Ottaviani Intervention (Actual text)

LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

Cardinal Ottaviani

Rome, September 25th, 1969 Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounder duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations: 1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily. 3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law. Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V. so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world. Brief Summary I: History of the Change. The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants. II: Definition of the Mass. By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. III: Presentation of the Ends. The three ends of the Mass are altered-: no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed. IV:—and of the essence. The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated. V:—and of the four elements of the sacrifice The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented. VI: The destruction of unity. The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound. VII: The alienation of the Orthodox. While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East. VIII: The abandonment of defenses. The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.   I—History Of The Change In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it. In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part: of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet. the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians". This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when—thanks to Pius X—they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and greater knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor .why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognized, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians. Rejected By Synod Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people—least of all in mission lands—ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people. The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire' (pare. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention. An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.   II—Definition Of The Mass Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structure Missae": "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt.XvIII,20)". The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8,48, 55d,56). This supper is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial. In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt.XVIII,20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence. In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later. The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an absolute sense. We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass, The Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy. As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it. We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.   III—Presentation Of The Ends We come now to the ends of the Mass. 1. Ultimate end. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me"'. (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb.X,5). This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Places tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year. 2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self-immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally. 3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink'". "Thou art blessed Lord God of the Universe, because from thy generosity we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth (or vine) and of man's labor. May it become for us the bread of life (or spiritual drink)". There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed. Suppression Of Great Prayers In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum odore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.   IV—The Essence We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice. The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons: 1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice" (No.54. the end). Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The center and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine. 2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation—a foot note—from the Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no.241, note 63). The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored. The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence. Note, too, the suppressions: of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration; of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice; of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal; of the pall protecting the chalice; of the internal gilding of sacred vessels; of the consecration of movable altars; of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table"—"when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses); of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only; of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing); of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239). All these things only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated. 3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the center of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, Cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the center of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'. Separation Of Altar & Tabernacle Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table. Once again the contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up against altar. In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain. The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things: a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fide)" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood. b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value. "To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things which, of their very nature, must remain together". (Pius XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). Cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5. note 28. c) The anamnesis ("Hace quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did (haec... in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem) which will now take the place of the old—proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration' will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action. The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Himself". (no. 556) In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi"). Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comes"") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming. This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation n. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comes"", where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.   V—The Elements Of Sacrifice We come now to the realization of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present. In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absolute), hence totally false -from the opening definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no.48). "Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium". A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence. This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento. In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae, (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred). Priest A Mere President 2. The priest's position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished. In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server addresses him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo". Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union—and the Communion of the faithful has been suppressed. Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister. The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient—n. 298) obliterate even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a noncommissioned officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quote the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood of the Word of God. 3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation, is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no.13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself,'. (no. 60), instead of ones which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri". In this context the following are to be noted: 1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age) John, XIV, 13-14; 15;16; 23;24; 2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace; 3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church—no longer militant—against the Powers of Darkness—looking towards a future which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms. The Church—One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic—is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Canon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who seek you with a sincere heart". Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "'who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the dead whose faith is know to you alone". Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice. Desacralising The Church Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first. The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril. The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon. A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite Missa est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server. The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar, Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself. The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes a commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is about to accomplish)—of readers (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorized to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no, 70). Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.   VI—The Destruction Of Unity We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of ail the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions—would be a vast undertaking. By Priest Or Parson No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, among other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquility of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass—hence even by a Protestant minister. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilize according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate variations and adaptations". Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and 'constant revision' of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations." The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all...may ascend more fragrant than any incense". Council Of Trent Rejected The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognized as "liturgiae romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no. 116), ordering that "principem locum obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual. From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise? It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.   VII—The Alienation Of The Orthodox The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result—utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies—can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie. Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East. Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms. By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.   VIII—The Abandonment Of Defences St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul". (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570) When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today. It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi, devitans profanes vocum novitates"(Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements. These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we see today only too clearly—to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries. And all this at one of the most critical moments—if not the most critical moment—of the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.

Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210 www.ewtn.com

A prophetic Letter (The "Ottaviani Intervention")

Back when my eldest daughter was preparing for confirmation, she and I discovered this document on EWTN.  It was a letter written to the Holy Father Pope Paul VI by twelve Roman Catholic theologians, who worked under the direction of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci, among others. 

