31 October 2006

Latin in the Liturgy

Taken from the National Post
[Note: Author is Jewish, hence the Hebrew & Latin Comparison. Very Unique perspective on the use of a universal language in the Liturgy and the direct connection it has to active participation in terms of the transcendent value it has. ]

It would appear that Pope Benedict XVI intends to reinvigorate the beleaguered (Tridentine) Latin mass, which in the late '60s was almost universally replaced by individual vernacular languages to encourage "active participation" for ordinary parishioners. Although not a stakeholder in the issue, I am all in favour of Latin's second coming.

Last month, my friend Monique, an Opus Dei numerary, honoured me with an invitation to attend a traditional private mass presided over by Bishop Javier Echevarria, the visiting Opus Dei prelate. I'm one of those academic fossils who actually majored in Latin in university, so the sonorous majesty of the recitations provided me with a fillip of cultural nostalgia I could not have experienced anywhere else these days.


For the power of liturgy to lift us out of our narrow practical and material pursuits is not dependent on our understanding of every actual word we are saying, any more than our emotional submission to classical music's soaring magic is dependent on our ability to read the score that produced it. The power of liturgy to stir and inspire us isn't even dependent on our commitment to the beliefs and doctrines from which the liturgy sprang.

I see the worship service as more about belonging than belief. An ancestral, globally employed language like Hebrew or Latin provides a context for predictable and organic communion amongst those present at the service. Through regular engagement, even though rote, with a universally recognized language, worshippers are subliminally imbued with a common motivational narrative from the past, common moral goals in the present and intimations of a common destiny in the future.

But the ancient language and music of the liturgy, which unite the individual with his fellows in the sanctuary's space, also unite the individual with the eternal idea of peoplehood -- those who came before and who will come after -- in time. Under the mesmeric sway of ancestral language, the finite moment is transcended through expressions of aspirational yearning (future), emotional attentiveness (present) and nostalgia (past) to fuse in what the philosopher Henri Bergson called "intentional time," when the worshipper achieves the spiritual peace that is conferred by timelessness.

In the 1960s, the received wisdom amongst ascendant secular humanists taught that all traditional, hierarchical institutions were intrinsically corrupt, and only an induced cultural amnesia would suffice to level the playing field. Even the Vatican was not immune to the force of the zeitgeist. But making the mass egalitarian, and literally more accessible through the use of vernacular, did not bring more people to the Church, in North America at any rate.

Reform Judaism once tried to phase out Hebrew in the interest of "active participation." The services were "accessible" but sterile and deracinating, and now Hebrew is back in the Reform liturgy. Quod erat demonstrandum. Bring back the Latin mass.

28 October 2006

Various Circumstances Relating to the Mass

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 5: Certain Other Matters Concerning the Eucharist
2. Various Circumstances Relating to the Mass

[110.] “Remembering always that in the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the work of redemption is constantly being carried out, Priests should celebrate frequently. Indeed, daily celebration is earnestly recommended, because, even if it should not be possible to have the faithful present, the celebration is an act of Christ and of the Church, and in carrying it out, Priests fulfill their principal role.”

[112.] Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

[114.] “At Sunday Masses in parishes, insofar as parishes are ‘Eucharistic communities’, it is customary to find different groups, movements, associations, and even the smaller religious communities present in the parish.” While it is permissible that Mass should be celebrated for particular groups according to the norm of law, these groups are nevertheless not exempt from the faithful observance of the liturgical norms.

Dispositions for the Reception of Holy Communion

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 4: Holy Communion
1. Dispositions for the Reception of Holy Communion

[80.] The Eucharist is to be offered to the faithful, among other reasons, “as an antidote, by which we are freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins”, as is brought to light in various parts of the Mass. As for the Penitential Act placed at the beginning of Mass, it has the purpose of preparing all to be ready to celebrate the sacred mysteries;[161]even so, “it lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance”, and cannot be regarded as a substitute for the Sacrament of Penance in remission of graver sins. Pastors of souls should take care to ensure diligent catechetical instruction, so that Christian doctrine is handed on to Christ’s faithful in this matter.

[81.] The Church’s custom shows that it is necessary for each person to examine himself at depth, and that anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession, except for grave reason when the possibility of confession is lacking; in this case he will remember that he is bound by the obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible”.

[83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

[84.] Furthermore when Holy Mass is celebrated for a large crowd - for example, in large cities - care should be taken lest out of ignorance non-Catholics or even non-Christians come forward for Holy Communion, without taking into account the Church’s Magisterium in matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline. It is the duty of Pastors at an opportune moment to inform those present of the authenticity and the discipline that are strictly to be observed.

[85.] Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful, who likewise receive them licitly only from Catholic ministers, except for those situations for which provision is made in can. 844 §§ 2,3, and 4, and can. 861 § 2. In addition, the conditions comprising can. 844 § 4, from which no dispensation can be given, cannot be separated; thus, it is necessary that all of these conditions be present together.

[86.] The faithful should be led insistently to the practice whereby they approach the Sacrament of Penance outside the celebration of Mass, especially at the scheduled times, so that the Sacrament may be administered in a manner that is tranquil and truly beneficial to them, so as not to be prevented from active participation at Mass. Those who are accustomed to receiving Communion often or daily should be instructed that they should approach the Sacrament of Penance at appropriate intervals, in accordance with the condition of each.

The Other Parts of the Mass

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 3: The Proper Celebration of Mass
3. The Other Parts of the Mass

[57.] It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

[58.] All of Christ’s faithful likewise have the right to a celebration of the Eucharist that has been so carefully prepared in all its parts that the word of God is properly and efficaciously proclaimed and explained in it; that the faculty for selecting the liturgical texts and rites is carried out with care according to the norms; and that their faith is duly safeguarded and nourished by the words that are sung in the celebration of the Liturgy.

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

[60.] In the celebration of Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are intimately connected to one another, and form one single act of worship. For this reason it is not licit to separate one of these parts from the other and celebrate them at different times or places. Nor is it licit to carry out the individual parts of Holy Mass at different times of the same day.

[61.] In selecting the biblical readings for proclamation in the celebration of Mass, the norms found in the liturgical books are to be followed, so that indeed “a richer table of the word of God will be prepared for the faithful, and the biblical treasures opened up for them”.

[62.] It is also illicit to omit or to substitute the prescribed biblical readings on one’s own initiative, and especially “to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God”.

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”, is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.

[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church. It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.

[69.] In Holy Mass as well as in other celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy, no Creed or Profession of Faith is to be introduced which is not found in the duly approved liturgical books.

[70.] The offerings that Christ’s faithful are accustomed to present for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Holy Mass are not necessarily limited to bread and wine for the eucharistic celebration, but may also include gifts given by the faithful in the form of money or other things for the sake of charity toward the poor. Moreover, external gifts must always be a visible expression of that true gift that God expects from us: a contrite heart, the love of God and neighbour by which we are conformed to the sacrifice of Christ, who offered himself for us. For in the Eucharist, there shines forth most brilliantly that mystery of charity that Jesus brought forth at the Last Supper by washing the feet of the disciples. In order to preserve the dignity of the Sacred Liturgy, in any event, the external offerings should be brought forward in an appropriate manner. Money, therefore, just as other contributions for the poor, should be placed in an appropriate place which should be away from the eucharistic table. Except for money and occasionally a minimal symbolic portion of other gifts, it is preferable that such offerings be made outside the celebration of Mass.

[71.] The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters.

[72.] It is appropriate “that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner”. “The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful”. “As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”, and their acts are subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See.[152]

[73.] In the celebration of Holy Mass the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread – done only by the Priest celebrant, if necessary with the help of a Deacon or of a concelebrant – begins after the exchange of peace, while the Agnus Dei is being recited. For the gesture of breaking bread “carried out by Christ at the Last Supper, which in apostolic times gave the whole eucharistic action its name, signifies that the faithful, though they are many, are made one Body in the communion of the one Bread of Life who is Christ, who died and rose for the world’s salvation” (cf. 1 Cor 10,17). For this reason the rite must be carried out with great reverence. Even so, it should be brief. The abuse that has prevailed in some places, by which this rite is unnecessarily prolonged and given undue emphasis, with laypersons also helping in contradiction to the norms, should be corrected with all haste.

