The Council of the Media

Our Holy Father never stops teaching us, even now. What an incredible gift he has been to us from Our Lord. Just as the media manipulated the truth fifty years ago, they will manipulate it over the next month for their own evil purposes. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the CBC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, National Post, Guardian, Toronto Star; all of them have an agenda. Vatican III says one? The next Pope must allow women priests, says another. Pick an issue. Non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics, catholic-haters, telling the Catholic Church what it should do and what it should believe. 

Friends, don't read them, don't watch them, don't listen to them. If you want to know what is going on read the National Catholic Register or watch EWTN, read the Vatican Information Service or various blogs. Stay away from the media controlled by the diabolical one who is out to destroy as he knows that his time is short, very, very short.

God bless our Pope! 

And may God grant us not the Pope we deserve but the Pope which we need.

From Vatican Radio:

Below a Vatican Radio translation of the transcription of Pope Benedict's address

"It is a special and providential gift - began the Pope - that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once again meet my clergy, the clergy of Rome. It' s always a great joy to see how the Church lives, and how in Rome, the Church is alive: there are pastors who in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd, guide the flock of Christ". "It is a truly Catholic and universal clergy, - he added - and is part of the essence of the Church of Rome itself, to reflect the universality, the catholicity of all nations, of all races, of all cultures”.

“At the same time I am very grateful to the Cardinal Vicar who is helping to reawaken, to rediscover the vocations in Rome itself, because if on the one hand Rome is the city of universality, it must be also a city with its own strong, robust faith, from which vocations are also born. And I am convinced that with the help of the Lord we can find the vocations He Himself gifts us, guide them, help them to develop and thus help the work in the vineyard of the Lord. "

"Today - continued the Pope - you have confessed the Creed before the Tomb of St. Peter: in the Year of the Faith, I see this as a very appropriate, perhaps even necessary, act, that the clergy of Rome meet at the Tomb of the Apostle of which the Lord said, 'to you I entrust my Church. Upon you I build my Church’. Before the Lord, together with Peter, you have confessed: 'you are Christ, the Son of the living God.' Thus the Church grows: together with Peter, confessing Christ, following Christ. And we do this always. I am very grateful for your prayers that I have felt - as I said Wednesday - almost physically. Though I am now retiring to a life of prayer, I will always be close to all you and I am sure all of you will be close to me, even though I remain hidden to the world. "

"For today, given the conditions of my age - he said - I could not prepare a great, real address, as one might expect, but rather I thought of chatting about the Second Vatican Council, as I saw it".

The Pope began with an anecdote: "In 1959 I was appointed professor at the University of Bonn, which is attended by students, seminarians of the diocese of Cologne and other surrounding dioceses. So, I came into contact with the Cardinal of Cologne, Cardinal Frings. Cardinal Siri of Genoa, - I think it was in 1961 - had organized a series of conferences with several cardinals in Europe, and the Council had invited the archbishop of Cologne to hold a conference, entitled: "The Council and the world of modern thought." The Cardinal invited me - the youngest of the professors - to write a project; he liked the project and proposed this text, as I had written it to the public, in Genoa".

"Shortly after - he continued - Pope John invited him to come [to Rome –ed] and he was afraid he had perhaps said maybe something incorrect, false and that he had been asked to come for a reprimand, perhaps even to deprive him of his red hat ... (priests laughing) Yes ... when his secretary dressed him for the audience, he said: 'Perhaps now I will be wearing this stuff for the last time... (the priests laugh). Then he went in. Pope John came towards him and hugged him, saying, 'Thank you, Your Eminence, you said things I have wanted to say, but I had not found the words to say' ... (the priests laugh, applaud) Thus, the Cardinal knew he was on the right track, and I was invited to accompany him to the Council, first as his personal advisor, then - in the first period, perhaps in November '62 – I was also appointed as an official perito [expert-ed] for the Council”.

Benedict XVI continued: "So, we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. The expectation was incredible. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost really would come, a new era of the Church, because the Church was not robust enough at that time: the Sunday practice was still good, even vocations to the priesthood and religious life were already somewhat fewer, but still sufficient. But nevertheless, there was the feeling that the Church was going on, but getting smaller, that somehow it seemed like a reality of the past and not the bearer of the future. And now, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, changed, that the Church would once again source of strength for today and tomorrow. "

The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."

The Pope recalled: "We were full of hope, enthusiasm and also of good will." "I remember - he said - the Roman Synod was considered as a negative model" - where - it is said - they read prepared texts, and the members of the Synod simply approved them, and that was how the Synod was held. The bishops agreed not to do so because they themselves were the subject of the Council. So - he continued - even Cardinal Frings, who was famous for his absolute, almost meticulous, fidelity to the Holy Father said that the Pope has summoned the bishops in an ecumenical council as a subject to renew the Church.