Cardinal Ottaviani was a Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith... the second highest ranking doctrinal official in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Reading this letter was really a life changing event for our little family.  The letter is still up on the EWTN documents web site and can be accessed here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

Frankly, I found the letter by these cardinal so shocking that I had to read it several times, as I'm sure you will want to do.  The letter puts into words those things which I had often felt at the time, but at the same time did not have an ability to articulate (which created no small amount of cognitive dissonance for me).

This letter explains why we now appear to be loosing the youth in the battle against the culture... and in fact the entire culture war itself.  And yet.. we are only guaranteed VALIDITY of the sacraments by Christ's promise... not an impeccability of discipline in Her ministers.  As Catholic demographics continue to spiral downward at home... our American ecclesiastical leaders pat themselves on the back for having 3.5% less annual decline then that of their counter parts to Catholicism in Europe. At the same time, they never dare to imagine why traditional communities have no negative growth rate at all and in fact are growing way ahead of all other Catholic venues.

This letter, written nearly 45 years ago, represents a prophetic walk through Catholic history in yours and my lifetimes... explains how the new Mass came into existence... and dovetails quite accurately with the words that Cardinal Ratzinger has uttered about the new mass over the years (e.g. "banal on the spot fabrication"... "a community turned inward upon itself".

It was not until about 8 years after my daugher's confirmation that I began studying the roots of the ideas of the new mass which can be found in the English Reformation forced upon the faithful with devastating effect by Archbishop Cranmer.

Anyway... I thought you might find the original text of the intervention very thought provoking.

Gregorian Chant

Next to Our Lord Himself, Gregorian Chant is perhaps the most treasured thing about the Tridentine Rite.  I used to believe that I could never learn Chant.  After all, I did not really know how to read music... and "those monks... don't they have to study for decades to become proficient"?

But the fact is that if you love the Extraordinary From of the Roman rite (aka the Latin Mas or Tridentine Rite) then you owe it to yourself to learn to love Chant and perhaps even to sing it even if only from the pews!

The Mass has two major components:  The Ordinaries and the Propers (click here for a definition).

THE FACT IS THAT I COULD AND DID LEARN CHANT!  All you need are 4 things to do this:

1. The desire to sing the same psalms and hymns that Our Blessed Lord sang (albeit with slightly different melodies and Latin instead of Hebrew)
2. Access to a high speed Internet connection.
   
3. A willingness to practice a little each day.
4. A reasonably good ear.

It will help if you have someone else who knows a little more than you do... but that is not absolutely necessary for starters.  I was taught a young man who described himself as a "Recovering Choir Director".  He had been "converted" to loving Gregorian Chant after reading the Church's various documents on the liturgy and on Sacred Music.

I will write more about this in my next post on Chant.

Taking A Break

I will be taking a long break from this effort until I am able to relocate myself and my family.

After we relocate, I plan to continue both the Michael Davies Series and also the explanation of the Tridentine Mass.

Loving The Old Mass (Why Did The Holy Father Do This)

Click here for a DIRECTORY of this series
Before July 2007, I recall often praying and hoping for a day when my family could assist at a Mass in the old rite. Though I do not know Latin... I knew that there were missals which were supposed to make following along easy. Without getting bogged down in the reasons why I was praying for this... I will say that I had friends in other places who enjoyed this Mass in an ecclesiastically approved venue and that I felt that the normal parish fare was not really nourishing me or my family as we needed.

Our dear Holy Father has actually issued several documents regarding the old Mass and they are worth reading, for they help us get into his thoughts on the Liturgy... and most especially... they reveal His Holiness' motives for liberating the old Mass for our benefit.

Here are the documents below. Know as you read these, that it was not due to some sense of nostalgia that the Holy Father, now, at this point in history is drawing our attention to the Tridentine Rite (which he now calls the Extraordinary Form). It is precisely because this form of the Roman rite has been attracting young and old by the thousands... especially in Europe where the secularization of the culture is about ten years ahead of the secularization rate in the US.

1. The Introduction letter to Summorum Pontificum written by His HolinessBenedict XVI accompanying Summorum Pontificum
2. Summorum Pontificum (The actual document which states that bishops must permit any stable group to enjoy this Mass, herein after we shall call this S.P.)
3. A letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which reiterates certain important points about the motu proprio S.P. This is called "INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER S.P."