[74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily,[156] nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.

The Eucharistic Prayer

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 3: The Proper Celebration of Mass
2. The Eucharistic Prayer

[51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.

[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.

[56.] The mention of the name of the Supreme Pontiff and the diocesan Bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer is not to be omitted, since this is a most ancient tradition to be maintained, and a manifestation of ecclesial communion. For “the coming together of the eucharistic community is at the same time a joining in union with its own Bishop and with the Roman Pontiff”.

The Ministries of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Celebration of Holy Mass

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 2: Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration
2. The Ministries of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Celebration of Holy Mass

[43.] For the good of the community and of the whole Church of God, some of the lay faithful according to tradition have rightly and laudably exercised ministries in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. It is appropriate that a number of persons distribute among themselves and exercise various ministries or different parts of the same ministry.

[44.] Apart from the duly instituted ministries of acolyte and lector, the most important of these ministries are those of acolyte and lector by temporary deputation. In addition to these are the other functions that are described in the Roman Missal, as well as the functions of preparing the hosts, washing the liturgical linens, and the like. All, “whether ordained ministers or lay faithful, in exercising their own office or ministry should do exclusively and fully that which pertains to them”.In the liturgical celebration itself as well as in its preparation, they should do what is necessary so that the Church’s Liturgy will be carried out worthily and appropriately.

[45.] To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain “clericalization”, while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful.

[46.] The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture. No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful.

[47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension. Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these. Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes. Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.

Active and Conscious Participation

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Chapter 2: Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration
1. Active and Conscious Participation

[39.] For promoting and elucidating active participation, the recent renewal of the liturgical books according to the mind of the Council fostered acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures, and called for sacred silence to be maintained at the proper times, while providing rubrics for the parts of the faithful as well.In addition, ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms. In the songs, the melodies, the choice of prayers and readings, the giving of the homily, the preparation of the prayer of the faithful, the occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the Church building according to the various seasons, there is ample possibility for introducing into each celebration a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident, and so, in keeping with pastoral requirements, the celebration will be carefully imbued with those particular features that will foster the recollection of the participants. Still, it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated.

[40.] Nevertheless, from the fact that the liturgical celebration obviously entails activity, it does not follow that everyone must necessarily have something concrete to do beyond the actions and gestures, as if a certain specific liturgical ministry must necessarily be given to the individuals to be carried out by them. Instead, catechetical instruction should strive diligently to correct those widespread superficial notions and practices often seen in recent years in this regard, and ever to instill anew in all of Christ’s faithful that sense of deep wonder before the greatness of the mystery of faith that is the Eucharist, in whose celebration the Church is forever passing from what is obsolete into newness of life: “in novitatem a vetustate”.For in the celebration of the Eucharist, as in the whole Christian life which draws its power from it and leads toward it, the Church, after the manner of Saint Thomas the Apostle, prostrates herself in adoration before the Lord who was crucified, suffered and died, was buried and arose, and perpetually exclaims to him who is clothed in the fullness of his divine splendour: “My Lord and my God!”

[41.] For encouraging, promoting and nourishing this interior understanding of liturgical participation, the continuous and widespread celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, the use of the sacramentals and exercises of Christian popular piety are extremely helpful. These latter exercises – which “while not belonging to the Liturgy in the strict sense, possess nonetheless a particular importance and dignity” – are to be regarded as having a certain connection with the liturgical context, especially when they have been lauded and attested by the Magisterium itself,as is the case especially of the Marian Rosary. Furthermore, since these practices of piety lead the Christian people both to the reception of the sacraments – especially the Eucharist – and “to meditation on the mysteries of our Redemption and the imitation of the excellent heavenly examples of the Saints, they are therefore not without salutary effects for our participation in liturgical worship ”.

[42.] It must be acknowledged that the Church has not come together by human volition; rather, she has been called together by God in the Holy Spirit, and she responds through faith to his free calling (thus the word ekklesia is related to klesis, or “calling”).Nor is the Eucharistic Sacrifice to be considered a “concelebration”, in the univocal sense, of the Priest along with the people who are present. On the contrary, the Eucharist celebrated by the Priests “is a gift which radically transcends the power of the community. . . . The community that gathers for the celebration of the Eucharist absolutely requires an ordained Priest, who presides over it so that it may truly be a eucharistic convocation. On the other hand, the community is by itself incapable of providing an ordained minister”. There is pressing need of a concerted will to avoid all ambiguity in this matter and to remedy the difficulties of recent years. Accordingly, terms such as “celebrating community” or “celebrating assembly” (in other languages “asamblea celebrante”, “assemblée célébrante”, assemblea celebrante”) and similar terms should not be used injudiciously.

27 October 2006

FSSP Fraternity Publications now Online!

Fraternity Publications Service now has an On-line Store!

1. New books not previously listed are available
2. The 2007 calendar is available
3. Books from our standard listing are available
4. Many offerings from special listings are still available
5. Never before listed books in bookstore are now listed

All are for sale on the new Fraternity Publications on-line store.

25 October 2006

Bad Music?

Taken from The Catholic Herald

In recent times the Church has developed uneasy relations with its musicians. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s I was aware of a creeping separation between my serious engagement with the study of music, the application and practice of assiduously honed skills, and what the Church seemed to need and want for its liturgy.

I soon discovered that most serious Catholic musicians were being repulsed by an increasingly rigid misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s reforms on music. Clergy and “liturgists” began expressing a scarcely veiled disdain for the very expertise and learning that musicians had sought to acquire. Serious musicians were more and more caricatured as elitists, reactionaries and Tridentinists by a new philistinism in the Church. Many of those who were not subdued into a state of quietism defected to Anglican and Lutheran parishes where their skills as organists, choral directors and singers were greatly appreciated.

These other churches now regard the Catholic Church as having engaged in a cultural vandalism in the 1960s and 70s – a destructive iconoclasm which wilfully brought to an end any remnant of its massive choral tradition and its skilful application to liturgical use. In short, music in the Catholic Church is referred to with sniffs of justified derision by these other denominations which have managed to maintain high standards of music-making in their divine services.

Is this negativity justified, and if so, how did this sorry state of affairs come about? Discussions of this issue usually throw up divided opinions about the state of Catholic liturgy before the 1960s. Reform certainly seems to have been overdue. The pre-conciliar liturgy by all accounts seems to have been a ritualised expression of the moribundity that had so calcified the Church. We were certainly ready for the rejuvenating breath of the Holy Spirit to cleanse, renew and refresh every aspect of Catholicism in the modern age. However, even although the pre-conciliar liturgical experience could be an alienating endurance for some, others speak fondly of how widespread the practice of choral singing was, even in the most lowly provincial parish. Performance of major composers, from Palestrina to Mozart, seems to have been natural practice from Aberdeen to Kilmarnock, from Glasgow to Cumnock.

The Second Vatican Council was certainly not the beginning of the Church’s desire in recent times to improve musico-liturgical practice. The Church has worried away at the question of appropriate music for centuries, dating back to its earliest days. The constant centrality in the Roman rite, though, since these days has been the chant. The motivation of the Church, since the mid-19th century, to re-establish a more fully authentic liturgical life has been wrapped up with a concern for the chant.

In 1903 Pope Pius X issued his motu proprio on sacred music. Gregorian is not the only form of the chant that has been used by the churches. One need only look to the Anglicans or to Byzantium to see the shadings of a great multiplicity. There is also great potential for new forms to suit the vernacular liturgies. Gelineau and Taizé are the most obvious examples of how the modern church can respond to its great musical calling.