Benedict XVI recalled that "the first time this attitude became clear, was immediately on the first day." On the first day, the Commissions were to be elected and the lists and nominations were impartially prepared. And these lists were to be voted on. But soon the Fathers said, "No, are not simply going to vote on already made lists. We are the subject. "They had to move the elections - he added - because the Fathers themselves wanted to get to know each other a little ', they wanted to make their own lists. So it was done. "It was a revolutionary act - he said - but an act of conscience, of responsibility on the part of the Council Fathers." 

So - the Pope said - a strong activity of mutual understanding began. And this - he said - was customary for the entire period of the Council: "small transversal meetings." In this way he became familiar with the great figures like Father de Lubac, Danielou, Congar, and so on. And this – he said "was an experience of the universality of the Church and of the reality of the Church, that does not merely receive imperatives from above, but grows and advances together, under the leadership - of course – of the Successor of Peter" .

He then reiterated that everyone “arrived with great expectations" because "there had never been a Council of this size," but not everyone knew how to make it work. The French, German, Belgian, Dutch episcopates, the so-called " Rhineland Alliance”, had the most clearly defined intentions." And in the first part of the Council - he said - it was they who suggested the road ahead, then it’s activities rapidly expanded and soon all participated in the "creativity of the Council."

The French and the Germans - he observed - had many interests in common, even with quite different nuances. Their initial intention - seemingly simple - "was the reform of the liturgy, which had begun with Pius XII," which had already reformed Holy Week; their second intention was ecclesiology; their third the Word of God, Revelation, and then also ecumenism. The French, much more than the Germans - he noted - still had the problem of dealing with the situation of the relationship between the Church and the world.

Referring to the reform of the liturgy, the Pope recalled that "after the First World War, a liturgical movement had grown in Western Central Europe," as "the rediscovery of the richness and depth of the liturgy," which hitherto was almost locked within the priest’s Roman Missal, while the people prayed with their prayer books "that were made according to the heart of the people", so that "the task was to translate the high content, the language of the classical liturgy, into more moving words, that were closer to the heart of the people. But they were almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the altar servers, who celebrated the Mass according to the Missal and the lay people who prayed the Mass with their prayer books”. " Now - he continued - "The beauty, the depth, the Missal’s wealth of human and spiritual history " was rediscovered as well as the need more than one representative of the people, a small altar boy, to respond "Et cum spiritu your" etc. , to allow for "a real dialogue between priest and people," so that the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people really were "one single liturgy, one active participation": "and so it was that the liturgy was rediscovered, renewed."

The Pope said he saw the fact that the Council started with the liturgy as a very positive sign, because in this way "the primacy of God” was self evident”. Some – he noted - criticized the Council because it spoke about many things, but not about God: instead, it spoke of God and its first act was to speak of God and open to the entire holy people the possibility of worshiping God, in the common celebration of the liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. In this sense - he observed - beyond the practical factors that advised against immediately starting with controversial issues, it was actually "an act of Providence" that the Council began with the liturgy, God, Adoration.

The Holy Father then recalled the essential ideas of the Council: especially the paschal mystery as a centre of Christian existence, and therefore of Christian life, as expressed in Easter and Sunday, which is always the day of the Resurrection, "over and over again we begin our time with the Resurrection, with an encounter with the Risen One. " In this sense - he observed - it is unfortunate that today, Sunday has been transformed into the end of the week, while it is the first day, it is the beginning: "inwardly we must bear in mind this is the beginning, the beginning of Creation, the beginning of the re-creation of the Church, our encounter with the Creator and with the Risen Christ. " The Pope stressed the importance of this dual content of Sunday: it is the first day, that is the feast of the Creation, as we believe in God the Creator, and encounter with the Risen One who renews Creation: "its real purpose is to create a world which is a response to God's love. "

The Council also pondered the principals of the intelligibility of the Liturgy - instead of being locked up in an unknown language, which was no longer spoken - and active participation. "Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood." In fact, intelligibility does not mean "banalizing" because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages ​​ - are not easily intelligible, "they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend". And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? "Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ."