This series of posts is to help those who are new to the Tridentine Rite (sometimes called the usus antiquior) so that they may feel more at home there.

I will be blogging about the following subjects: Basic order of the Mass, Why the little red books are good but a Missal is better, What it means to participate at the old Mass, do's and dont's for priests if they wish to encourage the man in the pew to come back next week, What to do when you find you are continually loosing your place, the basic order of the Mass and how to use your Missal, Comparing two different Missals in common use, Digesting a prayer in Latin and in English, Preparing for Mass days in advance, Sacred Music, On Line Resources, How to deal with nasty people who may be at Mass, (EF and OF) and a summary.

Never be intimidated by the seeming complexity of the old Mass. God has you there for a reason

Protestant Teaching on Eucharist Part I

We now see, through the writings of Michael Davies and also through other credible works of history, that the root of the protestant revolution was a rejection of the sacrificial nature of Mass.  Perhaps we can say that the weakness of the members of the Church caused enough of a failure of authentic witness inside the Church, to embolden a false theology which essentially re-brands discipleship.  This new theology is where one believes that all necessary sacrifice was already done... and that there is nothing really else in the way of sacrifice for us to do except simply state that 'Jesus Christ is Lord'.

Click here to go to beginning of book review

But we know that even the demons can say that Jesus is Lord... for the demons of Hell give Our Lord Jesus accolade in Saint Luke's Gospel, Chapter 4, verse 33-34:

And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?  art thou come to destroy us?  I know thee who thou art; The Holy One of God. 

So we see here it is possible to say the name of Jesus, know and acknowledge His Divinity... but reject him nevertheless.

This chapter in Davies book contains so many variations of false teachings about the Eucharist that it is not surprising that the protestant revolters fought vigorously with each other about what they DID believe regarding communion at their "services".  The only thing the revolutionaries COULD agree on was their common hatred for any sign or language in the prayers of their new mass which would hint at the idea of sacrifice, propitiation, atonement or remedy for sin. 

This rewording of the prayers of the protestant Mass at the time afforded a very comfortable Christianity for the new members of the rebellious church.  For if nothing was lacking after the crucifixion and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord... then personal conversion was really only a matter of showing up at Sunday service (still, at that time called Mass by many)... and mimicking verbal acceptance of Christ.  Thus... pretty quickly (within a generation or two), we see a dying off of the ascetic practices of Christianity and a corresponding demographic implosion of the Catholic faith.

This transformation of Catholic culture in those days... is very nearly identical to the changes in Catholic culture of modern times from the 1960's until the present day... with the corresponding demographic implosion of sacramental marriages, infant baptisms, ordinations, the disuse of the holy sacrament of confession and increase in sacrilegious reception of holy communion.  The last of these greatly exacerbated by the widespread acceptance and use of contraception among Catholics... and it's corresponding negative impact on divorce rate, infidelity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, venereal disease and the 'final solution' of modernism which is of course, abortion and euthanasia.

The only difference between then and now, is that the reformation was a disorientation intentionally fostered by a force directed from outside the Church toward the heart of the Church (the Mass).  The liturgical revolution of the sixties, contrastingly, was approved by many at the highest levels of ecclesiastical authority in the Roman Church.  Instead of physical force... the enemies of Christ used the very authority of the institutions and offices in the Church to do their damage.  And while the resulting liturgy remains valid... it's cultural impact upon the Catholic man is not insignificant. This is not a failure of the guarantee of infallibility... for no direct heresy was initially committed in the alteration of the Mass.  Rather... it is a silencing of certain themes and theological realities which rob the man in the pew slowly.  This spiritual malnutrition then opens the door for innovations and novelties to creep in... with such variation and frequency that the even the most conscientious bishop can barely control and reorient us back to a theology which is incarnational and which is sacrificial in nature.

More will be said about what Protestants believe in their innovations regarding the Eucharist in my next installment.

So Who Exactly Is Michael Davies

As a friend of mine pointed out recently...

"We must realize that at that time, Davies must have seemed like a fringe lunatic. However... looking back on it... he was more in line with what Pope Benedict XVI has been doing in his pontificate then anyone could have imagined."

