a community meal. It was something everyone did together. Lost was the notion of sacrifice. Lost the awesome mystery of the Eucharist as Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The priest was no longer seen as specially consecrated. He was no different than the laity. With all of this, a profound loss of the sacred.

Not one factor can account for the decline in Mass attendance, Church marriages, baptisms and funerals in the last years. But most certainly, the loss of the sense of the sacred has had a major impact.

Walk into any church today before Mass and you will notice that the silence that should embrace those who stand in God’s House is gone. Even the Church is no longer a sacred place. Gathering for Mass sometimes becomes as noisy as gathering for any other social event. We may not have the ability to do much about the loss of the sacredness of life in the songs, videos and movies of our day. But, most assuredly, we can do much about helping one another recover the sacredness of God’s Presence in His Church.

d
On the first day of this millennium, the Prince of Wales struck a strong note of optimism for the recovery of the sacred. Paraphrasing Dante, he remarked: "The strongest desire of everything, and the one first implanted by nature, is to return to its source. And since God is the source of our souls and has made it alike unto Himself, therefore this soul desires above all things to return to Him." There is one place where we can begin to rediscover the sacred.

This is the first of a series of four articles that will explore the loss and the recovery of the sense of the sacred in Catholic life.

Interesting letters from Ecclesia Dei

This is a valuable link from TheNewLiturgicalMovement to the blog by the SaintBedeStudio .

Blogger, Michael Sternbeck has posted some j-peg's of letters from the Ecclesia Dei Commission pertaining to what is actually permissible within the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962.

It is fascinating reading, particularly as we in wait in hope for the Motu Proprio from His Holiness Benedict XVI freeing up the use of the Traditional Latin Mass.

I find if fascinating because as friends will attest, these are things which I have expressed my opinion on as to organic development of the "Mass."

Amongst these:

• At a Low Mass, the celebrant may read an approved translation into the vernacular of the Epistle and Gospel. (my emphasis throughout)


• At a Solemn Mass, the celebrant and ministers may join with the schola in singing a plainchant Gloria and Credo, without the requirement of reading them together beforehand.


• At any sung Mass, the entire congregation may join with the Celebrant in singing the Pater noster.


• The additional prefaces which were included in an appendix of the 1965 Missale Romanum may be used at any celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Furthermore, prefaces from the 1970 Missale Romanum may also be included.

According to Mr. Sternbeck, "In addition to these Decisions, the Commission attached to the letter its permissions regarding the form of the Conventual Mass which may be celebrated by the Traditionalist Benedictines of France. By this was intended that the form of celebration described may be celebrated elsewhere."
d

• If the celebration of the Divine Office precedes Mass, the Prayers at the Foot of the altar may be omitted.


• The rites accompanying the readings from scripture may be celebrated at the sedilia.


• The readings may be proclaimed facing the people, whether in Latin or the vernacular and the celebrant is not required to read them or the Gradual chants separately.


• Bidding Prayers may be offered after the Oremus, immediately preceding the Offertory.


• The "Secret" prayer may be sung aloud.


• The celebrant may sing the entire doxology Per ipsum, whilst elevating the Host over the chalice.


• The Pater noster may be sung by all with the celebrant.


• The final Blessing may be sung, and afterwards the Last Gospel may be omitted.

I agree almost 100% with the above, though I doubt I would want the last Gospel omitted. I have long thought that the readings and additional chanting by the Priest of the Secret and particularly, the Doxology are some of the elements of the Novus Ordo that would enhance the Traditional Latin Mass.

What I find equally interesting is that there is also permission granted to insert new saints under some guidelines.

At the end of the day, the 1962 Missal after being "freed" will need to be updated. Perhaps we can look forward to a 2010 Missal incorporating officially, these various changes suggested by Ecclesia Dei and in keeping with the desires of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

Well, there may be some rigid "traditionalists" that won't like this, but if we are serious about bringing forward the 1962 Missal to then we should also accept that it is not a "relic of history." It is a holy, living liturgy which has always gone through "organic growth." I would classify the above as being consistent with "organic growth."