The Pope then addressed the second issue: the Church. He recalled that the First Vatican Council was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War and so had emphasized only the doctrine on primacy, which was described as "thanks to God at that historical moment", and "it was very much needed for the Church in the time that followed”. But - he said - "it was just one element in a broader ecclesiology", already in preparation. So a a fragment remained from the Council. So from the beginning - he said – the intention was to realise a more complete ecclesiology at a later. Here, too, - he said - the conditions seemed very good, because after the First World War, the sense of Church was reborn in a new way. A sense of the Church began to reawaken in people’s souls and the Protestant bishop spoke of the "century of the Church." What was especially rediscovered from Vatican I, was the concept of the mystical body of Christ, the aim was to speak about and understand the Church not as an organization, something structural, legal, institutional, which it also is, but as an organism, a vital reality that enters my soul, so that I myself, with my own soul as a believer, am a constructive element of the Church as such. In this sense, Pius XII wrote the encyclical Mistici Corporis Christi, as a step towards a completion of the ecclesiology of Vatican I.

I would say the theological discussion of the 30s-40s, even 20s, was completely under the sign of the word " Mitici Corporis." It was a discovery that created so much joy in this time and in this context the formula arose "We are the Church, the Church is not a structure, something ... we Christians, together, we are all the living body of the Church" . And of course this is true in the sense that we, the true ‘we’ of believers, along with the ‘I’ of Christ, the Church. Eachone of us, not we, a group that claims to be the Church. No: this "we are Church" requires my inclusion in the great "we" of believers of all times and places.

So, the first idea: complete the ecclesiology in theological way, but progressing in a structural manner, that is alongside the succession of Peter, his unique function, to even better define the function of the bishops of the Episcopal body. To do this, the word "collegiality" was found, which provoked great, intense and even – I would say – exaggerated discussions. But it was the word, it might have been another one, but this was needed to express that the bishops, together, are the continuation of the twelve, the body of the Apostles. We said: only one bishop, that of Rome, is the successor of one particular apostle Peter. All others become successors of the apostles entering the body that continues the body of the apostles. And just so the body of bishops, the college, is the continuation of the body of the twelve, so it is necessary, it has its function, its rights and duties.

"It appeared to many - the Pope said - as a struggle for power, and maybe someone did think about power, but basically it was not about power, but the complementarity of the factors and the completeness of the body of the Church with the bishops, the successors the apostles as bearers, and each of them is a pillar of the Church together with this great body”.

These - he continued - were the two fundamental elements in the search for a comprehensive theological vision of ecclesiology, meanwhile, after the '40s, in the '50s, a little 'criticism of the concept of the Body of Christ had already been born: mystic - someone said - is too exclusive and risk overshadowing the concept of the people of God. And the Council - he observed - rightly, accepted this fact, which in the Fathers is considered an expression of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. We pagans, we are not in and of ourselves the people of God, but we become the children of Abraham and therefore the people of God, by entering into communion with Christ who is the only seed of Abraham. And entering into communion with Him, being one with Him, we too are people of God. That is, the concept of "people of God" implies continuity of the Testaments, continuity of God's history in the world, with men, but also implies a Christological element. Only through Christology do we become the people of God, and the two concepts are combined. And the Council - said the Pope - decided to create a Trinitarian construction of ecclesiology: the people of God-the-Father-Body of Christ- Temple of the Holy Spirit.

But only after the Council - he continued – was an element that had been somewhat hidden, brought to light, even as early as the Council itself, that is, the link between the people of God, the Body of Christ, and their communion with Christ, in the Eucharistic union. "Here we become the body of Christ, that is, the relationship between the people of God and the Body of Christ creates a new reality, that is, the communion." And the Council - he continued - led to the concept of communion as a central concept. I would say philologically that it had not yet fully matured in the Council, but it is the result of the Council that the concept of communion becomes more and more an expression of the sense of the Church, communion in different dimensions, communion with the Triune God, who Himself is communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, sacramental communion, concrete communion in the Episcopate and in the life of the Church.

The problem of Revelation provoked even greater discussion: at issue was the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and above all this interested exegetes of a greater freedom, who felt somewhat – shall we say - in a situation of negativity before Protestants, who were making great discoveries, while Catholics felt a little '"handicapped" by the need to submit themselves to Magisterium. There was therefore a very concrete issue at stake: how free are exegetes? How does one read Scriptures well? What is meant by tradition? It was a pluri-dimensional battle that I can not outline now, but certainly what is important thing is that Scripture is the Word of God and the Church is subject to the Scriptures, obeys the Word of God and is not above Scripture. Yet, Scripture is Scripture only because there is the living Church, its living subject, without the living subject of the Church Scripture is only a book, open to different interpretations but which does not give any final clarity.

