.jpg)
Countercultural Father has posted here about plans for the Archdiocese of Liverpool to have lay-led funerals. Mac had posted about it earlier, but I'm afraid it slipped me by. Ben also pointed out that courtesy of Part Time Pilgrim, he had found a copy of the Archdiocese's leaflet on how to plan a Catholic funeral here.
It's this last that worries me. I get all of Ben's points about why a lay-led service is always going to be second best, but what surprised me was that the Archdiocese seems not just to be unaware of, but directly in opposition to a Catholic idea about how to bury somebody. My source is the GIRM: the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which is the Catholic Church's book about how to celebrate the Mass.
The GIRM has a section on Masses of the Dead. It contains the following:
"The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ's Passover for the dead so that, since all members of the Church are in communion with each other, the petition for spiritual help on behalf of some may bring comforting hope to others. Among the Masses for the Dead, the Funeral Mass holds first place.
...
Pastors should, moreover, take into special account those who are present at a liturgical celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics or Catholics who never or rarely participate in the Eucharist or who seem to have lost the faith. For priests are ministers of Christ's Gospel for all."
While Liverpool has:
"The Funeral. This is the community's main celebration and prayer for the deceased person. This could be a Funeral Mass, but if the majority of the mourners would not be able to participate fully in a Mass, or if no Priest is available, it may be a Funeral Service led by a Lay Funeral Minister or a Deacon. It cannot be guaranteed that all the deceased's wishes will be fulfilled, even where a pre-paid funeral plan has been arranged."
(NB, by the way, the use of capitalisation, and the order in which "Lay Funeral Minister or a Deacon" is set out.)
Another contrast comes between the GIRM:
"At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short Homily, but never a eulogy of any kind"
and the Liverpool Rite:
"The family and friends of the deceased can be involved, if they feel able, in a variety of ways:
...
Speaking briefly in memory of the deceased person."
The leaflet is, it seems to me, scandalously heterodox, and I commend it to you all for meditation and reparation.
Given, however, where it comes from and what it proclaims, it is worth highlighting something that I found hilarious. It says that "the use of music in the various stages of the funeral is important, and carefully selected hymns and music will enhance the service, bring back memories of a loved one and provide consolation for the bereaved." It points out that "some music (or words) which would not be appropriate for use in church may be better suited to the crematorium or cemetery" - not that Robbie Williams' "Angels" should not be banished from any religious celebration whatsoever, but just from the Church (or rather, church) part, if there is one. But buried between those two quotes comes:
"It should be borne in mind that the Catholic Church has a vast library of music to suit all needs."
Indeed it has, and it is one of the great scandals of the Age that the people who wrote this leaflet have condemned Catholics of the last two generations never to have access to this Library, and have done their utmost to destroy it, and the context for which it was written, as completely as possible. The irony that this has issued from the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King - Paddy's Wigwam; the Mersey Funnel - will not escape some of us.
16 September 2012
09 September 2012
A Window Closes - Some Good News
It turns out that the lecture by the well known tabletista gay-marriage supporting Catholic theology lecturer
Tina Beattie, who had been asked to speak in Clifton Cathedral to celebrate the
fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II, has been cancelled.
This is very good news. H/t to Countercultural father who spotted it first.
Might we dare to hope that by adequately publicising, and well in advance, goings-on of this sort we might see at worse more cancellations, and at best a reduction in invitations to heterodox Catholics to preach as though their beliefs were mainstream and Catholic.
I think a bottle of the Taylors '83 would be in order.
This is very good news. H/t to Countercultural father who spotted it first.
Might we dare to hope that by adequately publicising, and well in advance, goings-on of this sort we might see at worse more cancellations, and at best a reduction in invitations to heterodox Catholics to preach as though their beliefs were mainstream and Catholic.
I think a bottle of the Taylors '83 would be in order.
23 August 2012
Straws, Blowing, In Search Of Bricks
Jon Cruddas was invited to speak at a Las Casas Foundation conference at Blackfriars at Oxford last autumn, but the threat of a SPUC-led prayer vigil outside led to this Catholic pro-abortion MP withdrawing from the conference.
He was also to have spoken at a Justice and Peace do in the Brentwood Diocese, but has pulled out of this too, after various protests. Some e-mails sent protesting about the invitation were met by curt and rude replies from what appear to have been officials of the Brentwood Diocese.
The Bishop of Brentwood has celebrated his 75th birthday.
Paul Inwood, the well known Catholic musician who is in receipt of significant emoluments from the Diocese of Portsmouth, has launched an attack on what might be called the "Reform of the Reform" position on Gregorian Chant, attracting support from musicians in diocesan music groups E&W-wide.
A new Bishop for Portsmouth has been appointed and will be consecrated soon.
The well known tabletista gay-marriage supporting Catholic theology lecturer Tina Beattie has been asked to speak in Clifton Cathedral to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II.
The Bishop of Clifton is about to withdraw for some months.
All around, the lay groups which have been in the driving seat for many years seem to be trying to take, consolidate, or hold on to power, and claim leadership of Catholic England and Wales as though their position is under threat.
Watch out for a CAFOD initiative or drive in the next couple of months, and look to see what is happening in the dioceses whose Bishops are approaching 75 or who have already passed that milestone.
Bishop McMahon of Brentwood was 75 in June 2011.
Bishop Rawsthorne of Hallam was 75 in November 2011.
Bishop Budd of Plymouth was 75 in May 2012.
Bishop Hine, Auxiliary in Southwark will be 75 in July 2013.
Archbishop Kelly of Liverpool will be 75 in November 2013.
Bishop Brain of Salford will be 75 in December 2013.
He was also to have spoken at a Justice and Peace do in the Brentwood Diocese, but has pulled out of this too, after various protests. Some e-mails sent protesting about the invitation were met by curt and rude replies from what appear to have been officials of the Brentwood Diocese.
The Bishop of Brentwood has celebrated his 75th birthday.
Paul Inwood, the well known Catholic musician who is in receipt of significant emoluments from the Diocese of Portsmouth, has launched an attack on what might be called the "Reform of the Reform" position on Gregorian Chant, attracting support from musicians in diocesan music groups E&W-wide.
A new Bishop for Portsmouth has been appointed and will be consecrated soon.
The well known tabletista gay-marriage supporting Catholic theology lecturer Tina Beattie has been asked to speak in Clifton Cathedral to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II.
The Bishop of Clifton is about to withdraw for some months.
All around, the lay groups which have been in the driving seat for many years seem to be trying to take, consolidate, or hold on to power, and claim leadership of Catholic England and Wales as though their position is under threat.
Watch out for a CAFOD initiative or drive in the next couple of months, and look to see what is happening in the dioceses whose Bishops are approaching 75 or who have already passed that milestone.
Bishop McMahon of Brentwood was 75 in June 2011.
Bishop Rawsthorne of Hallam was 75 in November 2011.
Bishop Budd of Plymouth was 75 in May 2012.
Bishop Hine, Auxiliary in Southwark will be 75 in July 2013.
Archbishop Kelly of Liverpool will be 75 in November 2013.
Bishop Brain of Salford will be 75 in December 2013.
18 August 2012
The Pussy Riot Affair And Catholics In England And Wales
Once again, it seems to me, the Pussy Riot affair has shown just how compromised Catholicsm in England and Wales has become. All of the discussion of the sentencing of the demonstrators has focused on them: on why they did what they did, on how an attack on President Putin and the servile Patriarch is "right" even if we would have preferred it not to have happened in a Church; and that two year sentences are outrageous. All of this is, I think, to miss the point as badly as a recent Catholic Herald article which advocated separating public opposition to abortion from public opposition to euthanasia.
There can be no justification for desacration: it can never be right to profane a sacred space, to remove that which is sacred from a sacred place, to attack the holy in its home. Yet every description of what the Russian women did, every attempt to explain why they did it moves the focus away from the profanation and on to the women themselves. This is the approach of the worldly. Surely any Catholic's starting point should be the utter and appalling wrongness of anything happening in that place other than the sacred Liturgy itself, the end for which is was created, the Action which has sanctified the place and has turned it from mere bricks and mortar to a liminal place on the border between heaven and earth. This is the place in which angels bow down to cry "Holy! Holy Holy!" and yet there are Catholics who are joining the world in worrying about whether a suspended sentence after the time already served would have been better than two years in prison.
How many English and Welsh Catholics have called for or have made public acts of reparation? And how many, bravely vocal about the relationship of another country's President with another Church's Patriarch, are as vocal about matters a lot nearer home, about the compromised relationship of their own Hierarchy with the concerns and interests of the secular state.
(I actually wonder how many English and Welsh Catholics have the first idea about the dynamics of modern Russian politics and the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the State in 2012 Russia: none if they rely on the British press for their information; and possibly no more should they have until they have attended to the rather large piece of wood in their eyes.)
The Catholic Church here seems to have lost its role of mediating God to Man in favour of becoming part of a sort of Religious and Moral Affairs Directorate of the Cabinet Office, at a time when radical secularism has taken hold of the British Establishment. The Hierarchy cannot change the state from the inside; by participating in it they have become compromised in it.
I have said before: the battle line in the Catholic Church in England and Wales isn't about the language of the Mass: it is about whether the Church is a part of society, or a Society apart.
There can be no justification for desacration: it can never be right to profane a sacred space, to remove that which is sacred from a sacred place, to attack the holy in its home. Yet every description of what the Russian women did, every attempt to explain why they did it moves the focus away from the profanation and on to the women themselves. This is the approach of the worldly. Surely any Catholic's starting point should be the utter and appalling wrongness of anything happening in that place other than the sacred Liturgy itself, the end for which is was created, the Action which has sanctified the place and has turned it from mere bricks and mortar to a liminal place on the border between heaven and earth. This is the place in which angels bow down to cry "Holy! Holy Holy!" and yet there are Catholics who are joining the world in worrying about whether a suspended sentence after the time already served would have been better than two years in prison.