We can say that Mr. Davies maintained the ideals of Catholic orthodoxy in season and out of season.

I would like to include this post from a priest's blog entitled "The hermeneutic of continuity"

Of particular note is the comments that then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) had to say in a personal note to the Davies family on the occasion of Micheal's death.

I include them here:

    I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
9 November 2004

Here is a video of a William Buckley's well known television show taped on Apr 22, 1980.  There is a short clip of Davies speaking about 2 minutes and 55 seconds into the show.  You will have to forgive Mr. Buckley who sees on two occasions to know know the name of his own Pope.  So much for conservative Catholicism at the time.  I suppose I was just as guilty of the same kind of inattention... still coming out of the fog of the 60's

Michael, RIP dear friend.  I never had the chance to meet you, but I thank you for the sacrifices you made so that I and my wife and children could learn and love the old Mass.

Eternal rest grant unto the oh Lord!

Chapter 5: The Most Horrible Blasphemy

The modern "conservative" Catholic often does not think of the fact that the reformers in the so called "Reformation" (which was really a revolt, not a reformation) were mostly validly ordained Catholic priests and bishops. They were the real deal, had faculties and were in good standing for a long time before Rome intervened.

I will give you most of pg 30 and 31 of Mr. Davies first book on the Liturgical Revolution which lays this out clearly and exposes the mode of attack that the reformers quickly and smartly took:

Click here to go to beginning of book review

"They correctly sensed, not surprisingly as they had almost invariably been priests, that it was the MASS that mattered: That it was against the Mass rather then the papacy that the brunt of their attack must be launched. This point is stressed by Dr. J. Lortz in his book Die Reformation en Deutschland. One of the most outstanding and perceptive contemporary champions of the Mass was the German theologian John Cochlaeus (1479-1552). He rightly pointed out that in attacking the Mass, Luther was attacking Christ Himself "since He is the true founder and perfecter of the Mass, the true High Priest of the Mass and also the One Who is sacrificed as all Christian teachers acknowledge. With equal accuracy he diagnosed the contradiction which lay at the heart of the heresiarch's claim to be "reformers." "They are justly deemed guilty of heresy who instead of seeking remedies for what is amiss, set themselves to abolish the very substance on account of abuse." He warned his fellow Catholic apologists not to concentrate their main efforts on defending the primacy of he pope, but on defending the Mass, a task which was far more vital, for "thereby Luther threatens to tear out the heart from the body of the Church."

The reformers themselves were bitterly divided concerning the doctrine of the Lord's supper, but they were united in a common detestation of the sacrificial interpretation which has always been taught in the Catholic Church. Luther was honest enough to admit the traditional nature of the teaching and support of "the Holy Fathers, so many authorities and so widespread a custom constantly observed throughout the world." His answer was ". . . reject them all rather then admit that the Mass is a work and a sacrifice . . . ".

Luther himself assessed the situation with perfect accuracy when he stated: "Once the Mass has been overthrown, I say we will have overthrown the whole of popdom."

Personal observation from blogger here: We are not talking about the revolutionaries eliminating the Mass... we're talking here about them setting out to alter the character and nature of that which the Mass transmits in the form of what it teaches and is.

Davies: (continued)
The hatred of the Reformers for the Mass is best illustrated by reading their own words on the subject.

[END OF CH 5 EXCERPT]

You will have to get the book to read on from here in CH 5.

I'll leave that task to you dear readers. But I am reminded here of the words of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who died in Rome on 3 July 1982. For it is our own Catholic Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who is the principal architect of the liturgical reforms of the post Vatican II era. Please remember that the Vatican II documents on the Mass do not describe the new Mass... but rather are talking about the old Mass.

Here are the words of Archbishop Bugnini during those heady days following the Council:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass,

L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who died in Rome on 3 July 1982, was described in an obituary in The Times as "one of the most unusual figures in the Vatican's diplomatic service." It would be more than euphemistic to describe the Archbishop's career as simply "unusual". There can be no doubt at all that the entire ethos of Catholicism within the Roman Rite has been changed profoundly by the liturgical revolution which has followed the Second Vatican Council.
As Father Kenneth Baker SJ remarked in his editorial in the February 1979 issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: "We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels, but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately."