Here, the battle - as I said - was difficult and the intervention of Pope Paul VI was decisive. This intervention shows all the delicacy of the Father, his responsibility for the outcome of the Council, but also his great respect for the Council. The idea had emerged that Scripture is complete, everything can be found therein, so there was no need for tradition, and that Magisterium has nothing to say to us. Then the Pope sent the Council, I believe, 14 formulas of a sentence to be included in the text on Revelation and gave us, gave the Fathers the freedom to choose one of 14 (formulas), but said: "One has to be chosen to complete the text". I remember, more or less, [Latin] that the formula spoke of the Churches’ certainty of the faith is not based solely on a book, but needs the illuminated subject of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Only in this way can Scripture speak and bring to bear all of its authority. We chose this phrase in the Doctrinal Commission, one of the 14 formulas, it is crucial, I think, to show the indispensability, the necessity of the Church, and to understand what tradition means, the living body in which the Word lives from the beginning and from which it receives its light, in which it was born. Because the simple fact of the Canon is an ecclesial fact: these writings are Scripture is the result of the illumination of the Church that found this canon of Scripture within herself, she found, she did not make, but found. Only and ever in this communion of the living Church can one really understand, read the Scriptures as the Word of God, as the Word that guides us in life and in death.

As I said, this was a difficult discussion, but thanks to the Pope and thanks - let's say - to the light of the Holy Spirit who was present at the Council, a document that is one of the most beautiful and also innovative whole Council was created, which demands further study, because even today the exegesis tends to read Scripture outside of the Church, outside of faith, only in the so-called spirit of the historical-critical method, an important method but never able to give solutions as a final certainty only if we believe that these are not human words: they are the words of God, and only if the living subject to which God has spoken, to which God speaks is alive, can we correctly interpret Sacred Scripture. And there is still much to be done, as I said in the preface of my book on Jesus, to arrive at a reading of Scripture that is really in the spirit of the Council. Here the application of the Council is not yet complete, it has yet to be accomplished.

Finally, ecumenism. I do not want to enter into these problems, but it was obvious - especially after the passions of Christians in the time of national socialism - that Christians could find unity, at least seek unity, but also that only God can give unity. We are still on this journey.

Now, with these issues, the Rhine alliance - so to speak - had done its work: the second part of the Council is much broader. Now the themes of "the world today", "the modern era" and the Church emerged with greater urgency, and with them, the themes of responsibility for building of this world, society’s responsibility for the future of this world and eschatological hope, the ethical responsibility of Christians, where they find their guides and then religious freedom, progress and all that, and relations with other religions.

Now all the players in the Council really entered into discussions, not only the Americas-United States with a strong interest in religious freedom. In the third period they told the Pope: "We can not go home without bringing with us a declaration on religious freedom passed by the Council." The Pope, however, had firmness and decision, the patience to delay the text until the fourth period to reach a maturation and a fairly complete consensus among the Fathers of the Council. I say, not only the Americans had now entered with great force into the Council arena but also Latin America, knowing full well the misery of their people, a Catholic continent and their responsibility for the situation of the faith of these people. And Africa, Asia, also saw the need for interreligious dialogue: increased problems that we Germans - I must say - at the beginning had not seen. I cannot go into greater depth on this now. The great document "Gaudium et Spes" describes very well the problem analyzed between Christian eschatology and worldly progress, between our responsibility for the society of tomorrow and the responsibility of the Christian before eternity, and so it also renewed Christian ethics, the foundations. But unexpectedly, a document that responded in a more synthetic and concrete manner to the great challenges of the time, took shape outside of this great document, namely "Nostra Aetate". From the beginning there were our Jewish friends, who said to us Germans especially, but not only to us, that after the sad events of this century, this decade of Nazism, the Catholic Church has to say a word on the Old Testament , the Jewish people. They also said "it was clear that the Church is not responsible for the Shoah. those who have committed these crimes were Christians, for the most part, we must deepen and renew the Christian conscience, even if we know that the true believers always resisted these things”. And so, it was clear that we had to reflect on our relationship with the world of the ancient people of God. We also understood that the Arab countries - the bishops of the Arab countries - were not happy with this. They feared a glorification of the State of Israel, which they did not want to, of course. They said, "Well, a truly theological indication on the Jewish people is good, it is necessary, but if you are to speak about this, you must also speak of Islam. Only in this way can we be balanced. Islam is also a great challenge and the Church should clarify its relationship with Islam". This is something that we didn’t really understand at the time, a little, but not much. Today we know how necessary it was.