How many English and Welsh Catholics have called for or have made public acts of reparation? And how many, bravely vocal about the relationship of another country's President with another Church's Patriarch, are as vocal about matters a lot nearer home, about the compromised relationship of their own Hierarchy with the concerns and interests of the secular state.
(I actually wonder how many English and Welsh Catholics have the first idea about the dynamics of modern Russian politics and the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the State in 2012 Russia: none if they rely on the British press for their information; and possibly no more should they have until they have attended to the rather large piece of wood in their eyes.)
The Catholic Church here seems to have lost its role of mediating God to Man in favour of becoming part of a sort of Religious and Moral Affairs Directorate of the Cabinet Office, at a time when radical secularism has taken hold of the British Establishment. The Hierarchy cannot change the state from the inside; by participating in it they have become compromised in it.
I have said before: the battle line in the Catholic Church in England and Wales isn't about the language of the Mass: it is about whether the Church is a part of society, or a Society apart.
01 August 2012
Some Thoughts For Catholic Bloggers
Reading, as one does, James Byrne's thoughts in 1922 on the future of the Catholic Evidence Guild, I was struck by the fact that in the absence of a culture of street corner speaking, it is bloggers, rather than debaters who have inherited the mantle of the Guild. This isn't to knock those who go onto TV or radio to be answer for Catholicism on some issue of the day; but the issue of the day is rarely Catholicism and such catholicism as can be expressed is mediated through the secular prism being employed on the relevant subject matter. We need people prepared to go onto the Today programme to defend a Catholic position on gay marriage; but we also need people who are preaching the Faith to those whom it will not reach unless we engage them on our terms in their space.
This is how Byrne puts it, and uses rather more of a piece by Cardinal Newman than is normally used:
This is how Byrne puts it, and uses rather more of a piece by Cardinal Newman than is normally used:
Such then the C.E.G. has been in its short history and such it is to-day ; and now, what of the future ?The work done by the Guild is based upon a series of discoveries; that the work is no degradation for the educated Catholic but a great honour and privilege, as well as a grace from God; that, caeteris paribus, the mere fact of being a Catholic gives an enormous intellectual advantage over other religionists, and that this is recognised by the crowds ; that the capacity of the average Catholic for the exposition of his religion is far greater than has hitherto been supposed, when he is carefully prepared along certain lines, and well supported and led; that the crowds will take our best and be grateful for it and ask for more; that, as Catholics are compelled to give an account of the faith that is in them, it is better to take the initiative than to remain permanently on the defensive; these are some few of the discoveries already made in connection with the work, and it is clear that many others have yet to be made, for the work is still young, is highly experimental throughout and is pushing ahead rapidly.The question then is, will the Catholic laity rise to the height of their great opportunity?“There is a time for silence and a time to speak; the time for speaking has come. What I desiderate in Catholics is the gift of bringing out what their religion is; it is one of those ‘better gifts’ of which the apostle bids you be 'zealous’. You must not hide your talent in a napkin, or your light under a bushel. I want a laity not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well instructed laity. I am not denying you are such already, but I mean to be severe and, as some would say, exorbitant in my demands. I wish you to enlarge your knowledge, to cultivate your reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth to truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the bases and truths of Catholicism and where lie the main inconsistencies and absurdities of the Protestant theory … You ought to be able to bring out what you mean, as well as to feel and mean it; to expose to the comprehension of others the fictions and fallacies of your opponents and to explain the charges brought against the Church to the satisfaction, not indeed of bigots, but of men of sense of whatever opinion ... He who can realise the law of moral conflicts, and the incoherence of falsehood, and the issue of perplexities, and the end of all things, and the presence of the judge, becomes, from the very necessity of the case, philosophical, long suffering, and magnanimous."So the great master of us all, Cardinal Newman, wrote seventy years ago, and it rests with the present generation of the Catholics of this country to give his words an extension that even his eagle glance could not reach.The work done to date is little more than a preliminary survey of the gigantic task before us or (changing the metaphor), the first trickling of a stream which later, with God's help, will become a mighty torrent. The demand of our non-Catholic fellows for our best must be met. The actual religious needs of the day, shifting as well as permanent, must be supplied from the storehouse of Catholic truth. Our work is essentially that of adaptation of the old; of that which was in the beginning, which we have heard and seen and our hands have handled of the Word of Life. "Non nova sed nove.” We must show the modern man what it is that he lacks to become a perfect man.
13 July 2012
One Last One ...
The final part of Tallis' Tunes for Archbishop Parker's Psalter.
Come Holy Ghost, Eternal God,
Which dost from God proceed.
The Father first, and eke the Son,
One God as we do read.
.
18 June 2012
If I Had My Own Church
Anyone who likes Church-crawling, like me, will constantly come up against the power that the owner of the benefice had over the Church he (or she) possessed if she (or he) had a compliant vicar.
This struck me as a step too far, though.
This struck me as a step too far, though.
A stained glass picture of a saint, as I thought, worshipping the Precious Blood, turned out to be ...
Sir Galahad!
Wonderful as his part in the Grail legend is, I don't think he should be in a church window!
12 June 2012
Priests And Laity: Whose Role Is It Anyway (Part 3 And Final)
The response of the Bishops' Conference to all of this was much as one might have expected: it endorsed all that the Congress had asked for but dressed up in language the Vatican would accept. The relevant section of the Bishops' response - The Easter People - was called Different Ministries But Shared Responsibility: just how the Congress report back had characterised the relationship!
Here are some extracts:
If you haven't already given up, the phrase "the role religious men and women are already playing in the post-conciliar Church" might have rung a new bell in all of this.
And so the new role of the new laity was defined in this New Church, and the old role of the old priest was diminished. This was the starting gun for all of the dreary apparatus we have today, run by a semi-professional Catholic laity who belong to a caste which parallels the Hierarchy: Catholic Brahmins at whose head are the Directors of the big Charities and the Trustees of The Tablet and the rest of the Magic Circle, and in which the poor struggling priest is pestered from all sides as the demands of the inflated bureaucracy of the dioceses are matched by the demands of self-important lesser Brahmins in the parish who demand their right to play what they have defined as their part.
The really depressing part of this has only really dawned on me as I have been writing these pieces. I have wondered for a while, and have expressed the thought once or twice, that I don't understand why these people have remained in the Catholic Church: aren't there more congenial places for them elsewhere?
The answer is a resounding "No!" The point of Liverpool 1980 was to give the Church in England and Wales to them. They believe, because they have been taught that it is true, that their view of the polity of the Church is correct, and that their belief system is the Catholic belief system; that Pope Benedict is a reactionary throwback.
And they probably wonder why people like me are still in their Church causing trouble: they probably wonder why I didn't go off to join the Lefebvrists. How many of us have faced the incomprehension of people who cannot understand why any normal person (especially one who regularly attends a normal Sunday Mass in E&W) could possibly want to attend an EF Mass - in fact who view any attempt to have an EF Mass in "their" parish (especially if the Parish Pastoral Council is not consulted) as something personally insulting.
Summorum Pontificum, the reconciliation (DV) of the SSPX: these are big deals on the world stage: but not in England and Wales, where "our way of doing things", which is already ensnaring a second generation, is gradually cutting us off from Rome.
Here are some extracts:
In the light of what we have been considering about the Church we now wish to add something about the various forms of ministry, or service, in the Church, some ordained and some not ordained, but each in its own way sharing responsibility. In the Congress in Liverpool the maturity, strength and apostolic courage of the lay delegates were clearly to be recognised, together with their desire for a more responsible role in the future. We should like to see the lay members of our Church, men and women, young and old, become steadily more aware of their true dignity as the people of God and of their daily calling as baptised Christians to evangelise the society in which they live and work. Their role brings out an essential dimension of the work of the Church, an extension of Christ's kingdom to wherever they are in God's creation. For they are not simply delegates of the bishops and clergy, they are gospel-inspired lay-people, members of the laos (or people) of God, and in their own right missionaries of Christ to the world. In many ways the lay contribution to the Congress was its most striking feature. We desire to see its development, not in a spirit of take-over from one ministry or another - any more than was the case in the Congress - but as a proper, fully recognised and responsible extension of the Christian mission of our Sharing Church.
We should like to see our religious, both men and women, as outstanding and up-to-date examples of single-minded fidelity to Christ and his Church in all their apostolates, whether contemplative or active, reminding us all by their lives and dedication of the supreme values of God's kingdom. We have the impression that, so natural and easy was their relationship with the other delegates in the various sectors of the Congress, perhaps inadequate attention was drawn to the role religious men and women are already playing in the post-conciliar Church, where their specialised vocation is gradually becoming more integrated within the life of the local dioceses and parishes and in Catholic lay organisations.
Elsewhere we shall develop the indispensable role of the priest in calling, helping to form and to sustain his lay brothers and sisters in the Church's apostolate to today's society. A recent pamphlet of the National Conference of Priests says: ‘No longer can we be in charge of everything. The priest must be for lay apostles, small groups, communities within his care, the one who gives new life, enabling people to work by themselves' (Set Priests Free to Preach and Pray, n. 12). But we are convinced that it is in their very collaboration with fully active lay men and women that priests will discover the depth of spirituality in their ministry. Priests are not required of necessity to be expert in all the secular concerns which are the primary sphere of the apostolate of the laity. But lay men and women will expect a priest to help them to set the problems which challenge our lives today within the light of the gospel.
If you haven't already given up, the phrase "the role religious men and women are already playing in the post-conciliar Church" might have rung a new bell in all of this.
And so the new role of the new laity was defined in this New Church, and the old role of the old priest was diminished. This was the starting gun for all of the dreary apparatus we have today, run by a semi-professional Catholic laity who belong to a caste which parallels the Hierarchy: Catholic Brahmins at whose head are the Directors of the big Charities and the Trustees of The Tablet and the rest of the Magic Circle, and in which the poor struggling priest is pestered from all sides as the demands of the inflated bureaucracy of the dioceses are matched by the demands of self-important lesser Brahmins in the parish who demand their right to play what they have defined as their part.