Keep in mind here: I am fully aware of the validity of the New Mass. I am fully aware of the popes having the right and the authority to change the Mass in exactly the same manner as the protestant reformers. But just because something can be done by legitimate authority does not mean it is necessarily a good thing. And questioning it does not mean one is questioning the fairly narrow definition of infallibility. We have no guarantee from Christ that the successors to the apostles will be impeccable.
And so now... in a day where Benedict has liberated that which was never abrogated (though many valid and licit Bishops at the time assured us otherwise)... we must ask ourselves... is the Tridentine Mass just like the option for the Spanish Mass or the Portuguese Mass, or the Mass in Creole... OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE TO IT?
Are the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine rite dynamically equivalent?
Make up your own mind on the matter... but it is, I assure you... no small thing.

Loving The Old Mass (Missals)

Click Here for the beginning of this series on the 'Loving Old Mass'

There are many inexpensive options for Missals in order to follow the Tridentine Mass.

The faithful are not to be mute spectators...

Before selecting one we should ask 'what is our goal in having one?' First and foremost, the Church herself has a goal for us. Both pre Vatican II and post Vatican II documents prescribe full, conscious and active participation in the Mass. In BOTH forms we are encouraged to integrate the chants and responses of the propers & ordinary in Latin or English into our prayer. Each individual will do this in their own unique way and that is as it should be. But we are to strive to be united to Christ in the holy sacrifice with as much joy and fervor as we can muster. This requires a little work!

My experience is that the personal missal greatly enhances that injunction. Everyone has their own speed. But the effort you put into following the Mass will be rewarded both temporally and in the efficacy of Grace received. You will find yourself recharged by following your Missal.

Which Missal

I will mention the various purchase options here and try and enclose images so that you can easily recognize them. Next to each option, I will make a short observation about my own experience using each option.

Keep in mind that Missals are like people... in that they are different... they generally express our likes and dislikes (more detail, less detail, more imagery, less imagery, old looking, new looking)... but that they all have one thing in common... the rock solid order and calendar of the old Mass which makes for, in the prayers of the Church, an unchanging bulwark against whim, fashion, fancy, banality or sappiness. There is very little room for priest or layman inserting their own 'novelty' or 'creativity' into the oder of the usus antiquoir.

Try to slowly purchase a used or new Missal for each reading member of your household. There are also children's missals for the very young which are inexpensive and beautiful. This is not such an expense when done one at a time. Also, do not be afraid to WRITE YOUR NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS in the Missal. Should you leave it in the pew accidentally... some good soul will often find a way for you to get your missal back.

Types of Missals for the Tridentine Mass

-----Name---------	Picture	Comments
Simple Red Hand Out Booklet		This missal only contains the ordinaries of the Mass... so there is NO Epistles, Gospels or any of the appropriate prayers (called PROPERS) which change each Sunday. You will barely be able to follow the Mass unless some nice person hands out a supplemental containing the Propers for the day along with this booklet... and in any case you will have to JUGGLE the two. Not an easy prospect... though this is nice if you are already an experienced attendee at a TLM and happen to have forgotten your personal Missal. I'll say this: It's better than nothing. Many congregations ake these available near the entrance inside a church before a TLM begins
Saint Joseph DAILY MISSAL		This has become my favorite because of it's simplicity. I sing in a schola and so I can juggle this one, plus all my music and thereby not loose focus as to why I'm there in the first place. I just picked one up on eBay for a mere $20. It's simpler then the Baronius Press Missal and does not have all the Prefaces. But if you sing in a schola or have a wiggly baby... this is a good choice.
The Roman Missal (1962) by Baronius Press		In my family, this is considered the 'Cadillac' of Missals. Last time I checked this was $59.95. It's worth every penny. As for understanding the old Mass it goes way beyond the essentials. It even has a Kyrialis (notes for some of the sung parts of the Mass) in the very back.

Chapter 4, Catholic Teaching on the Eucharist

Before I begin let me make a personal observation: Ever since I reverted to the Catholic Church (in my 20's), I have always erroneously thought that the root of the difference between what Catholics and Protestants believed was the three main objections of the protesters: 1.) The Eucharist, 2) Our Lady, 3.) The Apostolic succession and especially the papacy. I was wrong in this assumption. I see now that it is INDEED their false theology of justification which is at the very core of all these other things.