And when we started to work also on Islam, they said: "But there are also other religions of the world: all of Asia! Think about Buddhism, Hinduism ... ". And so, instead of an initial declaration originally meant only for the ancient people of God, a text on interreligious dialogue was created anticipating by thirty years what would later reveal itself in all of its intensity and importance. I can not enter into it now, but if you read the text, you see that it is very dense and prepared by people who really knew the truth and it briefly indicates, in a few words, what is essential. Thus also the foundations of a dialogue in diversity, in faith to the uniqueness of Christ, who is One. It is not possible for a believer to think that religions are all variations on a theme of "no". There is a reality of the living God who has spoken, and is a God, a God incarnate, therefore the Word of God is really the Word of God. But there is religious experience, with a certain human light of creation and therefore it is necessary and possible to enter into dialogue and thus open up to each other and open all peoples up to the peace of God, of all his children, and his entire family.

Thus, these two documents, religious freedom and "Nostra Aetate" associated with "Gaudium et Spes" are a very important trilogy, the importance of which has only been revealed over the decades, and we are still working to understand this uniqueness of the revelation of God, uniqueness of God incarnate in Christ and the multiplicity of religions with which we seek peace and also an open heart to the light of the Holy Spirit who enlightens and guides to Christ.

I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers - the true Council - but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council - as I said - moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the "people of God", the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all ... popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: "Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world". Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.

And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized ... and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help us. I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is victorious. Thank you.

Benedict XVI

Meeting with Roman Clergy

February 14, 2013

You are Peter! God bless you Papa Ratzinger!

God bless our Pope!

Dear Brothers, I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfil...l the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer. From the Vatican, 10 February 2013 BENEDICTUS PP XVI

+ + +

I will never forget that day when he was elected. I stood with a few dozen other Catholics and when the announcement was made, "Emitissime, Josephus Cardinalis Ratzinger" my fist and that of one other went into the air -- "yes!" while the others remained with their mouths gaping wide as to what they had just witnessed.

"Pray for me that I do not flea for fear of the wolves." Which of us can forget his request to us to pray for him. He did not seek the elevation to Bishop of Rome, indeed, after the election, his brother went to bed and wept. How many times did he try to retire as Cardinal Prefect to write and perhaps to teach and he was talked out of it by Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. Yet, he humbled himself to the desires of that holy pope and more importantly to the will of God, through the Holy Spirit.

How do we react to this news?

First, let us pray to God the Holy Spirit for a truly holy man as our next Pope.

Second, let us also understand that Canon Law provides for the abdication of a Pope. Canon 332 §2 states: "Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone." Nor of course, does he have to explain anymore than he already has in his letter. It is important to note that Pope John Paul II is known to have provided a letter should it become necessary to issue and Pope Pius XII signed a document that had he been kidnapped by the Nazis, a conclave should be held and that it should be considered as an abdication.

Let us also remember that the man, Joseph Ratzinger is nearly 86. He is a wise, wise man of deep spirituality and prayer. He is old, he is tired and he knows more than the rest of us. It is reported that he has been cautioned by his doctors about long flights. We can see from the Christmas Masses that he has, almost suddenly, become more frail. He knows more than anyone the crisis in which the Church finds itself and the work that must be done for the sake of souls. He knows as well, his own limitations. Truly, he saw from the inside the challenges of a Church headed by a Pope incapable of governing and the deceit and anarchy that was happening in the Church. Before that happens again, he is turning the Barque of Peter back to God and into the hand of its Founder and the Holy Spirit to provide for It, a new shepherd.

Thank you God for Papa Ratzinger.

Thank you Pope Benedict for your love, your vocation, your humility, your commitment, your intellect, your liturgical sensibility, your prayers, your kindness, your devotion, your faithfulness and for Summorum Pontificum.

May God bless you and keep you and may you know how much you are loved.

+ + +

CCCB or Papa Ratzinger; Whom do you believe?

With a hat-tip to Kitchener-Waterloo Traditional Catholic for the good work on Jadot's boys, comes this story which I've long forgotten about:

"On January 18, 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, the local Ordinary of Honolulu (now deceased), served them [six SSPX priests] a Formal Canonical Warning, threatening them with excommunication.  On May 1, 1991, they were formally declared to be excommunicated

In a letter dated June 28, 1993, the USA's Apostolic Pro-Nunico, Archbishop Cacciavillan, declared on Cardinal Ratzinger's behalf:

From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.

This is a declaration that the automatic (ipso facto) excommunication claimed by Bishop Ferrario for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre is in fact totally non-existent."

On January 17, commenting on the inappropriate comments by Bishop Fellay, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops the Society of Saint Pius X, to be a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church.

So which is it? 

Who are we to believe?

Is the SSPX schismatic as the CCCB states or is it not as then Cardinal Ratzinger declared in 1991?