The really depressing part of this has only really dawned on me as I have been writing these pieces. I have wondered for a while, and have expressed the thought once or twice, that I don't understand why these people have remained in the Catholic Church: aren't there more congenial places for them elsewhere?
The answer is a resounding "No!" The point of Liverpool 1980 was to give the Church in England and Wales to them. They believe, because they have been taught that it is true, that their view of the polity of the Church is correct, and that their belief system is the Catholic belief system; that Pope Benedict is a reactionary throwback.
And they probably wonder why people like me are still in their Church causing trouble: they probably wonder why I didn't go off to join the Lefebvrists. How many of us have faced the incomprehension of people who cannot understand why any normal person (especially one who regularly attends a normal Sunday Mass in E&W) could possibly want to attend an EF Mass - in fact who view any attempt to have an EF Mass in "their" parish (especially if the Parish Pastoral Council is not consulted) as something personally insulting.
Summorum Pontificum, the reconciliation (DV) of the SSPX: these are big deals on the world stage: but not in England and Wales, where "our way of doing things", which is already ensnaring a second generation, is gradually cutting us off from Rome.
11 June 2012
Priests And Laity: Whose Role Is It Anyway (Part 2)
The delegates to the Congress discussed the role of priests, religious and the laity and we are lucky that we have two records: the summary of the input from those who followed the discussion outlined yesterday and the formal report back. The notes of the local discussions are, shall we say, less nuanced than the formal report.
What a dispiriting vision of the man consecrated to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! But remember that the people at the Congress are not a representation of Catholics in England and Wales: they are drawn from a narrow, ideologically-focused, group which is in alliance with the more progressive Bishops, led by Hume and Worlock, to implement their vision of Vatican II. They criticised the quality of preaching, but their suggestions for change start to give the ideological game away:
I was thrown at first by discussion of Permanent Deacons and Nuns:
It all feels a bit lukewarm, but of course, the answer is ataring me in the face:
And, of course:
At least it is honest: dioceses and parishes have shown little interest; special interest groups have special interests. But it is the special interest groups, the groups who want their role to increase and the priest's to decrease who are on the front foot. Deacons are a potential threat to their vision, because they are lay men (or maybe women?) who have become clericalised; nuns will be accepted if they become declericalised.
Ironically, it was a nun, Sr Imelda Marie O'Hara LSU, who was responsible for the report back. Just the title gives an idea of how things have developed: "The People of God - Ministry, Vocation, Apostolate". It begins with a ringing statement that puts the laity in an empowered central position, Baptism having endowed each of us with rights in respect of the Church's ministries:
What about priests and deacons?
Nuns come between the Role of the Laity and the Role of Women: the sisters seemed not to have much time for the Sisters; but it is in the report's peroration, entitled Different Ministries But Shared Responsibility that we get what is wanted, the rebalancing between priest and laity. There is more than this, but this will do:
In the final part, we will see how this was transmuted into the CBCEW's concerted plan for the post-conciliar Church in England and Wales and I will draw some uncomfortable conclusions.
Priesthood: What is the role of the priest?
There is a significant agreement on how people see the role and task of the priest:
He is to serve God's people, particularly by meeting their spiritual needs through celebrating the Eucharist, leading prayer, praying and counselling.
He is to give leadership: ‘to inspire and animate the laity to fulfil their role in the life of the Church'.
He is to visit, make contact, build living relationships with the people; this is particularly important for families and youngsters.
What a dispiriting vision of the man consecrated to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! But remember that the people at the Congress are not a representation of Catholics in England and Wales: they are drawn from a narrow, ideologically-focused, group which is in alliance with the more progressive Bishops, led by Hume and Worlock, to implement their vision of Vatican II. They criticised the quality of preaching, but their suggestions for change start to give the ideological game away:
Weekly parish discussions on the Sunday readings and an openness on the part of priests to accept comment and criticism from parishioners. A distinct feeling exists that priests should give greater encouragement to lay people to use their talents more. Many stress the importance of fostering the right sort of relationships within parishes.
Some see a need for a change of attitude on the part of clergy so that they become more sensitive, open to new ideas and above all willing to listen and to share responsibility with lay people. A few expressed concern that the life style of clergy should not be middle class or remote, but open and challenging.
I was thrown at first by discussion of Permanent Deacons and Nuns:
Some reports state clearly that there is little point in having deacons except where there is acute shortage of priests. Others acknowledge that the number of deacons is likely to increase in the future, but do not find this an exciting prospect.
Some see the role of the deacons positively. They see their main role as pastoral work: ministry to the housebound, the elderly, catechesis and marriage preparation, witness in secular situations. Worker deacons are seen as an alternative to industrial chaplains.
Not many saw a significant liturgical role for deacons, preferring to see a larger role for lay people.
Since Vatican II religious orders have extensively reviewed their way of life and redefined their particular apostolates. A considerable change of outlook has resulted.
They have gradually reinterpreted their role in the life of the Church and many communities have explored new possibilities for their work.
The new potential offered by religious communities is not widely understood in parishes.
The work of sisters in parishes
Where sisters have worked in parish ministry, a much more positive response is often found, urging their involvement in all aspects of parish life.
Many sisters now live in small open communities within the parishes and this seems to be very welcome. They contribute to the life of the parish in many ways, for example:
• Preparing liturgy, especially with children and young people.
• Preparing children for the sacraments.
• Working with the mentally handicapped.
• Marriage preparation and family support groups.
It is felt by a number of people that religious can help the parish to deepen its own sense of community by the witness of their life and involvement. They can also do this by stimulating and leading small groups such as prayer groups, house groups or study groups.
It all feels a bit lukewarm, but of course, the answer is ataring me in the face:
Lay People In The Church
Lay people appear to be more aware than they have ever been of their right and duty to make a full contribution to the life and mission of the Church. The enthusiastic way in which many have participated in the Congress and found it to be valuable is a measure of this awareness.
Many do not see why they should not share responsibility for meeting each other's spiritual needs and act upon this by organising and leading prayer groups, retreats, vigils, pilgrimages, and similar activities.
In this they see themselves as working in close cooperation with their priests whose role of leadership and presiding at the celebration remains central.
And, of course:
THE ROLE OF WOMEN
Opinions vary on this issue. Parish and diocesan reports on the whole show a comparative lack of interest in it; but reports from special groups and organisations submit firm proposals and strong comment.
There is one central theme in the few reports received on the question: that the ministry of women should have ‘full and open discussion'. ‘The Church must find ways to accept and to use to the full the gifts and talents of women; without this, the ministry of the Church is incomplete'.
At present many women feel they are only called upon to do catering and domestic work in the Church. They want to participate fully in decision making in parish life.
Their ability to care for people should be channelled into a pastoral ministry with the elderly, the handicapped, the sick.
They should exercise a ‘rightful role in the worship of the Church' by being allowed to serve at the altar, encouraged to read, to preach, and to act as special ministers of Holy Communion.
Women and the Ministries
Some feminist groups feel that the Church's attitude to women is unjust. They wish to see some form of ordained ministry open to women.
The groups propose the diaconate as an appropriate ministry for which there is scriptural and historical precedent.
With regard to the ordained priesthood, the same minority groups feel that the Church does not have the right to deny women the possibility of a vocation, and feel that potential vocations should at least be tested.
At least it is honest: dioceses and parishes have shown little interest; special interest groups have special interests. But it is the special interest groups, the groups who want their role to increase and the priest's to decrease who are on the front foot. Deacons are a potential threat to their vision, because they are lay men (or maybe women?) who have become clericalised; nuns will be accepted if they become declericalised.
Ironically, it was a nun, Sr Imelda Marie O'Hara LSU, who was responsible for the report back. Just the title gives an idea of how things have developed: "The People of God - Ministry, Vocation, Apostolate". It begins with a ringing statement that puts the laity in an empowered central position, Baptism having endowed each of us with rights in respect of the Church's ministries:
OUR baptism gives us both the right and the duty to participate in the various ministries of the Church. We recognise the unique role of ordained ministers with regard to sacrament and word, but we believe that all other responsibilities should be shared fully with all the people of God, and shared rather than delegated.
What about priests and deacons?
The priest should be free to pray, to celebrate the sacraments well and to preach. Mindful of the spiritual needs of his parishioners he should foster the development of prayer-groups and house Masses in his parish, both of which enable priest and people to listen and to talk to each other.
We see it as a top priority that every priest should accept regular inservice training and spiritual renewal as a normal part of his priestly life. So highly do we rate this need that it leads most of us to accept that some parishes might even be deprived of Sunday Mass at these times. Where teams of lay people, sisters, deacons and priests could operate more effectively than one priest working alone in a parish, we urge that this be done.
The inestimable value of celibacy was unanimously accepted, but we ask that careful consideration be given to the question whether it be God's will that married men should at this time be called to the priesthood. A more detailed exploration of the possibility of admitting women to the ordained 'ministries was also felt to be necessary. It was urged that particular attention be given to fostering the personal and spiritual maturity of those to be ordained.
In considering the diaconate we felt the need for the Church in England and Wales to be led to a clearer understanding of this ministry and to the way in which it operates in our countries. Lay ministries should not be stifled by establishing the ministry of deacons.
In general the delegates were looking for more positive encouragement and energetic leadership from bishops and from priests.
Nuns come between the Role of the Laity and the Role of Women: the sisters seemed not to have much time for the Sisters; but it is in the report's peroration, entitled Different Ministries But Shared Responsibility that we get what is wanted, the rebalancing between priest and laity. There is more than this, but this will do:
In the light of what we have been considering about the Church we now wish to add something about the various forms of ministry, or service, in the Church, some ordained and some not ordained, but each in its own way sharing responsibility. In the Congress in Liverpool the maturity, strength and apostolic courage of the lay delegates were clearly to be recognised, together with their desire for a more responsible role in the future. We should like to see the lay members of our Church, men and women, young and old, become steadily more aware of their true dignity as the people of God and of their daily calling as baptised Christians to evangelise the society in which they live and work. Their role brings out an essential dimension of the work of the Church, an extension of Christ's kingdom to wherever they are in God's creation. For they are not simply delegates of the bishops and clergy, they are gospel-inspired lay-people, members of the laos (or people) of God, and in their own right missionaries of Christ to the world. 'The primary and immediate task of lay people is to put to use every Christian and evangelical possibility latent but already present and active in the affairs of the world. The more gospel-inspired lay-people there are engaged in these realities, clearly involved in them, competent to promote them and conscious that they must exercise to the full their Christian powers which are often buried and suffocated, the more these realities will be at the service of the kingdom of God and therefore of salvation in Jesus Christ' (Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 70). In many ways the lay contribution to the Congress was its most striking feature. We desire to see its development, not in a spirit of take-over from one ministry or another - any more than was the case in the Congress - but as a proper, fully recognised and responsible extension of the Christian mission of our Sharing Church.