Click here to go to beginning of book review

So without further delay, I wish to give you an excellent excerpt from Chapter 4 (p 26-27). It tells us more then I could ever say on the subject. I will highlight in red... the parts which really jumped off the page for me... and I can not argue with them because Mr. Davies is quoting St. Augustine here.

"As the Church is the body of this head", wrote St. Augustine, "through Him she learns to offer Herself." Furthermore, although the intrinsic value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, like that of the Cross, is infinite, Christ being both High priest and Sacrificial Victim, its extrinsic value is limited as regards the fruits of any particular Mass. The value of a particular Mass "is dependent on the greater or lesser holiness of the reigning Pope, the bishops and the clergy throughout the world. The holier the Church in Her members (especially the Pope and the Episcopate), the more agreeable must be Her sacrifice in the eyes of God...With Christ and the Church is associated in the third place the celebrating priest, the representative through whom Christ offers up the Sacrifice. If he be a man of great personal devotion, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit, which will benefit himself and those in whose favor he applies the Mass. Hence the faithful are guided by a sound instinct when they prefer to have the Mass celebrated by an upright and holy priest rather than by an unworthy one... In the fourth place must be mentioned those who take an active part in the Mass, e.g., the servers, sacristan, Organist, singers and, finally the whole congregation." Needless to say, the application of the fruits of the Mass to the living for whom it is offered or who participate in it will be governed by their own dispositions (see Appendix I).  Note:  I will be adding this very important index soon [02/06/2012]

"This lack of dispositions cannot exist in the case of the suffering souls in Purgatory, and with them, therefore, the desired effect, whether it be the alleviation of their sufferings, or the shortening of their time of purgation, must infallibly be produced." The effectiveness of the fruits in their case will be governed only by the holiness and fervor of the Church as a whole and Her particular members involved in offering this particular Mass. Once the Protestant leaders "had adopted the doctrine of justification by faith only, and had thrown over the reality of sanctifying grace as the supernatural life of the soul, there was nothing for it but to give up belief in operative and grace-producing sacraments. So the Real Presence and Transubstantiation had to go, and the Eucharist had to loose altogether it's sacrificial character and to be retained simply as a memorial of the Last Supper whereby the soul is moved to prayer and enabled in some way to enter into communion with and to receive Jesus Christ... Hence it is not surprising that, to a great extent, belief in the Mass became the touchstone of Catholic orthodoxy and that all through the centuries of controversies with protestantism, Catholic theologians should have used all their powers of argument and all their resources of learning in it's defense.

The teaching that every Mass produced fruit which the celebrant could apply to both the living and the dead was above all else "good work" par excellence. It was quite incompatible with their doctrine of Justification and must therefore be rejected, as it will be made clear in chapter VII.

There can also be no doubt that the protestant heresiarchs fully realized that it was the Mass that mattered. It was upon the Mass that they directed the full force of their attack.

Chapters II and III, Catholic and Protestant Justification

Click here to go to beginning of book review

The root of the Protestant revolt was based upon the Protestant redefinition of the means and nature of the justification of man through the action of Christ. Chapters II and III of this book essentially compare 1,500 years of Catholic thought on this aspect of our faith with the novelties of the English protesters.

In a sentence: The Catholic position is that as adopted sons and daughters of Christ we are made clean by the merits of Christ's Passion. Assuming that we cooperate with this opus operatum of the Church which we spoke of earlier in the order of grace... our souls can become clean... particularly if we persist in this quest for a divine life in Jesus Christ. This is true for any and all of us no mater what provided we pursue a state of grace with faculty of reason! Without faculty of reason the discussion changes slightly but that is really a separate issue beyond our historical inquiry here. The revolter's position is that our souls are ALWAYS as black as pitch no matter how closely we follow the Savior. Christ's merits COVER up our blackness... but they are incapable of BLOTTING OUT our sin. "Works are dead" shouts the Protestant Rebellion.

In contrast, we Catholics know that OneNess is not achieved without cooperation.

Davies points to a fable which best captures the truth about sanctifying grace by analogy:
There was a fable about a common briar "into which was budded the stem of a royal rose. When June came, it bore fragrant roses of great beauty and, passing by, the gardener smiled and said: 'Your beauty is not due, dear briar, to that which came from you but to that which I put in you'."