Although Pius was aware of the plurality of the chant, he nevertheless stressed that the attributes of holiness, goodness of form and universality were pre-eminently embodied in Gregorian chant. Since then it has been regarded as the paradigmatic form of Catholic liturgical music. Pius’s words speak of its classic nature: “The more closely a church composition approaches plain chant in movement, inspiration and feeling, the more holy and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with this supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple. Special efforts should be made to restore the use of Gregorian chant by the people so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.”

The chant, Gregorian or otherwise, has cropped up in recent news stories about Pope Benedict’s hopes and fears for the Church’s liturgy. As to be expected, the media have given these stories a spin of bogus controversy and have traduced the Pontiff’s words and motivation. “An end to modern worship music” and “Pope abolishes Vatican’s Christmas pop concert” are two such headline examples. A number of liberal liturgists have rushed to condemn Benedict’s “cultural authoritarianism” and have found willing accomplices in the institutionally anti-Catholic BBC and other media outlets. The Pope is presented as a stern-faced, party-pooping disciplinarian, stamping out electric guitars, pop-crooning, and the sentimental, bubble-gum “folk” music used in many of today’s Catholic churches. Consequently we will now all have to “endure” his much-loved Mozart, Tallis, Byrd and Latin plainsong. The people queuing up to attack the Pope are the very ones who were responsible for the banal excrescences enforced on us in the name of “democratisation of the liturgy” and “active participation” over the last few decades. They claim that the Pope is forcing through a narrow, one-dimensional vision of liturgy, and imply that chant is beyond the capabilities of ordinary people. They are wrong on both counts.

First, Benedict has been quite clear that updating sacred music is eminently possible but “it should not happen outside the traditional path of Gregorian chants or sacred polyphonic choral music”.

Clearly, there are living composers who know and respect this tradition and context and can allow their contemporary work to be infused by it, and there are other composers who don’t and can’t. It is quite straightforward to understand with whom the Church can and should be working. Secondly, congregations in and outside the Catholic Church have been singing chant in Latin and in the vernacular for centuries. In Britain, the monumental efforts to keep alive the plainchant tradition over the last century have not been nurtured by the authorities. When Plainsong for Schools was published in 1933 it sold over a 100,000 copies in the first 18 months. The Society of St Gregory organised regional chant festivals throughout the land and held summer schools. Between 1937 and 1939 congregations of 2,000 and more met at Westminster Cathedral and sang the Ordinarium Missae from the Kyriale, with a schola of male amateurs singing the Proper. This shows what can and what could still be done.

There is a new momentum building in the Church which could be directed to bringing about this new, creative “reform of the reform”. Part of that momentum comes from a widespread disgust at what was described recently as “aisle-dancing and numbskull jogging for Jesus choruses at Mass”. The days of embarrassing, maudlin and sentimental dirges such as “Bind us together Lord” and “Make me a channel of your peace” may indeed be numbered.

Are we seeing the end days for overhead projectors, screaming microphones and fluorescent lighting and their concomitant music, complete with incompetently strummed guitars and cringe-making, smiley, cheesy folk groups?

The American writer Thomas Day describes this kind of liturgy as “a diet of romantic marshmallows indigestibly combined with stuff that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and shakes you into submission with its social message”. “What was the rationale of such music?” asked John Ainslie, one-time secretary of the Society of St Gregory, writing in the 1970s. “Many well-intentioned nuns, teachers and later priests thought that such ‘folk music’ would appeal to teenagers and young people generally and so encourage them to participate in the Liturgy instead of walk out from it.

“The term ‘folk music’ is, of course, misleading. There is nothing, for example, to link it with the English folk-song tradition... The name was no doubt coined partly because some of the early repertoire was imported from the United States, where it might have been called folk music with some justification, partly because it was felt that the style had something in common with the musical tastes of today’s younger generation and their sub-culture. But it has never been persuasively shown that whatever young people may find attractive to listen to in a disco, they will find attractive to sing in church."

“Further, the style is unsuitable for singing by large congregations... more so if the only accompaniment provided is a guitar rather than the organ, since guitars, even amplified, have insufficient ‘bite’ to keep a whole congregation singing together and to give them the support they have come to expect from the organ.”

Liturgy as social engineering has probably repulsed more people from the modern Catholic Church than any of the usual list of “social crimes” trotted out by the Church’s critics. Like most ideas shaped by 1960s Marxist sociology, it has proved an utter failure. Its greatest tragedy is the wilful, de-poeticisation of Catholic worship. Our liturgy was hi-jacked by opportunists who used the vacuum created by the Council to push home a radical agenda of de-sacralisation and, ultimately, secularisation. The Church has simply aped the secular West’s obsession with “accessibility”, “inclusiveness”, “democracy” and “anti-elitism”. The effect of this on liturgy has been a triumph of bad taste and banality and an apparent vacating of the sacred spaces of any palpable sense of the presence of God. The jury is still out on any “social gains” achieved by the Church as a result. It may be timely and sobering to reflect on what we have lost.

In the early 1970s Victor Turner, the cultural anthropologist, wrote of the old Roman rite: “One advantage of the traditional Latin ritual was that it could be performed by the most diverse groups and individuals, surmounting the divisions of age, sex, ethnicity, culture, economic status, or political affiliation.

“The liturgy stands out as a magnificent objective creation if the will to assist both lovingly and well was there. Now one fears that the tendentious manipulation of particular interest-groups is liquidating the ritual bonds which held the entire heterogeneous mystical body together in worship.”

In the light of this, the reformed liturgy can be seen as yet another glaring failure by the Leftists in the Church to deliver, even according to their own agenda. It was not meant to be like this. Reading the Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s document on the liturgy, one realises just how much the spirit of true reform has been betrayed by the wilful misdirection of liturgical activists in recent times:

“Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their offices with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God’s people.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC] Chapter 3, Section 29)

“The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and cultivated with great care. Choirs must be assiduously developed.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 14)

“The faithful are also to be taught that they should try to raise their mind to God through interior participation as they listen to the singing of ministers or choir.” (Musicam Sacram, Part 2, Section 14)

“Because of the liturgical ministry it exercises, the choir should be mentioned here explicitly. The conciliar norms regarding reform of the liturgy have given the choir’s function greater prominence and importance. Therefore: (a) Choirs are to be developed with great care, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and in religious houses of study. (b) In smaller churches as well a choir should be formed, even if there are only a few members.” (MS, Part 2, Section 19)

“The Church recognises Gregorian Chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 116)

“Other kinds of music, especially polyphony are by no means excluded.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 116)

“The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendour to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up men’s minds to God and higher things.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 120)

“Pastors should see to it that, in addition to the vernacular, the faithful are also able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.” (MS, Part 2, Section 47)

It is clear, therefore, that Vatican II did not abolish choirs, the great choral tradition, Gregorian chant, organs, prayerful liturgy, or even Latin. In fact as the documents make clear here, all these things are positively encouraged. So who did abolish them?

23 October 2006

Faith & Miracles

Sermon for the 20th Sunday after Pentecost
by Father Larent Demets

When Jesus returned to Galilee from Judea, His reputation as a wonder-worker had already spread throughout the area. It was in Cana that He had performed His first miracle, and people should have spread the account of that miracle by word of mouth. However Galilee remained incredulous about Jesus who gave testimony that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. The contrast is great between the residents of Samaria with whom Jesus stayed only two days and those of Galilee, His own countrymen.

The Samaritans, a people who embraced the Faith without having been witnesses of His miracles, have come to represent the Christian people, the new spiritual race of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The people of Galilee represent the Jews who have rejected Christ in spite of the great many miracles He performed among them. But His charity pressed Him to return to them. There, He was received by those who had seen the miracle of the festival day. They were his disciples, the only who had believed in Him after the miracle.