In the final part, we will see how this was transmuted into the CBCEW's concerted plan for the post-conciliar Church in England and Wales and I will draw some uncomfortable conclusions.
10 June 2012
Priests And Laity: Whose Role Is It Anyway?
I published a set of posts a couple of months back about the development of the structures of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, and the way in which so much changed in England and Wales after the National Passtoral Congress held in Liverpool in 1980. It was reading the comments made by Bishop Fellay about the Examination of Conscience for Priests that made me think just how different are the starting points for what might be called Tabletistas and what might be called Trads (supply your own labels if you want) about what priests are for.
My contention is that Liverpool 1980 was a sort of Year Zero - perhaps better, a Stunde Null - for England and Wales: the occasion for progressives and spirit-of-Vatican-2-ists, careerists and clericalist bagmen, to come together in a sham democracy to redefine one of the more conservative pockets of Catholicsm and impose this new definition on a largely uncomprehending population as something they had asked for.
This was going to be about priests, but, as I mentioned last time, the priests were rather squeezed out between an assertice collective of Bishops in the CBC and a voluble set of lay people who had self selected as representatives of the Catholic Laity and whose self-selection had been ratified by the Bishops. This means that the role of the priest in the new polity being created and the role of the laity would be made less distinct, particularly at the edges, as what Carlo (you need to remember The Universe's forum at its height) described as the Ladies in Green Cardigans pressed closer to the altar and the priest was pushed towards the chair at the top of the parish committee table.
I went through the process in some detail last time so I won't repeat myself. There are three parts: the discussion paper which set the direction for thinking before the Congress; the formal report back of those attending the Congress; and the Bishops' subsequent response.
First, then, the discussion paper. It starts with a vignette of parish life:
Note that the writer says that this is the picture of an "actual parish" not a real one: there were no parishes like this in England and Wales in 1978 when this piece first began to be put together apart from those run by the two or three priests who were nationally notorious for doing exactly this sort of thing. To take just one example: the idea of "stewards" would have been bafflingly unthinkable in any normal parish.
(Interestingly, the one potentially good idea in all of this - that of training "girls" to be sacristans - would disappear, probably so that they could become altar-girls instead, to prepare them for becoming priests subsequently.)
As if this word picture wasn't enough, the points for discussion tell us exactly the direction in which we are travelling.
Note well what is being said here about the role of the priest, and how lay people in the discussion groups are to treat the words of the Pope. "Pope John Paul II says that the supreme task of the priest is the spiritual formation of people. What do you think the real work of the priest in the parish should be? What prevents him from fulfilling his main task as priest? How can he be helped?"
This is, to me, scandalous. A clever linguistic trick that can be explained away by telling a Vatican monsignore that his English isn't up to understanding our language like a native speaker contrasts what the Pope says the supreme task of the priest is and what the discussing laity think the real work of the priest in the parish should be. Look out for Catholic words as well, or, rather, mark their absence: "sacrifice", "penitential", "mystery", "alter Christus". The author has drunk deep at the well of NewChurch and is determined to bring us all with him.
But this isn't all, and this might anyway have been a stalking horse. What the discussion groups are being asked to work out is not the nature of lay participation in parish life, but its extent; not whether they should run the parish, but how they should run the parish. This is the point at which the polity of the Church in England and Wales is being changed in a dramatic demonstration of the Hermeneutic of Rupture: the reaction to this scandalous document will become the way the Bishops describe the NewChurch they are creating.
But you'll have to wait for Part 2.
My contention is that Liverpool 1980 was a sort of Year Zero - perhaps better, a Stunde Null - for England and Wales: the occasion for progressives and spirit-of-Vatican-2-ists, careerists and clericalist bagmen, to come together in a sham democracy to redefine one of the more conservative pockets of Catholicsm and impose this new definition on a largely uncomprehending population as something they had asked for.
This was going to be about priests, but, as I mentioned last time, the priests were rather squeezed out between an assertice collective of Bishops in the CBC and a voluble set of lay people who had self selected as representatives of the Catholic Laity and whose self-selection had been ratified by the Bishops. This means that the role of the priest in the new polity being created and the role of the laity would be made less distinct, particularly at the edges, as what Carlo (you need to remember The Universe's forum at its height) described as the Ladies in Green Cardigans pressed closer to the altar and the priest was pushed towards the chair at the top of the parish committee table.
I went through the process in some detail last time so I won't repeat myself. There are three parts: the discussion paper which set the direction for thinking before the Congress; the formal report back of those attending the Congress; and the Bishops' subsequent response.
First, then, the discussion paper. It starts with a vignette of parish life:
The O'Brien family are getting ready for Sunday Mass.
Mr O'Brien shouts loudly upsptairs: For goodness sake get a move on everyone - I'm steward today. Are you one of the ministers for Holy Communion this week, Ann?' 'No, I'm next week', calls down his wife.
Twelve-year-old Alison is carrying her guitar: it is the week of the Folk Mass. Next week it will be the Sung English Mass. In the hall they pause for a moment. 'Oh, Simon, do rub your shoes with a tissue - they won't look too good on the altar'. Six-year-old Jane is humming to herself. 'What do you think we will make today?' she asks. This is because during the Liturgy of the Word, the children go out into the hall to read their own bible, sing, draw a picture of the Gospel story and make up their own bidding prayers; they come back into the church with the offertory procession.
At church, Mr O'Brien joins another man and a woman who are stewards with him. Their job is to welcome newcomers, give out newsletters and hymn books, and show people to seats. They also check that the readers, the servers and the girls who prepare the altar have arrived. If they haven't, they find others. They also find four people to take up the collection: different people do this each week. The young instrumentalists practise under their leader (aged 16), and mothers hurry in and out of the hall where the under 5's are already settled before Mass starts. There is the cheerful buzz of a large number of people getting ready. Someone walks up to the lectern to set down the sheet with the bidding prayers - this week they have been written by the house group that meets in Oak Tree Drive; last week it was the turn of the choir.
Just on time, Father arrives from the other Mass centre in the parish. Everyone takes part in the Mass: prayer, music, silence, Communion under both kinds; a few notices are read; there is coffee after Mass. The Newsletter announces a disco in the hall for teenagers; a youth discussion at Father's house on Friday; a group for mothers and under 5's; a retired people's coffee morning; a meeting of the local council of churches; a prayer group in the quiet room; the starting up of a justice and Peace group; two house groups meet this week and the Parish Council next week; the UCM are organising Bingo at the Old Folks' home; and the parish learns it raised £1 per head for the Cafod project over Christmas.
After Mass, people stay on to chat. `Are you coming to the ramble this afternoon?' someone shouts. Father is talking to some newcomers, while the parish finance and maintenance committee wait to have a quick word with him - the two of them casting a critical eye on the roof ... in this parish the laity have taken on responsibility for financial affairs.
This may not be the picture in every parish, but it is a picture of an actual parish - a parish of shared ministry: men and women, the old, the young, the practical, the intellectual - giving service, caring and sharing. St Paul talks of many ministries in the body of Christ; Vatican II talks of partnership between all in the mission of the Church.
Note that the writer says that this is the picture of an "actual parish" not a real one: there were no parishes like this in England and Wales in 1978 when this piece first began to be put together apart from those run by the two or three priests who were nationally notorious for doing exactly this sort of thing. To take just one example: the idea of "stewards" would have been bafflingly unthinkable in any normal parish.
(Interestingly, the one potentially good idea in all of this - that of training "girls" to be sacristans - would disappear, probably so that they could become altar-girls instead, to prepare them for becoming priests subsequently.)
As if this word picture wasn't enough, the points for discussion tell us exactly the direction in which we are travelling.
Being the Church
• How do people think of the Church:
(a) some think of it as the building where they go to Mass.
(b) some see it as an organisation that exists for the benefit people who belong to it, to the exclusion of others.
(c) some see it as a family, whose members love and care other, spreading their love to other people.
(d) in the Gospel, Jesus talks of the seed which grows into a mighty tree; of a vine with many spreading branches.
• Do you think these ideas help us to understand the Church?
• What would you say to describe the Church to someone? How would you explain what it means to belong to the Church?
Worship in the Parish
• How do you as a parish pray together at Mass:
(a) what part do people take in the Mass?
(b) what responsibility do lay people have for the preparation of worship at Sunday Mass?
How do you feel about this?
What do you think of the Sunday Mass described in the story?
In your parish, are there any particular groups who do not feel their needs for worship are met: e.g., young children; the old; the handicapped; teenagers; those disturbed by change.
• Do other celebrations involve the whole parish: e.g., baptisms; marriages; funerals; Sunday evening service - how are these prepared for? How could their celebration be improved?
• Some people say: 'I find it easier to pray to God in my heart. When I go to Church I am put off by the other people there.' What are your feelings about this?
People in the Parish Community
• What do you think of the work of lay people and religious in the parish?
The people in the story achieve community by planning and working together.
How does your parish compare?
Do lay men and women share in decision making in your parish?
Should they playy a greater part in this?
How could this be organised?
How do young people fit into the parish?
What about other special groups?
Do women have a special part to play?
• Pope John Paul II says that the supreme task of the priest is the spiritual formation of people.
What do you think the real work of the priest in the parish should be?
What prevents him from fulfilling his main task as priest?