For more on Bishop Ferrario, how about this little gem from Randy Engel's, The Rite of Sodomy:

Meanwhile, Ferrario was moving up the ecclesiastical ladder. In 1978, Pope Paul VI appointed him an Auxiliary Bishop of Honolulu, and in 1982, Pope John Paul II elevated Ferrario to Bishop of Honolulu. This despite the fact that Ferrario was engaged in sexual solicitation of seminarians at St. Stephen's and had carried on a homosexual liaison with another island priest. Word spread that the Diocese of Honolulu was now overtly "gay friendly."

KWTC refers in the same editorial to Raymond Leahy and Barry Glendinning, two homosexual pederasts, bishop and priest, who were known as expert "liturgists." How often has this been revealed; that those who those who persecute and denigrate the traditional liturgy and those who even take it upon themselves to put their personal mark on the new liturgy are themselves, homosexuals or sympathizers.

It is the height of narcissism and deceit and betrayal and disgust.

Oh, in case my enemies are reading, I'm not blogging from work - taking a vacation day.

Candlemas in the Extraordinary Form - southern Ontario

Down with the rosemary, and so

Down with the bays and the mistletoe;

Down with the holly, ivy and all,

Wherewith ye dress'd the Christmas Hall

Robert Herrick (1591-1674)

"Ceremony upon Candlemas Eve"

This Saturday is the final feast of the great Christmastide, Candlemas; from the Anthem, Lumen..."A light unto the Gentiles." 

There will be four Masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in the Archdiocese of Toronto plus a Sung Mass at St. Patrick's Kinkora in the Diocese of London at 10:00AM. and St. Aloysius in the Diocese of St. Catharines at 9:00AM.  

TORONTO ORATORY at HOLY FAMILY, Parkdale

Read Mass at 8:30AM

ST. LAWRENCE THE MARTYR, Scarborough

Read Mass at 10:00AM

ST. MARY IMMACULATE, Richmond Hill

Solemn Mass at 10:30AM 

ST. ISAAC JOGUES, PICKERING

Read Mass at 11:00AM 

Orange Cassock on its way?

What are we Catholics to think and how are we to react to the news eminating from Los Angeles that Archbishop Emeritus Roger Cardinal Mahony covered up the sexual abuse to the point of obstructing justice and even harbouring a homosexual pederast priest? Well, I think, with clarity and charity, we know what needs to be done now. As one can see from the picture above, he would not obey Church law either.

He can speak of prayers for the 3 x 5 card victims but this man, long been known as a "liberal," is being revealed now as the one of the worst of those who covered up these heinous crimes in the United States. He was the darling of the liberal media and Hollywood Catholics; it's amazing how they abandon and turn on one of their own. A long-ago union sympathizer priest in Fresno, he was plucked from there and is amongst the worst of the Jadot line that is now nearly mercifully behind us; though their evil deeds have not gone with them, the Church in America still bears the scars and so do we in Canada and worldwide due to their influence on the culture.

Roger Mohony, a Bishop of the Church, an Apostle of Christ will face justice. He needs to face it on this side of eternity and we must pray that while God will show justice, He will also show him mercy on the other side.

As for the District Attorney of Los Angeles County though, throw the book at him!

See National Catholic Register.

CCCB declares its authority over the Pope!

With a hat-tip to Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness (a blog that should be referenced regularly), we find that the Canadian Confrence of Catholic Bishops has declared the Priestly Society of St. Pius X as "a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church."

Really? 

When did the Pope make such a declaration? Has Benedict XVI ever, ever said such a thing? The nuanced "schismatic act" in Eccelsia Dei adflicta is not such a declaration. As Barona states, "The CCCB may be eager to create a schism, the Holy Father is not. At such times of crisis in the Church, it would be best for the CCCB to refrain from inflammatory language, and to correct the terrible abuses that exist within the various dioceses across Canada; rather then fling unhelpful accusations at the SSPX."

Bishop Fellay's recent trip to Toronto and New Hamburg have been noted worldwide. His comments and disclosure about the talks between the Society and the Holy See were, in my opinion, imprudent. Worse, his continuous deleterious remarks towards our Jewish brethren  as "enemies of the Church" is not acceptable, notwithstanding the explanation that all who oppose Christ are enemies. 

The issue here is not the SSPX it is the CCCB.

As Barona continues, "The CCCB has no canonical authority over the lay faithful." This is the fundamental issue, the ongoing exertion of authority which it does not possess over the faithful and the acquiescence of the diocesan bishop permitting this usurpation of their own authority to continue. Let us be abundantly clear, the CCCB has no right to make such a declaration  that the Holy Father himself, has not.