There, in Capharnaum, there was a man, a certain ruler, whose son was sick when Jesus arrived. This ruler thought that perhaps, after all, this man who could perform miracles like turning water into wine could also heal his son. The ruler had nothing to loose, except maybe his reputation and it might be worth it. He went to Jesus with the hope of seeing his son healed by this special man, but he didn’t have great Faith. Our Lord admonished him: Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not. And the ruler came to believe, indeed, only after he saw the miracle, or at least after he heard about it, as Saint John makes note. He and his family finally accepted Faith in Jesus Christ true God and true man. But what about the rest of the people of Galilee?

Signs and wonders can help us to have Faith, but they don’t necessarily generate it in a soul. Faith is a free act of our intelligence enlightened by God. You may see some signs and wonders, but if you don’t want to believe, you will not believe. The reverse is also true, you can believe without having seen any miracles at all. I guess it is the case for most of us.

Saint Augustine points out that what happened in the gospel with the Samaritans and the Galileans is what happened with the Jews who saw and touched Jesus during his Passion but didn’t believe it. The Samaritans prefigured the Faithful who believe without having seen but who have Faith in the teaching of Jesus. We should believe in the word of Jesus and without expecting miracles. The fact is that, too often, we do the opposite. We seek for the wonders and don’t pay much attention to the words of Our Lord.

You certainly have Faith regarding the great truth revealed by God and taught by the Church, which is good and necessary. But do you really live with this Faith. Do you trust God every day of your life, knowing and acknowledging that He provides everything you need? Do you simply ask him what you need or what you want?

Faith teaches us that God is not only the principle of morality, of order and a pure object of worship as could be the case for many false religions. He is also and most importantly, Our Father, as the Son has revealed it. So, our Faith should be a childlike Faith: the faith of children who push, press, and lean upon their Father with all that that entails.

May Our Lady give us this Faith, so that we can really recognize Jesus as the Son of God who came into the world to redeem us and to teach us how to worship and love our heavenly Father. May she help us to consider ourselves as true children of God. The prayer of the holy Rosary will help us in this spiritual way.

22 October 2006

Ad Orientum

Some excellent thoughts about the Mass being celebrated 'Ad Orientum' taken from Te Deum Laudamus. [Note 'Ad Orientum' means that the Priest celebrates the Mass facing the East and this refers to the the Priest celebrating the Mass facing the altar instead of facing the people (versus populum). For altars not facing East (of a Compass), when the Priest faces the altar in celebrating the Mass he is facing the Litugical East. Sometimes the term 'versus aspidem' is used since the Priest is facing the apse. The East is a very significant direction for the Priest to face in the Liturgy, and one of them is that in his Second Coming, Christ would come from the East. The Priest in facing East during the Mass is leading the faithful to the Second Coming of Christ. While this practise was the means by which the Mass was celebrated prior to post-Vatican II reforms, it is a common mis-conception the Vatican II abolished it. This is not the case. Even under the most recent edition of the GIRM (General Instructions of the Roman Missal), the celebration of the Novus Ordo facing the altar instead of facing the people is allowed.]

A Novus Ordo Mass Celebrate Ad Orientum at Assumption Grotto Parish, Detriot Michigan

All too often, the case made for ad orientem is a technical one (i.e., never abrogated). I believe we need to start talking more deeply about the profound spiritual nature of the posture, and what it fosters interiorly. Catechesis without this aspect will never be as effective. More will embrace it as they comprehend just how spiritual it is - for both priest and worshipers.

It is in interior silence - the quiet - that we discover God, and ultimately our relationship with Him. The Mass - of all things - must enable this, not hinder it. The loud, busy Masses I have experienced for the first 43 years of my life have never caused me to humble myself before the Lord the way the quiet, reserved Masses at Assumption Grotto have over the last year-and-a-half. There are many subtle cues which bring this about, which all together make for a reserved, solemn liturgy. Couple that with good sermons which talk about ALL matters of our faith - the comfortable ones, and the not so comfortable ones, and watch the lines for confession swell. It is for this reason that I believe some are against Masses which yield interior quiet. Digging deep into our souls, with humility, completely counters the more pyschological focus in Liturgies today: Preserving self-esteem - sometimes over that of the spiritual priority of salvation.

Some Personsal Thoughts from Te Deum Laudamus
The Mass has a contemplative dimension to it and it was the ad orientem posture which aided my understanding of it. While the parishioners of Assumption Grotto benefitted from catechesis by the pastor, Fr. Eduard Perrone, some years ago, I did not because I was not there.

I was accustomed to bubbly priests making lots of eye contact as they processed in and out, and during the Eucharistic Prayer. Needless to say, my first experience at Grotto on Pentecost of 2005 was shocking with its total lack of such things. I went for several more weekday morning Masses, which are in Latin with Gregorian chant. As the chant filled the air at the beginning of Mass, I noticed how it quieted me interiorly the way I hadn't experienced in Mass before. In fact, the Latin Novus Ordo, with all the incensing, chant and polyphony, ran from 9:30-11:00, and I hadn't noticed it was that long.

Just before Mass, I noticed how the priest was deep in prayer at the back of the Church. For the first time, as I looked at his prayerful face, my thought was, "I should go there too". Then, the chant started, and my soul began to lift itself to God - taking me into "the quiet".

All through the first part of Mass I noticed how the priest, not facing us, but facing sideways off to the left in the sanctuary, was deep in prayer. Much of the time his eyes were closed. All the more, this subtle cue pulled me deeper into the Mass - God apparently using him as an instrument to teach me how to worship interiorly.

Then, he began the Eucharistic prayer, ad orientem. This really threw me and I recall my first thought was, "Oh, no!" Over the next few mornings, I was somewhat agitated and found myself shifting in the pew, as if to seek the face of the priest. Then, all at once it hit me: In the Mass, I should be seeking the face of God.

It was then, that I fully embraced the ad orientem posture, and the Latin Novus Ordo, as well as the TLM. My enthusiasm rose for the Mass, and I continued to go daily. Then I began participating in Catholic forums, and started my blog. In essence, the serenity, solemnity, and reserved nature of such a Mass enabled me to discover God in worship in a way I never had before. With each Mass, as mental prayer was enabled with the lack of stimulii, rapid changes to my life followed - God-pleasing changes.

I have also developed an aversion to the kind of folk masses I once participated in as a singer, and musician. Ditto with "busy" masses with lots of activity, eye contact and physical contact. I can't explain it, other than to say that I can't quiet myself in the same way that I can at a more traditionally celebrated Mass of Vatican II.

Who is Tradition?

Taken from NLM (emphasis my own)

Tradition is embodied in a person, or at the very least, is the gift of a person, Jesus Christ. Tradition is not the homey, everyday sharing of a visit to grandma's but a radical encounter with the crucified and risen Lord. It is directional, like the nave of a church, rather than the closed circle of which this last fifty years is so fond. In the end, the question of antiquity--or modernity--is only so useful insofar as it brings us closer to the heavenly ideal. Hence the knotty problems of antiquarianism and organic development dealt with so judiciously by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Certainly age is worthy of reverence for its own sake, but it is also a factor of its practicality--we Catholics have been trying to figure out this problem for the past two millenia; we're bound to have gotten some good ideas in the process somewhere along the line. Likewise, occasionally a bit of pruning is in order, liturgically or architecturally.

A Critique of Modern Church Designs
... [Following] a tradition of sorts... - but one which has at its heart, not the encounter of Christ on Christ's own terms, but one which is more a closed encounter within the community: "Think of your home, where stories are told, memorabilia is displayed, meals are shared,"... Whether or not a church should be home-like - or, whether it should be the House of God or the House of God's People, or both--this internal logic is problematic...

... not the familial, familiar grandeur of the ideal parish church but the creation of what was literally a non-church, ... a space to define its meaning and sacrality from the meeting of the community present within its walls. When not in use, the space would be quite literally devoid of purpose. ... a reliance on a centralized plan, a use of movable chairs rather than pews, and a tendency to ignore or minimize the reserved Eucharist for a variety of somewhat conflicting reasons.