The adoption that Saint Paul speaks about in the epistles is so much more than adoption. It is more like a grafting as it were... for we become PART of the DIVINE Life. This is what holiness is. The Protestant demands that NO ONE can become holy except God Himself who IS Holy. The notion of growing in personal holiness is totally rejected. This explains their hatred for the Mass.

"For a Protestant, justification means declaring a man just: for a Catholic it means making him so" (p. 19). Luther overthrew a system of belief developed over fifteen centuries on the basis of his personal interpretation of Romans 1:17. Luther tells us "we must give up trying to escape sin" writes Henri Rondet.

Grace for the reformer was external to a man... not something which God could put INSIDE a man.

The natural consequences of these novelties was unimaginable in a world which was largely Christianized already. The effects were devastating as we shall soon see.

On page 21 we see that the reformer was already saying... (I paraphrase here) no need to destroy the pope... just destroy the Mass and you will rip the heart out of the Catholic Church.

And The Word Became Flesh...

Click here to go to beginning of book review

Et incarnatus est! "And the Word became flesh...". These true words should be enough for us... but unfortunately, due to sin... they are not enough for us.

All of the miracles that Our Lord performs for us in the Gospels have one astonishing thing in common: Our Lord in them, REQUIRES the cooperation of man when He performs the miracle. This is a great and incomprehensible miracle in and of itself. I'm reminded of something Mother Angleica used to say when asked about the absurd reality of the success of her endeavor to create a Catholic television and radio network with no budget, no business plan, no cooperation from most of the American hierarchy and no advanced degree. She would say "If we wish for God to do the miraculous... we must be willing to do the ridiculous". It may seem ridiculous for the blind man to have mud put on his eyelids and to be told to stagger across town to the Pool of Siloam... nevertheless, our Lord willed it.

He could have made it otherwise... but He didn't. This cooperation is at the very heart of what it means to be a Catholic. This is also at the very center of the dispute that Protestantism attempts to advance... namely the error of "justification by faith alone". The Protestant sees the passion as fixed in time. The Catholic knows that the passion is played out daily, lives on until the end of time, has always had merit for those that assist at Mass in a state of grace. To use the authors own words: "The Catholic conception of the Christian religion can be aptly described as 'incarnational'. Christ's means of applying the merits of His Passion is to continue the Incarnation throughout time until he comes again" (P7, Ch1).

God could have chosen some other means, besides cooperation with grace through Mary. But He DIDN'T! As Davies tells us, "Mary's fiat sets in motion a train of events..." Non Modernist Protestants and Catholics agree on the historical reality and the sufficiency of merit obtained via the crucifixion. But we disagree upon the dispensation of those graces... and upon the perpetual nature of the re-presentation of that reality. We disagree on the requirement of cooperation. It is one of the reasons that Mary presents such a psychological and spiritual problem for the revolter.

The Church maintains that there is an 'opus operatum' in the system of the seven sacraments when administered validly.

Sacred scripture is clear that the same Eucharist which is a blessing to the man in a state of grace can be a curse to the man who is knowingly not. How can this be unless there is indeed an opus operatum. The book has an excellent appendix which describes the opus operatum. It is worth getting the book for that simple appendix alone.

On to chapter two. I may add or tweak each as these summaries as I go, as family or friends discover omissions or errors. Check back if you wish. But I plan to move ahead. I have been given much to think about here... and I will be reading the offertory prayers more closely this Sunday in my old beat up but much loved 1957 Saint Joseph's Daily Missal.

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting...

We offer You, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Your mercy that it may arise before Your divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world...

In a humble spirit and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by You, O Lord, and may our sacrifice so be offered in Your sight this day as to please You, O Lord God... Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name.

After this and after the Lavabo (the washing of the hands) the priest says:

Accept, most holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to You in remembrance of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, our Lord; and in honor Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these, and of all the Saints; that it may add to their honor and aid our salvation...

And in the consecration itself we read: In like manner, when the supper was done, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to You, He blessed + it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: All of you take and drink of this: for this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.

Make it a wonderful weekend. And remember... this is the last Sunday of Post Epiphany... so SAVOR that Alleluia.

Alleluia

The Lord reigns, let the earth rejoice; let all the isles be glad!

And... NO... this is not me singing (I wish). This is credited to CC Watershed's ReneGoupil website... which has all the chants for the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Rite.