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)

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.  

More Toronto media and university hypocrisy

A week ago, I wrote here about the situation at the Newman Centre in Toronto over the Courage program at the University of Toronto. An article appeared in the getting thinner Globe and Mail and a whole two weeks later has found its way into the even less relevant Toronto Star. The Newman Center is on Catholic land withing vicinity of the University of Toronto.

Last week, the "sexual education centre" at the same university announced a special relationship with a Toronto swingers' club with discounts for students.

The Toronto media and various university groups, executives and others are hyperventilating that a Catholic Chaplain at a Catholic Church would actually teach and promote Catholicism, in this case, chastity for those with same-sex attraction (and opposite-sex attraction for that matter) whilst at the same time, bubbly over about a swingers club.

If there can be any other recent example in this city of how deranged this university, our Toronto media and our culture have become, this writer hard pressed to identify it.

A message first to the haters out there. Courage is not about changing anyone into a heterosexual. Courage is not about condemnation, now, get over it and stop hyperventilating; grow up and grow a real pair because there is more to life than being governed by your gonads.  

Mass attendance is allegedly down since some people have reportedly left the parish over this matter. Sad to see them go but may I suggest that one reads the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6 to see WJWD for a greater understanding into this matter.

The message to everyone else is this; Why not visit the Newman Center and St. Thomas Aquinas Church and attend Mass there today at 11:00 A.M. or 7:00 P.M. to show your support for the young people there and the good work being done by its dedicated, caring and committed Pastor and Chaplain, Father Chris Cauchi. 

If that's not possible, then let us all pray for him.

What's the difference in the terms for the traditional Latin Rite?

From the blog of UNA VOCE TORONTO...

In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the ars celebrandi, if not the theology, has often been described as "horizontal." By this, it is generally meant that it is more focused on community than the Divine; for example, in his great work The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI calls Mass facing the people as a "community turned inwards on itself." When one attends an Mass in the new Rite, the music is generally banal and inappropriate and while the new GIRM clearly desires all of the Mass to be sung, it is still a mish-mass of this and that. Few realise that Gregorian chant is proper to the new liturgy. To a large degree, this is due to the 1967 document, Musicam Sacram, which; thankfully given paragraph 28 of Universae Ecclesiae, does not apply to the Roman Missal 1962. Let us observe carefully this paragraph; "Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962." This is very important and in specific terms means, anything that came after which conflicts is not permitted. No Altar Girls, no communion in the hand, no communion standing (unless incapable to kneel), no Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, no lay Lectors and no Sunday Anticipated Masses on Saturday evenings. It is important to note that in connection with this, the Vigil Mass of Christmas, for example, is the Mass of December 24 (an Advent Mass in violet vestments) and the same would apply to the other Vigil Masses such as the Vigil Mass of Pentecost in the 1962 Missal. These are not evening Masses anticipating the next day, they are the Mass of the day prior. In the OF Missal  the Vigil Masses are of a different nature and they can be celebrated after Vespers (4:00PM) and be anticipated for the next day. In the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, there are clearer definitions and certainly fewer options. 

Some rubrics were modified during the legitimate liturgical movement of the first half of the 20th century. They were not so much a change in the liturgy but a change in the approach. For example in 1923, the first permission was given by Pope Pius XI for the "Dialogue Mass." Later, the earlier desires of St. Pius X in Tra le sollecitudini and again Pope Pius XI with the early Dialogue permissions and recommended by Bl. Pius X in Mediator Dei and De musica sacra et sacra liturgia and again by Blessed John XXIII in Rubricarum instructum (English here) were implemented. Truly, those that came after 1958 are less well known. There was no internet after all and parishes and people did not rush out to buy new Missals or even consider reading the version then of the GIRM.

Some questions that have been asked of us and arise are the simple terms of the Mass in the old rite and connected with these there are some important rubrics. Let us look at a simple guideline based on all of the documents above as to the names and their general rubrics relating to music and the spoken word:

A priest's first Mass in the Solemn Form with an "Assistant Priest"

Solemn Mass -- Known in Latin as a Missa Solemnis, this is the norm for the Mass with priest, deacon and subdeacon. All parts, Ordinary and Proper must be sung, incense is required. Propers should be sung in Gregorian melisma but can be sung in psalm-tone or recto-tono if necessary or they can be sung in polyphonic style or a drone could be used under the chant. A Pontifical Solemn Mass is when a bishop presides and while there are additional ceremonials, the musical requirements are the same.