20 October 2006

The Gregorian Chant

Extracted from The Mass of Vatican II Part 1 by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

[The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium] Paragraph 114 adds: "The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care." Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." That's what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you're not singing the Gregorian Chant, you're not following the specific mandate of the Second Vatican Council.

Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know."

So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM." So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."

I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, "Bill, is this true?" He said, "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

So, the Council isn't calling us back to some medieval practice, those "horrible" medieval times, the "terrible" Middle Ages, when they knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was build a Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and churches built that have a tenth of the beauty of Notre Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have the right to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak about beauty in the liturgy.) But my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old. They are called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590 to 604. But they were already a thousand years old when he reigned. He didn't invent Gregorian chant; he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish musical schools to sing it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn't an invention. Thus, the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition of truly sacred music and gives such music pride of place.

19 October 2006

Liturgical Reform

Taken from NLM

The Italian journal, 30Giorni (30Days) has a piece up, Liturgia e poveri, tesori della Chiesa, which is an interview with Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.


One of your interviews [alla Croix del 26 giugno], entitled The Liturgical Reform of Vatican II has never been repudiated (decollata?) and has made a good deal of noise. Can you explain better your judgments about the liturgical reform that occurred after the Second Vatican Council?

RANJITH: These words are beyond dispute. It's not that everything that occurred after the Council has negative value. I said instead that the awaited result of the liturgical reform has not yet appeared. We can ask ourselves whether liturgical life, the participation of the faithful at sacred functions, is higher and better today compared to that which was present during the 1950s. It is alleged as a critical fact that before the Council the faithful did not truly participate at Mass, but assisted passively or made their private devotions. But today, is it really true that the faithful participate in a more elevated and personal spiritual manner? Has it really happened that the many who had been outside the Church, with the new liturgies, are now standing in line to enter the new churches? Has it not been the case instead that many went away and that the churches emptied? Of what reform can we then speak?

Light & Darkness

Usually I would post Fr Laurent Demets' sermons in whole but the point he was making at the start with St Thomas Aquinas is just beyond my understanding. So here's an extract of Fr Demets' Sermon for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost.

Christ made all things new on the Cross but we need His light to see and understand it. We have to be renewed in the spirit of our mind, as Saint Paul says, and for that, we must accept the light.

I hear you saying that you have already accepted the light, since you are here, Christians among the most faithful, at the foot of the altar in order to receive the grace of God and to sanctify your souls. But don’t be so self-confident. Have you entirely accepted all the light of God? Are you sure that you don’t keep some dark recesses in your conscience? You might show some appearances of children of Light, but you are still walking in the darkness because you have not totally accepted Jesus Christ in your heart and in your mind.

Attending the Latin Mass doesn’t automatically give you the light of God. By the way, I want to take this opportunity to say few words about the recent news. Many of us are now rejoicing over the news from the Vatican regarding the liberalization of the old-rite. It will certainly be good but it will not change everything in a few days. First of all, because this freedom already exists by right even though many don’t believe it or say it doesn’t. Secondly, since there is the matter of Faith involved with the Latin Mass, don’t expect that the enemies of the Faith will accept and promote a Pontifical decision. The answer to the crisis of the Church doesn’t depend only on a judicial structure or an administrative decree even though they have their importance. The issue is: do we accept the light of God or do we refuse it? The Liturgical aspect is just the tip of the iceberg.
And for now, we still have to find the light of God and to renew our minds in the spirit of God. There is enough work until the end of our life, because the old man still remains in the deepest recesses of our very beings. To be renewed in spirit is not an easy task.

So, I encourage you to think about this: it is good to militate in favor of the Latin mass, but our first battle is within ourselves against the spirits of darkness who try to take possession of us. Since we don’t have the ability to size up the state of our soul, spiritual direction is deeply recommended by the entire spiritual tradition of the Church. In fact, it is absolutely impossible to make some progress in the spiritual life without spiritual direction. How do you think the Saints became so holy? By themselves? Certainly not. Having a good spiritual director – I mean a good priest, truly Catholic – which already excludes many – is a gift from God which helps us immensly in the renewing of our spirits. He will help you to catch the Light of God and to keep it firmly for the good of your soul.

May Our blessed Mother help us to accept this Divine Light so that we can be entirely and deeply renewed in the Spirit of God.

17 October 2006

The Possible Future of the Tridentine Liturgy: An Analysis

Taken from NLM

There is a great deal of speculative journalism going on with regards to the Tridentine document forthcoming, which is perhaps mixing up what we presently know about this document as it may stand, and what are perhaps some of the lobbying and/or debates that are behind the scenes in regard to it.

I should like to break down the matter by looking at the possible end results that might forthcome from all this, if we base it upon what some journalists are suggesting they are hearing, and then analyze these in the light of the liturgical considerations of Benedict.

Let me note, this is not a prediction. It's an attempt to dissect all the stories that are out there that we might think about the issue critically and responsibly.

Possible Liturgical Ends of the Tridentine Document:

1) The Ordinary/Normative Model: Total liberalization of the 1962 Missale Romanum within an ordinary model -- no restrictions at all.

2) The Extraordinary/Normative Model: Near total liberalization within an "extra-ordinary" model. Normative in that sense of full allowance and full membership in the Roman rite, but not the ordinary rite. No permission is required, but with possible guidelines in terms of how much it might be used in a typical diocesan parish setting in relation to the ordinary rite.

3) The Inversed-Indult Model: Permission is a granted norm, excepting at the intervention of the local Ordinary who may choose, within certain defined criterions, to not allow.

4) The Free-upon-local-Conditions Model: Permission is granted, but the local Ordinary may choose to lay down the local diocesan conditions whereby that permission can be exercised in public masses -- e.g. perhaps a numerical matter of 30 or more faithful requesting, etc. -- but where, theoretically at least, if those criterion are filled, the Ordinary is not to deny.

Benedict's Liturgical and Pastoral Thought:

1) Leaven is needed for the reform of the reform, but it must occur in a way which is not an adminstrative tinkering with the Pauline books, as happened at the Council, and which Benedict is steadfast in resisting as an approach. He has long seen the 1962 Missale Romanum as having an answer to this. It's wider celebration, and permeation into the greater parish life of the Roman rite might thereby help kickstart the reform of the reform.

2) Benedict was dismayed at the abolishment of this rite which had grown up through the centuries, something he saw as very damaging and unprecedented.

3) Benedict desires to reach out to groups like the SSPX, for whom the free celebration of this rite, and its non-indult status is an important point.

4) Aware of the crisis in the Church, liturgically, theologically, etc. and the hermeneutic of rupture, there is a need to draw traditional liturgics, theology, formation and so on very clearly in the heart and centre, and no longer be written off as somehow "fringe" that the voice of the tradition may again be more clearly heard and that a hermeneutic of continuity may be more clearly seen.

5) Pastorally, Benedict is aware that despite the problems with the Pauline reforms, this is also a liturgy that has been around for decades and which many are now used to, or have only known. A radical shift will be harmful in his view just as it was following the Council. He will want to pastorally protect those faithful from this.

6) He will want to respond to the concerns of the bishops and will want to somehow give them some assurance so as not to provoke new schisms, and to help secure their tacit cooperation in the matter so that points 1 and 3 might also be accomplished still.

7) He will want to make clear that this is not a rejection of the Council or the principle of the Conciliar liturgical reform, while balancing this with point 1 and the need for a reform of the reform.

Analysis of these Possible Ends in the light of these Benedictine Considerations:

Model #1: (the ordinary/normative model that sees absolutely no restrictions) seems unlikely as there would be too much opposition from members of the episcopate and parts of the Curia. While it might work out fine, many would critique this, rightly or wrongly, as a rejection of the Council. Benedict, I think, cannot afford the document to be too utterly controversial as it could then backfire and not have the effects desired for the reform of the reform, for groups like the SSPX, etc. As well, he will want to protect consideration #5 in regard to the faithful accustomed to the Pauline rite.