How can he be helped?
• How can the bishop help the parish community to live up to its mission?
The Parish in the Community around it
• The parish has a responsibility to the people in the area who don't go to any church. How would you describe this responsibility? What could be done to be more effective? What do you see as the obstacles and difficulties? How might these be overcome?
• How does your parish work with the other parishes and the diocese?
• What are your relations with other Christian bodies in the neighbourhood?
Have you any suggestions as to how you can work better together?
• What can we all do to make ourselves and other Christians more alive? What kind of changes do we need in our structures so that all of us can work together to make Christian people more nearly like Christ: so that we can become:
a praying community;
a teaching community;
an apostolic community;
a witnessing community;
a serving community.
Note well what is being said here about the role of the priest, and how lay people in the discussion groups are to treat the words of the Pope. "Pope John Paul II says that the supreme task of the priest is the spiritual formation of people. What do you think the real work of the priest in the parish should be? What prevents him from fulfilling his main task as priest? How can he be helped?"
This is, to me, scandalous. A clever linguistic trick that can be explained away by telling a Vatican monsignore that his English isn't up to understanding our language like a native speaker contrasts what the Pope says the supreme task of the priest is and what the discussing laity think the real work of the priest in the parish should be. Look out for Catholic words as well, or, rather, mark their absence: "sacrifice", "penitential", "mystery", "alter Christus". The author has drunk deep at the well of NewChurch and is determined to bring us all with him.
But this isn't all, and this might anyway have been a stalking horse. What the discussion groups are being asked to work out is not the nature of lay participation in parish life, but its extent; not whether they should run the parish, but how they should run the parish. This is the point at which the polity of the Church in England and Wales is being changed in a dramatic demonstration of the Hermeneutic of Rupture: the reaction to this scandalous document will become the way the Bishops describe the NewChurch they are creating.
But you'll have to wait for Part 2.
27 May 2012
The English Sequence For Whitsunday
Here, in Latin and (somewhat Victorian) English, is the old Sequence for Whitsunday from the English pre-Tridentine Uses.
Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis gratia,
Quae corda nostra sibi faciat habitacula,
Expulsis inde cunctis vitiis spiritalibus.
Spiritus alme, illustrator hominum,
Horridas nostra mentis purge tenebras.
Amator sancte sensatorum semper cogitatuum,
Infunde unctionem tuam clemens nostris sensibus.
Tu purificator omnium flagitiorum Spiritus,
Purifica nostri oculum interioris hominis,
Ut videri supremus genitor posit a nobis,
Mundi cordis quem soli cernere possum oculi.
Prophetas tu inspirasti, ut praeconia Christi praecinuissent inclyta.
Apostolos confortasti, ut tropaeum Christi per totum mundum veherent.
Quando machinam per verbum suum fecit Deus caeli, terrae, marium.
Tu super aquas, foturus eas, numen tuum expandisti, Spiritus.
Tu animabus vivificandis, aquas fecundas;
Tu, aspirando, das spiritales esse homines;
Tu divisum per linguas mundum et ritus adunasti, Domine.
Idolatras ad cultum Dei revocas, magistrorum optime.
Ergo nos supplicantes tibi exaudi propitius, Sancte Spiritus,
Sine quo preces omnes cassae creduntur, et indignae Dei auribus.
Tu, qui omnium saeculorum sanctos
Tui nominis docuisti instinctu amplectendo, Spiritus,
Ipse hodie apostolos Christi
Donans munere insolito et cunctis inaudito saeculis,
Hunc diem gloriosum fecisti.
May the Holy Spirit's grace
Be present with us now,
And for Himself our hearts
An habitation make,
And from our inmost souls cast out
All spiritual wickedness.
O gracious Spirit, Thou Who dost enlighten all,
The darkness chase away Which fills our minds with gloom.
O Thou Who ever lov'st
Thoughts holily conceiv'd,
Thy unction graciously
Infuse into our hearts.
Spirit of purity,
Who dost all evil cleanse,
Enable Thou the eyes Which light our inner man
The Father to discern
Who dwelleth in the highest,
Whom they alone can see who are the pure in heart.
Thou didst inspire the prophets to make known
Their glorious predictions of the Christ;
Thou the Apostles didst with strength endue
To bear Christ's trophy throughout all the world.
When God by His Almighty Word did frame
The fabric of the heaven and earth and seas;
Thou, Spirit, brooding o'er the waters' face,
Didst spread abroad Thy fostering Deity;
Thou, to give life to souls,
Water dost fertilize;
And breathing on them deign'st
To make men spiritual;
Thou the world, rent by variance, by tongues
And rites, O Lord, hast set at one again;
Thou, best of masters, dost recall
Idolaters to worship God;
Then, Holy Spirit, graciously
Hear us who lift our prayers to Thee,
Without Whom every prayer is counted vain,
Unworthy by God's ear to be received.
Thou, Spirit, Who the Saints of every age
In Thy embrace enfolding hast instructed
By inspiration of Thy Holy Name,
Thyself a gift unwonted pouring out
Upon the Apostolic band devout,
A gift throughout all ages yet unknown,
Hast made this day a day of high renown.
Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis gratia,
Quae corda nostra sibi faciat habitacula,
Expulsis inde cunctis vitiis spiritalibus.
Spiritus alme, illustrator hominum,
Horridas nostra mentis purge tenebras.
Amator sancte sensatorum semper cogitatuum,
Infunde unctionem tuam clemens nostris sensibus.
Tu purificator omnium flagitiorum Spiritus,
Purifica nostri oculum interioris hominis,
Ut videri supremus genitor posit a nobis,
Mundi cordis quem soli cernere possum oculi.
Prophetas tu inspirasti, ut praeconia Christi praecinuissent inclyta.
Apostolos confortasti, ut tropaeum Christi per totum mundum veherent.
Quando machinam per verbum suum fecit Deus caeli, terrae, marium.
Tu super aquas, foturus eas, numen tuum expandisti, Spiritus.
Tu animabus vivificandis, aquas fecundas;
Tu, aspirando, das spiritales esse homines;
Tu divisum per linguas mundum et ritus adunasti, Domine.
Idolatras ad cultum Dei revocas, magistrorum optime.
Ergo nos supplicantes tibi exaudi propitius, Sancte Spiritus,
Sine quo preces omnes cassae creduntur, et indignae Dei auribus.
Tu, qui omnium saeculorum sanctos
Tui nominis docuisti instinctu amplectendo, Spiritus,
Ipse hodie apostolos Christi
Donans munere insolito et cunctis inaudito saeculis,
Hunc diem gloriosum fecisti.
May the Holy Spirit's grace
Be present with us now,
And for Himself our hearts
An habitation make,
And from our inmost souls cast out
All spiritual wickedness.
O gracious Spirit, Thou Who dost enlighten all,
The darkness chase away Which fills our minds with gloom.
O Thou Who ever lov'st
Thoughts holily conceiv'd,
Thy unction graciously
Infuse into our hearts.
Spirit of purity,
Who dost all evil cleanse,
Enable Thou the eyes Which light our inner man
The Father to discern
Who dwelleth in the highest,
Whom they alone can see who are the pure in heart.
Thou didst inspire the prophets to make known
Their glorious predictions of the Christ;
Thou the Apostles didst with strength endue
To bear Christ's trophy throughout all the world.
When God by His Almighty Word did frame
The fabric of the heaven and earth and seas;
Thou, Spirit, brooding o'er the waters' face,
Didst spread abroad Thy fostering Deity;
Thou, to give life to souls,
Water dost fertilize;
And breathing on them deign'st
To make men spiritual;
Thou the world, rent by variance, by tongues
And rites, O Lord, hast set at one again;
Thou, best of masters, dost recall
Idolaters to worship God;
Then, Holy Spirit, graciously
Hear us who lift our prayers to Thee,
Without Whom every prayer is counted vain,
Unworthy by God's ear to be received.
Thou, Spirit, Who the Saints of every age
In Thy embrace enfolding hast instructed
By inspiration of Thy Holy Name,
Thyself a gift unwonted pouring out
Upon the Apostolic band devout,
A gift throughout all ages yet unknown,
Hast made this day a day of high renown.
19 May 2012
The Hail Mary In The Bidding Prayers
In response to a couple of Twitter comments which suggested that according to the Catholic Herald Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brighton was about to ban the Hail Mary from the end of the Bidding Prayers because they were a liturgical abuse, I said that Cardinal Heenan had won permission from Rome for the Hail Mary's inclusion at the end of the prayers and promised to look for a source.
The bad news is that I can't find a source, at least not on line, and not in any of the muniments I have to hand (though this room is sprawling and there are dusty corners which have not been visited these several years).
But I find that Fr Leon Pereira OP (now a teacher at Oscott) certainly remembers as I do: this is taken from his catechesis on the revised translation of the Novus Ordo available at the website of his last Priory:
"The structure of each bidding prayer is (a) the deacon invites us to pray for an intention, and (b) during a significant pause we pray for that intention. There are two options for how we respond after our prayer. One option is by means of prayerful silence. The other option is the priest (not the deacon or intercession proposer) prompts us to respond, in one of the following ways.
℣ Lord, in your mercy. ℟ Hear our prayer.
℣ Lord, we ask you: ℟ Hear our prayer.
℣ Lord, hear us. ℟ Lord, graciously hear us.
℣ We pray to the Lord: ℟ Lord, hear our prayer.
We must say our response sincerely. Try to remember at least one of the petitions, and keep on praying for it during the week. In England and Wales it is common to seek Our Lady’s intercession at the end of the petitions, praying the ‘Hail Mary’ (permission for this was obtained by the late Cardinal Heenan). Then the concluding prayer is made by the priest, addressing God now, usually with a Trinitarian formula: to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."
The other thing I've found comes from Zenit, and is dated 18 October 2005. Fr Edward McNamara, Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University opined:
"Some other readers asked about the practice of reciting the Hail Mary during the Prayer of the Faithful.
While this custom is not universal, it seems to have its roots in English liturgical practice from even before the Second Vatican Council.