Semi- Solemn Mass -- Unbeknownst to many, in 1963 a universal permission was granted for a Semi-Solemn Mass without a Subdeacon. The Deacon sings the Epistle and assumes many of the function of the Subdeacon except for the holding of the paten in the humeral veil. The Church was clearly interested in breaking out of the Low Mass Sunday manner of celebration so prevalent. Most parishes had at least two priests and one could have served as a Deacon for the principal Sunday celebration.



Sung Mass or Missa Cantata with the Gregorian Schola and Servers

Sung Mass -- The Missa Cantata is an exception. As referred to above, the Solemn Mass is the norm. The Missa Cantata was and remains a substitute as a Solemn Mass is not always possible and a Read Mass is not the ideal for the LORD's Day. The Sung Mass is without a deacon or subdeacon and the same musical rubrics apply as the Solemn Mass. Until 1962, incense was only used at a Solemn Mass but now is optional in a Sung Mass and often depends on the number of Servers. If there are sufficient, then even

Torchbearers can be used during the Canon. In a Missa Cantata, all parts must be sung, Proper, Ordinary, Lesson, Epistle, Gospel and Responses.

Read Mass with one Server

Read Mass  -- Often referred to by the unfortunate term "Low Mass," generally speaking, no music is permitted in a Read Mass and no incense is used except at the prescribed part of a Requiem and one Server is all that is required. As confirmed in Universae Ecclesiae 26, the Lessons, Epistle and Gospel may be read aloud in the vernacular without first reading them in Latin, but only, in a Read Mass. In a Sung or Solemn Mass, Latin is required and they must be sung.

Read Mass with Music -- In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites allowed applied certain norms and discipline to the rubrics in response to varied styles of providing music from parish to parish. No Propers (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Tract, Sequence, Offertory or Communion) may be sung, the Gloria and Credo may not be sung. The Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei may be sung, if short. A hymn in Latin may be sung at the Entrance but must end before the Introit is recited. A motet or hymn may be sung at the Offertory and at Communion in Latin or in the vernacular, provided it has something to do with the liturgical action of each; gifts, offering and at Communion, the Eucharist or thanksgiving. A recessional hymn may be sung or the organ may be played at these parts. This is not to be confused with a Sung Mass or Missa Cantata as above and the Propers must be proclaimed audibly and must never be covered with music. The organ may be played at any parts but may not cover the said Propers.

Dialogue Mass -- In 1923, 1947, 1958 and reaffirmed in 1962, the Holy See encouraged the Dialogue Mass and in the latter two years, applied four levels. These range from simple responses of "et cum spiritu tuo" to the Ordinary and all the responses of the Server, specifically the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to even, believe it or not, the reciting of the Proper Antiphons with the priest; the latter being reserved from those communities and individual capable of doing so.



Solemn Requiem held during Lent

Requiem Mass -- No organ is to be used at any Requiem Mass except to support the singing, if absolutely necessary. No prelude, no postlude, period!  A Requiem Mass' organ rules are the same as Lent and Advent, no organ solos. The Mass may be Read, Sung or Solemn in which case the norms above apply.



Rubrics are important. They keep us all on the same page and ensure that dignity and that we follow the Holy See's desires for Her liturgy. To quote from Universae Ecclesiae 24; "The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly." We must humble ourselves to the rubrics and not go our own way. Mixing the rubrics is not anticipated by the Church. Holy Mother Church gives us the guide, it is our duty to follow.

Let us all be educated in these important matters to serve loyally and faithfully. Let us not make the mistakes either out of ignorance or intent as so often found in the Ordinary Form; "I did it, my way." Let us also respect though, the established norms of existing communities of faithful and the customs to which they or their priests have maintained. The dialogue. for example, should not be forced on any individual, where it is not the custom; on the other hand, neither should anyone be chastised for engaging in it.

The Toronto Traditional Mass Society--UNA VOCE TORONTO will enthusiastically assist any priest or server or individual with gaining a greater understanding of the ars celebrandi of this venerable Rite. You may write us at unavocetoronto@rogers.com.

Commended to the mercy of God

Joseph Aurele Plourde, Archbishop Emeritus of Ottawa is dead. He was once quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying that people who long for "Gregorian chant suffer from nostalgia neurosis." Too bad he didn't read Sacrosanctam Concilium from the Council that ended only one year before he was consecrated as a bishop. In a an act of extreme cowardice he tore apart the community at St. Brigid's and the fledgling Ottawa Oratory. I know, I was there. He was one of the "Gang of Five." I will say nothing more as it would be inappropriate to speak ill of the dead and more than I already have; but the truth is the truth. Perhaps the gift of long-life, he was nearly 98, was a grace.

May the Lord have mercy on his soul.