Model #3: (the inversed indult; whereby permission is granted unless explicitly denied by the bishop) seems possible but a little less likely in regards to the SSPX issue on the one hand, and secondarily, perhaps, in Benedict's awareness that there have been trials in applying the existing indult of 1988. The SSPX will likely see this as not being a real shift, since ultimately an arbitrary judgement on the part of the Ordinary could still occur. Moreover, it also has the greater potential to not allow the same leavening effect for the reform of the reform. After model #2, this model does seem to be a very strong contender as a possibiilty with the caveat that it depends upon the nature and conditions of the Bishop's authority to disallow, which could thus also lessen the SSPX's concerns about arbitrary disallowance.

Model #4: faces very similiar issues as #3, but seems even less likely than #3.

Model #2: would seem to meet all the considerations of Benedict the best. The denotation of ordinary vs. extraordinary, and any numerical stipulation about what may or may not happen in non-personal parishes protects the status of the FSSP, etc. while also addressing the pastoral concerns of the typical diocesan parish, and potentially can assauge the concerns of those bishops who simply are concerned with the matter from a pastoral perspective, rather than an ideological opposition to the 1962 Missal. Such a denotation and "caveat" also protects the idea that this is not a rejection of the Council, while allowing for the greatest overall freedom (which the SSPX will want to see) for the 1962 Missal. This in turns bodes the best for it kickstarting a reform of the reform.

Further considerations that could influence the model chosen:

The wildcard in all these considerations comes down to the bishops and the level of their opposition. How will Benedict manage this? Will he be able to do so without compromising his own liturgical vision to date? This is a key question that we cannot answer.

The Ideological re-writing of the Second Vatican Council and Fundamental Misinterpretations

Taken from NLM

While the secular journalist cannot be expected to know the nuances of liturgical issues nor the theological debates going into the liturgical question, there is some rather irresponsible reporting going on where the most basic fact-checking is not happening. (The recent Washington Post article was a refreshing breather from this.)

The most common misnomer I have personally read -- and I grant that I have only barely looked at what the secular press is writing on this matter -- is a claim that the Second Vatican Council banished the 1962 Missal (what they imprecisely refer to as "the Latin Mass") when it was determined that the faithful should worship in the vernacular. (Similar, unsubstantiated claims are made about versus populum and other such matters.)

The errors in such a statement alone are numerous, and these errors appear in various forms in most pieces I have seen. If there is any secular reporter reading this, please take note:

1) the Second Vatican Council took no decision to banish the liturgy as it was at the time of the Council. Quite the opposite, the decision it took was to allow some organic liturgical reform.

2) Further to that, the Second Vatican Council did not banish Latin, it in fact legitimized the importance of the continuance of Latin in the liturgy, while at the same time allowing the introduction of the vernacular as part of organic liturgical reform.

3) The term, "the Latin Mass" in reference to the pre-conciliar liturgy and in disinction from the post-conciliar liturgy is not accurate, being rooted in a notion that Vatican II abolished Latin from the liturgy. It should be noted that the Council desired Latin to be retained and that the post-conciliar Roman liturgy may also be entirely (or partially) in Latin, it too could be a "Latin Mass".

What is most unfortunate about these errors is that the claims are almost entirely the opposite of the actual reality -- something which a quick read of a few paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium or the addresses of the like of Ratzinger, etc. would easily demonstrate.

Such errors are of course also paired with, and likely partially fed by, the ideological posturing of the "progressivists". Time.com reported on this story in "The Return of the Latin Mass" (sic), quoting Fr. James Martin, an editor for the Jesuit journal, America wherein Fr. Martin says of this possibility: "This would make it much more difficult for people to engage in full conscious and active participation, which was the goal of the Council".

Fr. Martin may well believe this, but this belief is rooted in particular ideological assumptions, not in a hermeneutic of continuity, nor in the Council's decrees itself, nor in the clarifications and deeper exploration of active participation. To use Fr. Martin's assumption would actually entail the Council itself as making this more difficult since it called for quite conservative liturgical reform, including, of course, the retention of Latin. Active participation and the classical liturgical books have never been inimical. The very idea of active participation came about in the 19th century and was promoted by the likes of St. Pius X and Dom Prosper Gueranger. It further arose under Pius XII. Hardly men of the progressivist camp. Further, the Second Vatican Council itself testified to the means for active participation as particularly through, not liturgical re-construction, but rather through liturgical education and formation (something Dr. Alcuin Reid recently spoke on in his CIEL paper.)

A second issue arises as well, which is the critical commentary coming from some in the Catholic blogosphere (and most certainly outside of it as well) which fundamentally misunderstands the theological reasonings behind practices such as the use of a sacred language, Mass celebrated ad orientem and so on. To these folks this is Mass mumbled incomprehensively and said "looking at the altar" and so forth. These comments are ultimately untrue characterizations of course, and in many cases are likely not ill-intended, but rather are simply cliches.

Overall we must continue to endeavour to correct these misunderstandings. We must not allow the Second Vatican Council, nor our Roman liturgical tradition, to continue to be re-written in a way that is not representative of it as a reality, either theologically, liturgically or historically and in fundamental (if unintentional) opposition to the living and organic tradition of the Church.

16 October 2006

God's Love & God's Justice

Taken from Athanasius Contra Mundum

What makes the saints who they are is that they have an extraordinary awareness of their standing, which is the rare balance between God's love and God's justice which in history become such a problem in the Church. In certain periods of Church life there is too much focus on God's justice, although not to the point that is caricatured by moderns. Today there is the opposite problem. Everyone wants to hear about God's mercy, and how it is okay that they committed mortal sins, and broke God's law, and how it doesn't matter because God is merciful. Yet they forget that God is also just, and a great many priests and so-called "catechists" do the faithful a great disservice by excluding teaching on the doctrines of purgatory, and temporal punishment for sin, and the need for penance.

Ireland Tridentine News

Taken from the Sunday Business Post Online

In Ireland, the old Mass is regularly celebrated with episcopal permission in a number of dioceses. In Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin celebrated a Tridentine Mass last November at St Audoen’s church, where the old rite is used each Sunday.

Bishop Seamus Hegarty of Derry also celebrated Mass last year before a meeting of the Latin Mass Society of Ireland (www.latinmassireland.org). But the bishops of five dioceses have refused to allow the old rite - Kerry, Cloyne, Clonfert, Ossory and Dromore.

In Ireland, the society has churches in Athlone, Dun Laoghaire and Cork, and its priests celebrate regular Masses in six other chapels.

The new superior general of the Fraternity of St Peter, Fr John Berg, will visit Ireland from October 23-25 and will meet the new Bishop of Ferns to discuss a regular Tridentine Mass in Wexford town.

Next month, the Prior General of the Institute of Christ the King will make his first visit to Ireland.

Monsignor Giles Wach will meet Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick and will celebrate a Tridentine Mass in Limerick city on Sunday November 19.

Arise and Walk

Taken from DefideCatholica
Sermon for the 18th Sunday after Pentecost by Father Laurent Demets, FSSP

The Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins! The statement is clear, plain and firm. You either believe in it or you don’t. In other words, you either believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came into the world in order to redeem us, or you don’t. It is a matter of Faith.

For the rationalists, Faith is not reasonable. For many others, it is just uncertain. Therefore, Jesus comes to sustain our Faith by His miracles. “Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?” Then He tells us the purpose of miracles: “that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” Only God has this power, so asserting that He has such a power is a proclamation of His divinity. Some believe Him, others don’t. The Faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ establishes a separation among men between those who believe in Him and those who don’t believe in Him. Christ truly is the stumbling block. As Saint Peter says, to those who believe, He is honor, but to the non-believers, He his the head of the corner and a rock of scandal. These will be confounded for not having accepted Jesus in and through Faith since they had the occasion to do it.