You won't hear Alleluia sung again until you hear the Easter Alleluia. Perhaps I'll post that Alleluia so you can hear it when the time comes if I'm still blogging.

IJM Pascendi

Who Was Archbishop Cranmer

The Catholic Archbishop Cranmer was a principal reformer of the liturgy under King Henry VIII. Archbishop Cranmer was a key to the liturgical reforms of the Protestant revolt.

Much can be said about his theology... none of which is good. He criticized monasticism, suppressed the Mass, forced his homilies down the throats of all Catholic priests who were in his charge and made them read them to their congregations. He used the legal force of the reigning political and ecclesiastical powers to effectively coerce Catholic bishops to submit to his views or face expulsion from the Church. Only a few Catholic bishops stood up to him because of his political power and his authority as a churchman.

Who Was Michael Davies

Michael Davies is a convert to Catholicism. He wrote three books on the Mass (These three are collectively called 'The Liturgical Revolution'). The first of these is called Cranmer's Godly Order. This deals with the liturgical reforms masterminded by Archbishop Cranmer. The book will explain the Reformation... namely what happened and why it happened. The second book, Entitled Pope John's Council will deal with the Second Vatican Council. The Third book is called Pope Paul's New Mass and will deal with the liturgical changes that followed the council (many of which have nothing to do with the council and some which do).

Michael Davies explores this history of the first "reforms" in the following chapters of this first of these three books in Cranmer's Godly Order... specifically as to how liturgical change was used to effect change in belief. Davies is focusing on the English Reformation.

I will be writing about each of these chapters as I go through them.

1.) Et Incarnatus Est
2.) The Catholic Doctrine of Justification
3.) Sola Fides Justificat
4.) Catholic Teaching on the Eucharist
5.) The Most Horrible Blasphemy
6.) Protestant Teaching on the Eucharist Part I
7.) Protestant Teaching on the Eucharist Part II
8.) Liturgical Revolution
9.) The Principles of Liturgical Reform
10.) The Reform and the Missal of St. Pius V
11.) Preparatory Measures
12.) An Ingenious Essay in Ambiguity
13.) Priesthood and the Ordinal
14.) "Godly Order" or "Christmas Game"?
15.) "Believe as your forefathers"
16.) The Pattern of Compromise

Hopefully, before the end of the weekend... I will take a short break and introduce you to the person of Michael Davies. It is important to remember that he was always a Catholic in good standing as he converted to Catholicism as a student in the 1950's. From what I have learned thus far, he had one of the most prolific pens and exhaustive lecture schedules before he died. Let me also add that Mr. Davies did not get rich by any of this work. His life was an effort to restore a sense of the sacred in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He asked insightful questions that made others uncomfortable... but he seemed to always do it with great charity, good humor and humility.

Cranmer's Godly Order, by Michael Davies

What is Coming Next

Tomorrow, I plan to list the names of the 16 Chapters of this book I'm reading which is entitled "Liturgical Revolution, Volume I": or "Cranmer's Godly Order". I will also give you a brief introduction to who Cranmer was and why he was so influential a person during the protestant liturgical revolt or the so called "Reformation".

I can tell you that as an Irish Catholic... I have found these chapters interesting and at the same time... I have felt my blood boil. You will see why soon.

Brief Disclaimer

Because the Mass is so close to the heart of every Catholic it can be a sensitive subject. Our own individual likes and dislikes regarding the Mass are often views held with such personal fervor... that it becomes difficult to speak about the Most Holy Sacrifice unemotionally. Also... it is not uncommon for folks to believe that their ideal or some other ideal is the most 'catholic' or universal ideal. But all these impulses are just opinion and a matter of taste. I'm not interested in opinions or tastes here. I'm only interested in what the Church documents ask of us regarding the Mass. I'm interested in an authentic implementation of Vatican II and in the Mass which is so often talked about by all of our great popes... and most especially the present pontiff.

So with that... I'm hereby stating that I have full trust and confidence in the present magisterium to teach and guide. I may not always understand every little practical detail that comes up in "this public ritual" or "that public Mass"... or "this small document" or that "big letter from some group of bishops"... but my intent is always full obedience and communion with Rome and with my own bishop as far as is humanly possible and canonically required of me as a layman.

vty Pascendi