One reader suggested that a document exists impeding this practice, but I have been unable to find it. I would say that, barring some authoritative intervention, the practice could continue where it has been customary to do so.
The objections to the use of the Hail Mary are usually based on the principle that liturgical prayers are practically always directed to the Father, and on rare occasions to the Son.
However, when the Hail Mary is used in the Prayer of the Faithful she is not addressed directly but is usually invoked as a mediator to carry our prayer to the Father within the context of the communion of saints.
This invocation is certainly unnecessary from a liturgical standpoint, and it is probably better not to introduce it where it does not exist. However, I do not believe it needs to be forbidden where already well established."
It would be helpful if somebody can find a copy of the correspondence between Cardinal Heenan and the Congregation for Divine Worship in which the permission will have been given. I have no access to a GIRM for England and Wales earlier that 2005 and I note with surprised interest that the permission to say the Hail Mary is not noted there. Furthermore, the Liturgy Office of the CBCEW published Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction as a practical interpretative guide to the GIRM and included this statement:
"The Roman Rite does not envisage the inclusion of devotional prayers in the Prayer of the Faithful. As is traditional with liturgical prayer, the Prayer of the Faithful is addressed to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit."
Now a) what we are talking about is a special permission for the Dioceses of England and Wales, not something for the whole Roman Rite (though lucky us and unlucky rest of the world) and b) Fr McNamara, (Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, you'll remember) dismissed the liturgical argument put forward by the CBCEW's Liturgy Office. But you still might get the idea, if you had a suspicious mind, that something not unlike a time bomb had been buried in 2005.
Finding a copy of the permission would be really, really, helpful.
The bad news is that I can't find a source, at least not on line, and not in any of the muniments I have to hand (though this room is sprawling and there are dusty corners which have not been visited these several years).
But I find that Fr Leon Pereira OP (now a teacher at Oscott) certainly remembers as I do: this is taken from his catechesis on the revised translation of the Novus Ordo available at the website of his last Priory:
"The structure of each bidding prayer is (a) the deacon invites us to pray for an intention, and (b) during a significant pause we pray for that intention. There are two options for how we respond after our prayer. One option is by means of prayerful silence. The other option is the priest (not the deacon or intercession proposer) prompts us to respond, in one of the following ways.
℣ Lord, in your mercy. ℟ Hear our prayer.
℣ Lord, we ask you: ℟ Hear our prayer.
℣ Lord, hear us. ℟ Lord, graciously hear us.
℣ We pray to the Lord: ℟ Lord, hear our prayer.
We must say our response sincerely. Try to remember at least one of the petitions, and keep on praying for it during the week. In England and Wales it is common to seek Our Lady’s intercession at the end of the petitions, praying the ‘Hail Mary’ (permission for this was obtained by the late Cardinal Heenan). Then the concluding prayer is made by the priest, addressing God now, usually with a Trinitarian formula: to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."
The other thing I've found comes from Zenit, and is dated 18 October 2005. Fr Edward McNamara, Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University opined:
"Some other readers asked about the practice of reciting the Hail Mary during the Prayer of the Faithful.
While this custom is not universal, it seems to have its roots in English liturgical practice from even before the Second Vatican Council.
One reader suggested that a document exists impeding this practice, but I have been unable to find it. I would say that, barring some authoritative intervention, the practice could continue where it has been customary to do so.
The objections to the use of the Hail Mary are usually based on the principle that liturgical prayers are practically always directed to the Father, and on rare occasions to the Son.
However, when the Hail Mary is used in the Prayer of the Faithful she is not addressed directly but is usually invoked as a mediator to carry our prayer to the Father within the context of the communion of saints.
This invocation is certainly unnecessary from a liturgical standpoint, and it is probably better not to introduce it where it does not exist. However, I do not believe it needs to be forbidden where already well established."
It would be helpful if somebody can find a copy of the correspondence between Cardinal Heenan and the Congregation for Divine Worship in which the permission will have been given. I have no access to a GIRM for England and Wales earlier that 2005 and I note with surprised interest that the permission to say the Hail Mary is not noted there. Furthermore, the Liturgy Office of the CBCEW published Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction as a practical interpretative guide to the GIRM and included this statement:
"The Roman Rite does not envisage the inclusion of devotional prayers in the Prayer of the Faithful. As is traditional with liturgical prayer, the Prayer of the Faithful is addressed to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit."
Now a) what we are talking about is a special permission for the Dioceses of England and Wales, not something for the whole Roman Rite (though lucky us and unlucky rest of the world) and b) Fr McNamara, (Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, you'll remember) dismissed the liturgical argument put forward by the CBCEW's Liturgy Office. But you still might get the idea, if you had a suspicious mind, that something not unlike a time bomb had been buried in 2005.
Finding a copy of the permission would be really, really, helpful.
29 April 2012
Sacrosanctum Concilium
.
Ben Trovato's blog has had a couple of thought provoking posts about the Liturgy recently. Arising from a comment on a posting on Cardinal Heenan's comments on the new Rite of Mass, he produced a second which looked more closely at what is perhaps the most frequently raised criticsm of the new Rite by those attached to the former Rite, that is that there is less emphasis on the sacrifical action of the Mass, and less emphasis on the Real Presence.
In a separate part of the thicket, I have been following the Society of St Gregory's forum, in particular recently a discussion about the musical settings of the new translation of the Mass which the musicians who are members of the Society are using. Two things stand out clearly: first, that their love of the Liturgy and their wish to beautify it in music are as strong as those of any member of the LMS; and second that they stand hard and fast in the tradition of Bugnini and the Consilium, as rooted in Pope Paul's New Mass, as the LMS members are in Pope John's Old Mass.
A narrative has been developing, in the context of the Pope's wishes to better situate our understanding of Vatican II in the context of the tradition of the Church, which suggests that the Council did not want the changes which Mgr Bugnini and his Consilium produced: that they were a bunch of adventurers playing fast and loose with some desires for cautious and judicious change expressed by the Bishops in the Council. Chasing down a comment in Bugnini's Reform Of The Liturgy to make a point in a comment on Ben's blog, I realised that he actually felt confident that his Reform was rooted entirely within the express wishes of the Council fathers, and cited Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Apostolic Constitution on the Liturgy solemnly proclaimed at the Couincil, as his source.
Reading it (it's here), you can see why he thought he might have a point.
Here are three extracts:
"To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language."
"Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics."
My point is not that Clown Masses or Easter Bunny Masses are somehow validated, but that the overwhelming majority (2147 for, 4 against) of Bishops at the Council in 1963 believed that radical change in the form of the Roman Rite and in the way that lay people participated in it was necessary, and gave Bugnini a framework in which to develop this new form. We can't pretend that he was some sort of Militant Tendency entryist, an ecclesiastical Derek Hatton burrowing within to change by stealth what everybody wants to hold fast to, other than by denying that he was doing what a couple of thousand Bishops, including, as far as I can tell, all of what might be thought of as the diehard traditionalists, wanted him to do.
I don't think that the Michael Davies argument - that a small group of periti deliberately conspired to make Sacrosanctum Concilium sufficiently vague to allow them to do as they wished subsequently - holds either: it's quite clear, for example, from the extract above, that vernacular readings were intended to be a first step, and that its use could be extended wherever the local authorities wanted.
All of which suggests that these waters are deep, even if they aren't still, and that any resolution is a long way off, assuming that "resolution" means that some sort of thesis and antithesis need to be synthesised. Meanwhile, the Bishop Davies who has recently turned over a major church in his diocese to the Traditional Rite is going to be welcomed to a Confirmation celebration in another of his parishes by a guitar group which writes its own settings of the Mass and hopes to get him at least to tap a toe. Is that really what two forms of the Roman Rite should mean?
Ben Trovato's blog has had a couple of thought provoking posts about the Liturgy recently. Arising from a comment on a posting on Cardinal Heenan's comments on the new Rite of Mass, he produced a second which looked more closely at what is perhaps the most frequently raised criticsm of the new Rite by those attached to the former Rite, that is that there is less emphasis on the sacrifical action of the Mass, and less emphasis on the Real Presence.
In a separate part of the thicket, I have been following the Society of St Gregory's forum, in particular recently a discussion about the musical settings of the new translation of the Mass which the musicians who are members of the Society are using. Two things stand out clearly: first, that their love of the Liturgy and their wish to beautify it in music are as strong as those of any member of the LMS; and second that they stand hard and fast in the tradition of Bugnini and the Consilium, as rooted in Pope Paul's New Mass, as the LMS members are in Pope John's Old Mass.
A narrative has been developing, in the context of the Pope's wishes to better situate our understanding of Vatican II in the context of the tradition of the Church, which suggests that the Council did not want the changes which Mgr Bugnini and his Consilium produced: that they were a bunch of adventurers playing fast and loose with some desires for cautious and judicious change expressed by the Bishops in the Council. Chasing down a comment in Bugnini's Reform Of The Liturgy to make a point in a comment on Ben's blog, I realised that he actually felt confident that his Reform was rooted entirely within the express wishes of the Council fathers, and cited Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Apostolic Constitution on the Liturgy solemnly proclaimed at the Couincil, as his source.
Reading it (it's here), you can see why he thought he might have a point.
Here are three extracts:
"To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language."
"Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics."
My point is not that Clown Masses or Easter Bunny Masses are somehow validated, but that the overwhelming majority (2147 for, 4 against) of Bishops at the Council in 1963 believed that radical change in the form of the Roman Rite and in the way that lay people participated in it was necessary, and gave Bugnini a framework in which to develop this new form. We can't pretend that he was some sort of Militant Tendency entryist, an ecclesiastical Derek Hatton burrowing within to change by stealth what everybody wants to hold fast to, other than by denying that he was doing what a couple of thousand Bishops, including, as far as I can tell, all of what might be thought of as the diehard traditionalists, wanted him to do.
I don't think that the Michael Davies argument - that a small group of periti deliberately conspired to make Sacrosanctum Concilium sufficiently vague to allow them to do as they wished subsequently - holds either: it's quite clear, for example, from the extract above, that vernacular readings were intended to be a first step, and that its use could be extended wherever the local authorities wanted.