The fact is that there is a huge confusion between Faith and supernatural phenomenon. By supernatural, I don’t mean here the Divine order of grace, which is the Catholic meaning of this word, but rather a generic form of the word referring to anything extraordinary or any paranormal manifestation. Many people don’t consider a miracle to be a Divine act whose purpose is to animate our Faith, but rather as an interesting event that merits in itself all our attention. For them, the most important aspect of the miracle is the effect and not the cause, which denotes a lack of intelligence or, at least, a certain will to not know. The problem is that this attitude is also widespread among many Catholics who, without any good discernment, rush to the see the sights of the apparitions – or so-called apparition – because they estimate it to be very important. Sometimes, they make many sacrifices and efforts in order to go there or to meet a so-called visionary. By the way, a true visionary is usually very discreet and prefers to hide himself rather than to give a press conference to explain what God or Our Lady wants. But the same people who rush to the places of apparitions don’t make nearly as much efforts to confess regularly – at least once a month – and to attend Mass during the week. They prioritize the sensational aspect of their pilgrimage but neglect the daily care of their souls. They think that it would be very profitable for them to meet Jesus in such a great occasion, but they forget that they have a greater occasion every day in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. They just forgot that Faith is more important than any miracle because miracles are for Faith and the goal is more important than the means.

The Apostle Thomas, probably before he became Saint Thomas, had succumbed to this temptation. He wanted to see, as the world does. The world wants signs; it wants to see. It is always a quest for sensational and the media are fond of it. Thomas had the spirit of the world and didn’t believe. He wanted visible proof of Christ’s resurrection. Our Lord asked Him for an act of Faith: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Dear Brethren, let us be men or women of Faith. It is hard, but it is the only way to go to God. We can reach Him in truth only by an act of Faith, which is a true supernatural act in the precise meaning of the word ‘supernatural’.

May Our Lady help us to sustain our Faith, so that we can really be blessed, in the expectation of Beatific Vision!

14 October 2006

Tridentine and Novus Ordo

Tridentine Mass begins with prayers at the foot of the altar. The priest recites the confeitor before ascending to the altar.

The Novus Ordo begins with the priest at the sedelia. The priest doesn't need to be at the altar because the Novus Ordo separates the "Liturgy of the Word" from the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" which diminshes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

The Tridentine Mass has specific rubrics to signify the life of Christ on earth. The center of the altar represents Jerusalem, where Christ was sacrificed. The priest, facing east, ascends to the center of the altar and kisses it. He then moves to the south to read the introit, which is the first prayer that changes in the Mass. He moves south because Bethlehem, where Christ was born, is south of Jerusalem. The priest faces east when he reads the prayer. The reason the priest moves south for the first changeable prayer is because it signifies the beginning of the Mass of the day. It is a the "birth" of a new Mass, just as Christ was born in Bethlehem.

The priest returns to the center for the Kyrie and Gloria. Christ gave glory to the Father and poured out his mercy for us in Jerusalem, which is why the priest returns to the center.

The priest the reads the collect and epistle at the south end of the altar, again to signify the birth of Christ. The collect is just as it sounds, the priest offering the prayer for the people to the Father. The epistle is a reading from the Old or New Testament which compliments the Gospel reading of the day.

When the priest finishes the epistle, he returns to the center to say the munda cor, which he asks God to "purify his lips to proclaim the Gospel." This corresponds again to Christ's sacrifice on the cross in Jerusalem to purify us from our sins.

The priest then moves north to proclaim the Gospel. The reason for this is because Nazareth, where Jesus lived for the first 30 years of His life, is north of Jerusalem. Jesus began his mission to preach the Gospel from Nazareth, which is why the priest reads the Gospel at the north end of the altar.

All of this was eliminated from the Novus Ordo Mass. The priest doesn't even read the epistle readings. The Gospel is read from the ambo, as well as the epistle readings and the repsonsorial psalm. The priest hasn't even approached the altar at this point in the Novus Ordo Mass.

...the Novus Ordo is very Eucharistic centered. I do not doubt the validity and licitness of the consecration at the Novus Ordo Mass. The priest turns bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at every Novus Ordo Mass. However, to say that it is very Eucharistic centered is to miss the point of the liturgical revolution that was forced upon the Church in the name of the Second Vatican Council.

The Novus Ordo Mass was deliberately centered on the people. We all know the Novus Ordo can be said ad orientem. The fact that the priest doesn't even ascend the altar until after the Nicene Creed takes away from the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. The Novus Ordo also puts a focus on the "active" participation of the people, as if the people aren't actively participating by following the actions of the priest at the Tridentine Mass. Focusing on the people means taking away the focus on the Eucharist. The focus of the Mass can't be on the people and the Eucharist at the same time.



11 October 2006

Living as a Traditionalist in a Novus Ordo World

Coutresy of Lumen Gentleman

When all is said and done, however, Sunday still rolls around eventually, and Fr. Trash-it-All will still be waiting at the altar when the time for morning Mass arrives. What to do then? In this case, we would be hard-pressed to find a more traditional phrase than "offer it up." Assuming that Fr. Trash is not engaging in out-right blasphemy while executing the rubrics, preaching clear heresy from the pulpit, or presenting some obvious occasion of sin (like asking bikini-clad women to distribute Communion), annoying abuses in the liturgy can become a salvific opportunity to suffer in union with Christ, and to engage in self-examination. It is irritating when Fr. Trash starts ad-libbing the prayers, no doubt; but how irritating is it to God that I came here today with Hail Marys on my lips, but pride in my heart? It frustrates me when Fr. Trash insists on using 47 Eucharistic Ministers every Sunday, when the most people we've ever had at a single Mass was no more than 125; but how frustrating is it to God that I came here to receive Communion after having ignored Him all week?

Yes, liturgical abuses are objectively bad, and we should not adopt the false principle that we can say nothing about such abuses until we have reached perfection in our own lives. On the other hand, too often the tendency is to complain too much, and forget our own imperfections entirely; the distance between this attitude and hypocrisy is shorter than we might think. The trick is to maintain a healthy balance: deplore the abuses, but use them as an opportunity for self-examination, an opportunity for suffering with Christ - then take some kind of concrete action to get the problem solved.

St. John and Our Lady stood by while the greatest sacrilege of all time was committed: the murder of the Savior of the World by wicked men. This did not in any way imply that Our Lady or St. John approved of what was taking place; rather, precisely because they deplored the sacrilege, they suffered with Our Lord, because it certainly caused them much suffering to watch Him undergo the Passion. Some have said in the past that the rampant abuses in the New Mass are tantamount to crucifying Christ all over again; if that is so, then perhaps those who have no other alternative must say with St. Thomas the Apostle, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." (Jn. 11:16)


This individual means well. He wants to preserve reverence. In the process, however, he has committed his own series of liturgical abuses by improvising his own prayers and rubrics; dissent is never cured by further dissent, and this individual has not yet realized this fact. He unwittingly becomes part of the problem.

What we are saying here goes a long way towards answering the question, "what should I do if I have to attend an abusive Novus Ordo Mass?" Indeed, what should we do? Bring our 1962 missals and pray the prayers quietly, while the New Mass is going on all around us? Bring our Rosaries and sit in the back, praying while ignoring the liturgy itself? Unfortunately, this leads us too much in the direction of becoming liturgical abusers ourselves. The Mass was meant for "active participation," which, while it does not mean "busy-ness," does mean an interior participation of the soul. It means reciting the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, and making the other responses that the New Mass calls for. It means making those prayers our own, absorbing their content with our own minds, appropriating them for our own worship. We cannot do this if we are busy celebrating our own little private liturgy in the back corner, segregated away from the rest of the congregation both in body and in spirit.

It is an entirely traditional thing to do to stick closely with the liturgical rubrics; if we want to be traditionally-minded Catholics living in a "Novus Ordo World," the thing to do is to be Catholic - and Catholics are attached to the liturgical rubrics and texts. It is not Catholic to go into a liturgy and immediately detach yourself from it, in order to disappear into your own liturgical world; in fact, that is a very Protestant thing to do. The Catholic submits to the texts and the rubrics, or he doesn't attend the liturgy at all.

But there are ways in which a Catholic can retain certain traditional customs in the New Mass, without becoming a liturgical abuser himself. Women, for example, can and should wear veils; the Vatican has never revoked this canonical law, and as late as 1969 even Msgr. Bugnini was admitting that fact. The liturgical rubrics can be followed exactly, which in itself is something most modern Catholics do not do in their own parishes; for example, the new rubrics call for the faithful to bow profoundly (deeply) during the Credo at the words "by the power of the Holy Spirit ... He became Man," but hardly anyone observes this rubric. However, it is called for by the missal, and observing this rubric obviously involves no disobedience or abuse of the liturgy.


Both within and without the context of the Mass, there are many ways in which a Catholic today can preserve the traditions of the Church, without disobeying anyone or acting contrary to Church Law. As mentioned, we can pray the Rosary daily; we can pray the Angelus daily; we can fast and abstain from meat on Fridays; we can observe the midnight fast before Sunday Mass; we can make an offering of ourselves and our sufferings at those Masses that are most irritating; we can stick with the rubrics of the Mass; we can dress appropriately for Mass and give a good example; we can be sure to make a good thanksgiving after Mass.

It is, of course, never easy to go against the grain, or to do those things that have become counter-cultural. But the fact is, these things are still encouraged by the Church, regardless of the fact that many American parishes insist on disobeying Rome. As Catholics who are loyal to the Pope, it seems that it would be in our best interests to make a public statement precisely by staying close to Rome. Dissent, as was said, is never cured by further dissent. Adam and Eve bequeathed a world cursed by sin to their descendents, precisely because of disobedience. It only stands to reason, then, that the very problem of sin in this world, brought on by original disobedience, will never be expiated by further acts of disobedience. On the contrary, the antidote to disobedience is obedience, and the problem today is that many have become ignorant of the fact that Rome still asks us to do things like abstain from meat on Fridays, fast before the Mass, etc.

We become victims of dissent if we let these things disappear from common practice, while the rest of the Catholic world absorbs the illusion that things like women wearing veils at Mass have been outlawed, or discontinued. The only way to raise awareness of these things and keep them "current" is to begin to live them out in our own lives, without wavering or making exceptions.

Ad Orientem

Courtesy of Ward Wide Wide

Fr. Dennis Kolinski, CRSJC, is a priest at my parish and a gifted homilist.
This is his "Ascension and the East" homily from Ascension Thursday.
Any mistakes are mine and mine alone, made during transcription.

"Ascension and the East" homily
Fr. Dennis Kolinski, SSJC
25 May 2006
St. John Cantius

Until recent years, the debate about which direction the priest should be facing when celebrating the Mass was usually about the difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. But more and more one is hearing this discussion even in reference to the post-Vatican II Mass. There is growing concern for a return to the sacred and a return to this traditional orientation in the Mass is a significant part of it. Our present Holy Father, Benedict XVI is among its notable proponents.

Many people talk of celebration of the Mass in the traditional manner as Mass celebrated facing the tabernacle or as Mass in which the priest's back is to the people to conceal the Sacred Mysteries. But neither of these descriptions gets to the core of why we celebrate Mass in this manner.

Mass in the traditional manner is called "ad orientem", which literally means "to the east", and from the very beginning of Christianity orientation of worship to the East held a profoundly mystical significance. It was the ancient and universal practice of all Christians. They didn't worship in that direction because of the tabernacle because it wasn't until the Middle Ages that the tabernacle was put at the back of the altar as it is now. Worship facing the east had a great cosmological significance because of the great event we commemorate today. Christians believed that when Christ ascended into heaven, He ascended toward the east and that when He would return in His Second Coming, He would come from that same direction. By always facing to that direction in worship, they were, therefore, always standing ready for the return of their Lord. The East represented the anticipated Second Coming of Christ, the King.

The first Christians were Jews and the orientation of prayer to the east was a concept that was not at all foreign to them because Jews believed that Eden was located to the East. (1) Christians worshiped to the east not because it pointed to the earthly paradise as the Jews did, but because it now pointed to the new paradise in Heaven to which Christ had arisen on Ascension Day.

Early Christian literature has many references to worship facing east. The Apostolic Constitutions state that a church should be built "with its head to the East". (2.) St. John Damascene wrote that while we wait for the coming of the Lord "we adore Him facing East" because it is a tradition that was passed down to us by the Apostles. St. Augustine wrote, "When we rise to pray, we turn East, where Heaven begins." (3.)

The rising sun in the east as an image of Christ the Light of the world was also a potent symbol for the early Christians. In the third century, Origen wrote that we ought to pray in the direction of the rising sun because it is an act which symbolizes the soul's gaze towards the rising of the true Light, Jesus Christ. The writings of other Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and St. Basil, confirm this practice.

This symbol of the sun as an image of the Divine Light is found throughout the Bible. In the Book of Psalms we read about "The sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber". (5.) In the book of the prophet Malachi we read that the "sun of righteousness shall rise." (6.) In his mystical vision, Ezekiel saw "the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east" and it "entered the Temple by the gate facing east." (7.) And in the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Christ's face "shone like the sun." (8.)

The sun is a cosmic symbol of the light of the resurrected Christ, who dispels the darkness of sin and death. When the sun sets in the west, the world sinks into darkness, which we equate with death. That is what happens when a souls shuts out the Light of Christ. Darkness envelops the soul and leads to spiritual death. The east, on the other hand, brings the rising sun and its energy for a new day. So, by turning toward the rising sun when we worship, we turn toward Christ, whom it symbolizes.

The east is the same direction to which Christ ascended from the Mount of Olives on the day of the Ascension and is the direction from which He will return on the Last Day. (9.) In the book of Revelation we read that the east will be the direction from which the Angel of the Lord will come in the end time "ascending from the rising of the sun." (10.) And Christ Himself told us that "as the lightning comes from the east so will be the coming of the Son of man" (11.) and his face will be like "the sun shining in full strength." (12.)

The structures in which Christians traditionally worshipped were not just functional buildings as they often are today. The church building and everything in it reflected a very deep symbolism. We call the body of the church the "nave", which is a word derived from the Latin word for ship - navis. So, we can say that during our short time on earth, we are on a journey and the church building in which we worship is, so to speak, the ship by which we sail to the east to the port of our eternal rest in heaven. It is in this sacred space that the Christian body constantly voyages to the East (13.) to the Heavenly Paradise and to the Rising Sun.

The early Church believed that it was from the east that Christ would return in glory. For Christians the east has historically always been the direction of heaven, so that by facing east, Christians - both priest and layman alike - would be able to participate in the mystical liturgy of Heaven. Both priest and laity looked toward the East in unity as if in procession because it was the gateway to heaven, their destiny. The altar was the place where heaven is opened up, leading the Church into the "eternal liturgy." (15.)

1. Gamber, Msgr. Klaus, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its problems and background (Una Voce Press, 1993, and Kocik, Father Thomas "Re(turn) to the East?", Adoremus, November 1999

2. Hassert, Maurice M. "History of the Christian Altar", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1999

3. Augustine "De sermone domini in monte" , p. 80

4. Kocik, "Return"

5. Psalm 19

6. Malachi 4:2

7. Ezekiel 43:4

8. Matthew 17:2

9. Acts 1:11

10. Revelation 7:2

11. Matthew 24:27

12. Revelation 1:16

13. Jungman, Joseph "The Mass of the Roman Rite", p. 180

14. Ratzinger, "Spirit of the Liturgy", 70-71