All of which suggests that these waters are deep, even if they aren't still, and that any resolution is a long way off, assuming that "resolution" means that some sort of thesis and antithesis need to be synthesised. Meanwhile, the Bishop Davies who has recently turned over a major church in his diocese to the Traditional Rite is going to be welcomed to a Confirmation celebration in another of his parishes by a guitar group which writes its own settings of the Mass and hopes to get him at least to tap a toe. Is that really what two forms of the Roman Rite should mean?
11 April 2012
Help Sought
I said a while ago that I was working on a piece about the reception of Humanæ Vitae by the Church in England and Wales, but I have fallen into a deep and interesting (and possibly significant) rabbit hole: how influential were some of the lay organisations in the Church in England and Wales at the time of the Council and subsequently.
I'm interested in how they became influential: whose agenda was suited by support from lay organisations? Who provided them with ecclesiastical support?
And how far were they used by "progressive" Bishops and clergy to leapfrog their more conservative confrères?
I'm thinking of organisations like the Laity Commission and the Newman Society, in particular in the early phase, but there might be more. Later on you come across lots more. I obviously don't mean the KSC, SVP, UCM or CWL: PBI, to add another TLA to the list.
The Hierarchy in England and Wales has always actively sought "representative" laity, from the Catholic Union in the latter part of the nineteenth century to Catholic Voices in the twenty-first, representative, that is, of what the Hierarchy thought lay Catholics should be like; but what I'm chasing down here are the relationships between key members of the Hierarchy and key members of what became key lay organisations.
Any pointers gratefully received.
I'm interested in how they became influential: whose agenda was suited by support from lay organisations? Who provided them with ecclesiastical support?
And how far were they used by "progressive" Bishops and clergy to leapfrog their more conservative confrères?
I'm thinking of organisations like the Laity Commission and the Newman Society, in particular in the early phase, but there might be more. Later on you come across lots more. I obviously don't mean the KSC, SVP, UCM or CWL: PBI, to add another TLA to the list.
The Hierarchy in England and Wales has always actively sought "representative" laity, from the Catholic Union in the latter part of the nineteenth century to Catholic Voices in the twenty-first, representative, that is, of what the Hierarchy thought lay Catholics should be like; but what I'm chasing down here are the relationships between key members of the Hierarchy and key members of what became key lay organisations.
Any pointers gratefully received.
07 April 2012
Liturgical History, Grumpiness ...
I'm sure that Philip Goddard won't mind my recommending his book as a "must read" for anybody with any interest at all in the development of the structure of the week, even if a recommendation from The Muniment Room isn't exactly the last step before ordering a pipe of the Cockburn '24. The scholarship feels very sound indeed, and there are odd flashes of insight, for example into the relationship between the readings on the Ember Saturday in Lent and the modelled-on-the-synagogue pattern of readings in first century Christian services that took my breath away.
The awfulness that comes over the reader has nothing to do with the book itself, but with what starts as a casual throwaway line, and becomes a sort of macabre colophon to many sections of the book: "its form was fixed by the end of the seventh century and remained unchanged until 1970" - a paraphrase of something repeated again and again.
I can understand the motivation of the litugical archaeologist, even if I think it is a self-evidently wrong approach to liturgiology; but what was it about the Reformers of the 50s and 60s that led them to such hatred of tradition - tradition in the sense of "doing things the way we always do them". How did these people cope with family Christmasses (for example)? Did they suddenly insist that from 1970 on there could be no turkey or goose, as these were late interpolations, but that everybody should eat salted pork? That the TV couldn't be watched as it hadn't been invented in the first century and that families should play "Hunt the Myrrh" or (a rather different version of ) "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"? I could go on ...
It is still quite easy to come across pre-1955 hand Missals for a reasonable price (less than £40 - compare the price of a decent 1962 Missal): do think about buying one and using it as a guide to how we might have been celebrating festivals like Passiontide and Easter if the practice of organic development hadn't been allowed to give way to the slash and burn we endured at the end of the 1960s.
A very Happy and Holy Easter from a grumpier than usual Eeyore.
04 April 2012
Poem For The Season
.
Mgr Ronald Knox famously dreamed of the day he could answer every letter on the letters page of The Times with one letter. It would be even harder to do so with blogs, but here is something which answers recent posts from both Valle Adurni and Mac: the Sequence from the Mass of the Five Holy Wounds according to the Use of York, which fits the metre of Good King Wenceslas (with the exception of the final two verses.
A Holy Triduum to you all.
Cenam cum discipulis, Jesu celebrasti,
Et mortem apostolis palam nuntiasti,
Et auctorem sceleris Judam demonstrasti,
Et egresses protinus hortulum intrasti.
Tunc procedens Dominos humi se prostravit,
Et transferri calicem a se postulavit,
Sed Patris arbitrio illud commendavit,
Et mox ecce sanguinis sudor emanavit.
Judas post haec osculum Christo dedit tristi
Ad quid, inquit Dominos, amice, venisti ?
Numquid tradis osculo, quem jam vendidisti
Assistentes protinus irruerunt ministri.
Nox insomnia icaque tota ducebatur ;
Nulla prorsus requies Jesus praestabitur;
Magistrorum impia plebs injuriatur,
Alapis et colaphis innocens mactatur.
Dum Jesum eripere Pilatus conatur,
Judaeorum furia magis inflammatur,
Et tumultus populi ingens excitatur,
Et plebis vox intonat ut crucifigatur.
Traditur militibus, vinculis arctatur,
Undique verberibus corpus cruentatur,
Caput regis gloriae spinis coronatur,
Postque flexis genibus quisquis irritator.
Ecce caro tenera nostri Salvatoris,
Ad columnam nequiter coarctatur loris,
Sic flagellis caeditor impii tortoris,
Quod emanant rivuli rubei cruoris.
Post per urbis medium Jesus procedebat,
Et crucis patibulum humeris ferebat,
Ad fares, ad ostia populus fluebat,
Ejusque confusio omnibus patebat.
Ad pudoris cumulum, Jesu, denudaris,
Et vento ac frigori nudes spoliaris,
Innocens cum impiis in cruce damnaris,
Et quasi dux sceleris medio locaris.
Tensis ligno brachiis, manus conclavantur
Corpus, membra singula, pedes perforantur.
Nervi, venae, simili modo poenis tractabantur,
Pedes, plantae Domini ferro concavantur.
Fundunt rivos sanguinis membra Salvatoris,
Properet huc anima tristis peccatoris.
Ut hauriat quippiam sacrati liquoris,
Quo frequenter liniat vulnera doloris.
Lognens Jesus postea, Sitio, dicebat
Et acetum protinus felleque miscebat;
Ac infusum spongia ori porrigebat,
Quad degustans paululum, sumere nolebat.
Mi Jesu mirifice, quid est quod agebas?
Tu de siti congoerens, de truce silebas
Numquid hanc doloribus magis sentiebas;
Sed salutem potius nostram sitiebas ?
Vocem promens ultimam, Patrem invocasti,
Spiritum in manibus ejus commendasti:
Cum clamore valido tandem exspirnsti,
Et salutem omnium ita consummasti.
Nunc ego superbio, to humiliatis ;
Ego culpas perpetro, tu poenis gravaris;
Ego pomum mordeo, tu felle potaris;
Ego peto mollia, to dire cruciaris.
Cujus demum valeat mens vel lingua furi,
Quantum Virgo creditur intus cruciari;
Dum cernit jam mortuum latus vulnerari,
Atque Nati viscera lancea rimari?
Corpus quidem mortuum jam nil sentiebat,
Sed militis lancea pectus aperiebat :
Quam fixam in latere Filii videbat,
Unde aqua sanguine mixta effluebat.
Ad hunc ergo propera fontem Salvatoris,
Ut fluentis quippiam haurias dulcoris;
Atque vitae lavacrum pretium cruoris,
Hinc tui curatio profluat languoris.
Redemptor fidelium, Tu qui sic obisti,
Per cruorem vulnerum de Te quem fudisti,
Ne relinquas orphanos quos sic redemisti;
Mitte nobis Spiritum tuis quem dedisti.
Sumus quidem miseri rei peccatores,
Et multorum criminum magni debitores;
Sed sint tua vulnera tuique livores
Pro nobis et hostia ac intercessores.
Rex aeterne a gehennae salva supplicio,
Quos peccato solvis dato tuae mortis pretio.
Jesu bone, sic dispone horam nostri transitus,
Ut ad choram Angelorum noster pergat spiritus. Amen
Mgr Ronald Knox famously dreamed of the day he could answer every letter on the letters page of The Times with one letter. It would be even harder to do so with blogs, but here is something which answers recent posts from both Valle Adurni and Mac: the Sequence from the Mass of the Five Holy Wounds according to the Use of York, which fits the metre of Good King Wenceslas (with the exception of the final two verses.
A Holy Triduum to you all.
Cenam cum discipulis, Jesu celebrasti,
Et mortem apostolis palam nuntiasti,
Et auctorem sceleris Judam demonstrasti,
Et egresses protinus hortulum intrasti.
Tunc procedens Dominos humi se prostravit,
Et transferri calicem a se postulavit,
Sed Patris arbitrio illud commendavit,
Et mox ecce sanguinis sudor emanavit.
Judas post haec osculum Christo dedit tristi
Ad quid, inquit Dominos, amice, venisti ?
Numquid tradis osculo, quem jam vendidisti
Assistentes protinus irruerunt ministri.
Nox insomnia icaque tota ducebatur ;
Nulla prorsus requies Jesus praestabitur;
Magistrorum impia plebs injuriatur,
Alapis et colaphis innocens mactatur.
Dum Jesum eripere Pilatus conatur,
Judaeorum furia magis inflammatur,
Et tumultus populi ingens excitatur,
Et plebis vox intonat ut crucifigatur.
Traditur militibus, vinculis arctatur,
Undique verberibus corpus cruentatur,
Caput regis gloriae spinis coronatur,
Postque flexis genibus quisquis irritator.
Ecce caro tenera nostri Salvatoris,
Ad columnam nequiter coarctatur loris,
Sic flagellis caeditor impii tortoris,
Quod emanant rivuli rubei cruoris.
Post per urbis medium Jesus procedebat,
Et crucis patibulum humeris ferebat,
Ad fares, ad ostia populus fluebat,
Ejusque confusio omnibus patebat.
Ad pudoris cumulum, Jesu, denudaris,
Et vento ac frigori nudes spoliaris,
Innocens cum impiis in cruce damnaris,
Et quasi dux sceleris medio locaris.
Tensis ligno brachiis, manus conclavantur
Corpus, membra singula, pedes perforantur.
Nervi, venae, simili modo poenis tractabantur,
Pedes, plantae Domini ferro concavantur.
Fundunt rivos sanguinis membra Salvatoris,
Properet huc anima tristis peccatoris.
Ut hauriat quippiam sacrati liquoris,
Quo frequenter liniat vulnera doloris.
Lognens Jesus postea, Sitio, dicebat
Et acetum protinus felleque miscebat;
Ac infusum spongia ori porrigebat,
Quad degustans paululum, sumere nolebat.
Mi Jesu mirifice, quid est quod agebas?
Tu de siti congoerens, de truce silebas
Numquid hanc doloribus magis sentiebas;
Sed salutem potius nostram sitiebas ?
Vocem promens ultimam, Patrem invocasti,
Spiritum in manibus ejus commendasti:
Cum clamore valido tandem exspirnsti,
Et salutem omnium ita consummasti.
Nunc ego superbio, to humiliatis ;
Ego culpas perpetro, tu poenis gravaris;
Ego pomum mordeo, tu felle potaris;
Ego peto mollia, to dire cruciaris.
Cujus demum valeat mens vel lingua furi,
Quantum Virgo creditur intus cruciari;
Dum cernit jam mortuum latus vulnerari,
Atque Nati viscera lancea rimari?
Corpus quidem mortuum jam nil sentiebat,
Sed militis lancea pectus aperiebat :
Quam fixam in latere Filii videbat,
Unde aqua sanguine mixta effluebat.
Ad hunc ergo propera fontem Salvatoris,
Ut fluentis quippiam haurias dulcoris;
Atque vitae lavacrum pretium cruoris,
Hinc tui curatio profluat languoris.
Redemptor fidelium, Tu qui sic obisti,
Per cruorem vulnerum de Te quem fudisti,
Ne relinquas orphanos quos sic redemisti;
Mitte nobis Spiritum tuis quem dedisti.
Sumus quidem miseri rei peccatores,
Et multorum criminum magni debitores;
Sed sint tua vulnera tuique livores
Pro nobis et hostia ac intercessores.
Rex aeterne a gehennae salva supplicio,
Quos peccato solvis dato tuae mortis pretio.
Jesu bone, sic dispone horam nostri transitus,
Ut ad choram Angelorum noster pergat spiritus. Amen
12 March 2012
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
.
We don't have enough new Churches built and consecrated these days for this to have become a noticeable problem, but after putting part of the following text on Counter Cultural Father's blog the other day, I realised that it might be of wider interest.
This is by Archbishop Bugnini and explains the changes to the rite of Blessing of a Church and an Altar in the new dispensation. It includes two of his footnotes.
The material building is a sign of the Church as people of God. This Church becomes visible when the Christian community gathers with its ministers and the local bishop to inaugurate a place of worship that it wanted and has built. If possible, the people go in procession to the church; there they and the individuals who worked on the building of the church hand it over in symbolic fashion to the bishop; its doors are solemnly opened and the community enters.
The bishop takes possession of the presidential chair. He then blesses the water that will be used in sprinkling the faithful, the altar, and the walls of the church. This sprinkling has taken on a new meaning: in the old rite it was regarded primarily as a purification; now it is a reminder of baptism and a call to conversion.
After the singing of the Gloria and collect, the inauguration begins at the ambo, the place where the word of God is proclaimed and where the book of the Scriptures is solemnly enthroned.
The homily is followed by the most expressive actions in the rite of dedication: the invocation of the saints and the deposition of their relics beneath the altar;8 the prayer of dedication;9 the anointing of their relics and church walls by the bishop, who can be helped by other priests as at a concelebration; lighting of the incense on the altar and incensensation of the altar; preparation of the altar and lighting of it and the church.
The Eucharistic liturgy has a proper preface. After communion the place where the Eucharist is to be reserved is inaugurated by solemnly bringing the Blessed Sacrament there. The entire celebration ends with a solemn blessing.
8. The relics of the saints are placed beneath the altar and not in the table; the latter is not to be incised. Furthermore, the relics are not to be in the form of small "fragments" but are to be "meaningful," that is, of sufficient size; otherwise the rite is to be omitted. The relics are carried into the church in the entrance procession.
9. This point was also the subject of lengthy discussion. Initially the study group thought that the preface of the Mass should serve as the prayer for the dedication of the church. But then the celebration would have been deprived of a characteristic element and one of great importance and instructional value. Therefore the decision was reviewed, and the prayer of dedication was retained.
This is all taken from page 796 of the translation of Bugnini's The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975.
Note that the altar of sacrifice has been cast aside in a footnote. Note that in the same footnote the rationale of relics has been cast aside. Note that in another footnote the very reformers had to be reminded about the reason behind the structure of their worship. Note further up that an element of the rite has changed meaning.
Oh so wrong! in oh so many ways! Even more than in the changes in the Mass "the enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off".
.
We don't have enough new Churches built and consecrated these days for this to have become a noticeable problem, but after putting part of the following text on Counter Cultural Father's blog the other day, I realised that it might be of wider interest.
This is by Archbishop Bugnini and explains the changes to the rite of Blessing of a Church and an Altar in the new dispensation. It includes two of his footnotes.
The material building is a sign of the Church as people of God. This Church becomes visible when the Christian community gathers with its ministers and the local bishop to inaugurate a place of worship that it wanted and has built. If possible, the people go in procession to the church; there they and the individuals who worked on the building of the church hand it over in symbolic fashion to the bishop; its doors are solemnly opened and the community enters.
The bishop takes possession of the presidential chair. He then blesses the water that will be used in sprinkling the faithful, the altar, and the walls of the church. This sprinkling has taken on a new meaning: in the old rite it was regarded primarily as a purification; now it is a reminder of baptism and a call to conversion.
After the singing of the Gloria and collect, the inauguration begins at the ambo, the place where the word of God is proclaimed and where the book of the Scriptures is solemnly enthroned.
The homily is followed by the most expressive actions in the rite of dedication: the invocation of the saints and the deposition of their relics beneath the altar;8 the prayer of dedication;9 the anointing of their relics and church walls by the bishop, who can be helped by other priests as at a concelebration; lighting of the incense on the altar and incensensation of the altar; preparation of the altar and lighting of it and the church.
The Eucharistic liturgy has a proper preface. After communion the place where the Eucharist is to be reserved is inaugurated by solemnly bringing the Blessed Sacrament there. The entire celebration ends with a solemn blessing.
8. The relics of the saints are placed beneath the altar and not in the table; the latter is not to be incised. Furthermore, the relics are not to be in the form of small "fragments" but are to be "meaningful," that is, of sufficient size; otherwise the rite is to be omitted. The relics are carried into the church in the entrance procession.
9. This point was also the subject of lengthy discussion. Initially the study group thought that the preface of the Mass should serve as the prayer for the dedication of the church. But then the celebration would have been deprived of a characteristic element and one of great importance and instructional value. Therefore the decision was reviewed, and the prayer of dedication was retained.
This is all taken from page 796 of the translation of Bugnini's The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975.
Note that the altar of sacrifice has been cast aside in a footnote. Note that in the same footnote the rationale of relics has been cast aside. Note that in another footnote the very reformers had to be reminded about the reason behind the structure of their worship. Note further up that an element of the rite has changed meaning.
Oh so wrong! in oh so many ways! Even more than in the changes in the Mass "the enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off".
.
07 March 2012
Looking To The Future
NOT a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corpse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried.
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning;
By the struggling moonbeam's misty light
And the lantern dimly burning.
No useless coffin enclosed his breast,
Not in sheet nor in shroud we wound him;
But he lay like a warrior taking his rest,
With his martial cloak around him.
Few and short were the prayers we said,
And we spoke not a word of sorrow;
But we steadfastly gazed on the face of the dead,
And we bitterly thought of the morrow.
We thought, as we hollow'd his narrow bed
And smoothed down his lonely pillow,
That the foe and the stranger would tread o'er his head,
And we far away on the billow!
Lightly they'll talk of the spirit that's gone,
And o'er his cold ashes upbraid him;
But little he'll reck, if they let him sleep on
In the grave where a Briton has laid him.
But half of our heavy task was done
When the clock struck the hour for retiring,
And we heard the distant and random gun
That the foe was sullenly firing.
Slowly and sadly we laid him down,
From the field of his fame fresh and gory;
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone,
But we left him alone with his glory.
As his corpse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried.
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning;
By the struggling moonbeam's misty light
And the lantern dimly burning.
No useless coffin enclosed his breast,
Not in sheet nor in shroud we wound him;
But he lay like a warrior taking his rest,
With his martial cloak around him.
Few and short were the prayers we said,
And we spoke not a word of sorrow;
But we steadfastly gazed on the face of the dead,
And we bitterly thought of the morrow.
We thought, as we hollow'd his narrow bed
And smoothed down his lonely pillow,
That the foe and the stranger would tread o'er his head,
And we far away on the billow!
Lightly they'll talk of the spirit that's gone,
And o'er his cold ashes upbraid him;
But little he'll reck, if they let him sleep on
In the grave where a Briton has laid him.
But half of our heavy task was done
When the clock struck the hour for retiring,
And we heard the distant and random gun
That the foe was sullenly firing.
Slowly and sadly we laid him down,
From the field of his fame fresh and gory;
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone,
But we left him alone with his glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
