The story relates to the appointment of Mgr. Brouwet to the French diocese of Lourdes:

Following the “personal” appointment of Bishop Francis Moraglia as patriarch of Venice, Benedict XVI has hit a similar shot with the Church of France.

He did so last Saturday, February 11, the feast of the Blessed Virgin of Lourdes, when he appointed the new bishop of the diocese in which the famous Marian shrine stands, that of Tarbes and Lourdes. Pope Joseph Ratzinger has called to this post Nicolas Brouwet, who will turn 50 next August 31, since April of 2008 the auxiliary bishop of Nanterre, the diocese in which he was born and was ordained a priest in 1992.

The story continues:

The choice of Brouwet, like that of Moraglia, did not go through the scrutiny of the cardinals and bishops of the relevant congregation in one of their regular Thursday meetings. Both will take possession of their respective dioceses on March 25, the feast of the Annunciation.

Bishop Brouwet, however, although he is young, is recognized as having a liturgical sensibility that is particularly faithful to tradition. Last December 25, he celebrated Christmas Mass in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, according to the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum.” He has also participated in the traditionalist pilgrimages from Paris to Chartres on Pentecost. His stance on moral issues is also in keeping with tradition.

This does not mean that Brouwet is a traditionalist tout court; it is enough to see his official photos in clerical dress to understand this. He belongs instead to that generation of young priests who, like pope Ratzinger, consider the traditionalist world – very lively in France even in its non-Lefebvrist component – more as a resource than as a problem, unlike the progressive old guard of the episcopate, less and less influential…

Lourdes is not a cardinal diocese, but with its famous Marian shrine it is like the spiritual heart of France. It is there, in fact, that the plenary assembly of French bishops regularly meets. Not to mention the international dimension of the diocese. Faithful, seminarians, priests, bishops and cardinals from around the world arrive there. Some problems of an administrative nature that have been seen recently in the diocese have been monitored with special attention by the Holy See as well.

For all these reasons, it is even more significant that Benedict XVI has entrusted the diocese of Lourdes to a young bishop with well-defined characteristics like Brouwet.

Read the entire story on Chiesa.

I. Orientation of the Liturgy

When one uses the word “orientation” in terms of the Mass, most people’s minds immediately jump to images of a priest “with his back to the people,” or “facing the same direction,” or “everyone facing east.” Books like Cardinal Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy and Michael Lang’s Turning Towards the Lord have made compelling arguments for this type of liturgical orientation from historical, theological, and spiritual points of view. I do not intend to repeat everything that they have said or written.

Instead, I want to focus on a more basic aspect of liturgical orientation, namely the focal point of liturgical worship. In the postmodern age, liturgical worship is often relegated to being thought of as a “communal act” that focuses on, emphasizes, and even centers around the gathering of the congregation. Songs like “Gather us in,” “We are the Church,” etc., have solidified this in the minds of so many Catholics. We have lost touch with the true purpose for the sacred liturgy, which is worship of God, and of God alone.

It seems that I find myself going off on a diatribe with my own parishioners on a fairly regular basis, trying to make them understand the reason we celebrate Mass, and why it is important. And I say the same thing over and over again: There is nothing more sublime or profound than the sacred action in which we worship the one God, living and true. I repeat: There is nothing more sublime or profound than the sacred action in which we worship the one God, living and true. All our efforts, and the disposition of our minds and hearts must be singularly focused on this reality. The Mass is for God, not for us.

This is not a popular sentence. But allow me to explain. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, insofar as it is the re-presentation of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for the salvation of the world, makes real for us time and time again the salvation into which we have been baptized, and in which we share as members of the Christian Faithful. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, made present in the Mass, is—like all Sacraments—for the sanctification and edification of the People of God. But at its essence, the Mass remains our act of worshipping God—the new sacrifice of the Temple, the spotless lamb slain by the priest in the Holy of Holies for the expiation of sin—an offering to God, that He might be pleased with His people. It is how we worship! Plain and simple!

Yet, it is easy to see how this is often glossed over, diminished, or even outrightly rejected in favor of a more protestantized, post-modern, community-centered understanding that strips from the Mass any sense of worship aimed at the Divine, and leaves it a hollowed-out shell of a gathering that celebrates human beings and their relationship with God (which is always perfect—have you ever noticed that?!). This lack of orientation is what I’m speaking of.
Now, so as not to sound one-sided, there is a “we” aspect to the Mass. Msgr. Guido Marini, in addressing Adoratio 2011, the First International Conference on Eucharistic Adoration held in Rome this past June, speaks of the necessary relationality of the Mass.

He states:
We are recalled to some of the typical and indispensable dimensions of the liturgy. I refer, first, to the dimension of catholicity, which has been constitutive of the Church since the beginning. In that catholicity, unity and variety come together in harmony so as to form a substantially united reality, despite the legitimate diversity of forms. And then there is the dimension of historical continuity, in virtue of which the auspicious development appears to be that of a living organism that does not renounce its past, progressing through the present and oriented toward the future. And, again, there is the dimension of participation in the liturgy of Heaven, for which it has been appropriate to speak of the liturgy of the Church as that of human and spiritual space in which Heaven comes down to earth. Consider, only for example, the passage of the first Eucharistic Prayer, in which we ask: “…grant that this offering, by the hands of your holy Angel, may be taken to the altar of Heaven…”[1]
And, finally, there is the dimension of non-arbitrariness, which avoids the subjectivity of the individual or of the group: that which instead appertains to all as a received gift, to be guarded and transmitted. The liturgy is not a sort of entertainment, where everyone can feel right away to add and subtract according to his own taste in order to satisfy more or less his own happy creativity. The liturgy is not a party in which must always be found something new to excite the interests of the participants. The liturgy is the celebration of the Mystery of Christ, given to the Church, in which we are called always to enter with great intensity, especially in virtue of the providential and always-new repetition of the rite.
To enter into the “we” of the Church from the Eucharist means also being transformed in the logic of that catholicity that is love, or the opening of the heart, according to the measure of the Heart of Christ: it embraces all, it bends its own selfishness to the demands of true love, and it is disposed to give its life without reservation. The Eucharist is the true source of love of the Church, and it is in the heart of everyone. From the Eucharist the Church takes shape daily in the love that is the evangelical style to which we are all called.

And so, our whole mentality of how we approach the Mass and the Eucharist must be changed. Our orientation must become one not of self-centeredness, but of a true interior turning towards the Lord.

II. Liturgical Ministry

Having a better understanding of the nature of the liturgical act, and the proper end to which it is directed, we can now look at how we function within the sacred action. And so I pose the question: what is a minister? The word “minister” comes from the Latin ministrare, which means to serve. Minister, in Latin, is a servant. And so, to understand properly the role of a minister, we must accept that the relationship between the liturgy and the minister is one of subservience, of stewardship. The servant does not seek to control his master, to subdue him, to make him bend to his own will. The good and faithful servant is one who derives pleasure from being humble and obedient. And the reward of the good and faithful servant is the trust and admiration of the master, which leads ultimately to more freedom.
As ministers of the sacred liturgy, we are first and foremost servants of the liturgy, servants of the Church. Even the word liturgy denotes this relationship. Its roots in the Greek are commonly said to mean “the work of the people”—this was, and remains, a very common line spewed by progressive pundits to justify the great liberties they take with the Mass. However, liturgy comes from two Greek words, “leos” meaning people or the public, and “ourgia”, which means service. Liturgy is not the work of the people, but the service of the people. Understood in this context, one can see how this dovetails with my previous discussion on antinomian attitudes in the liturgy.
As ministers of the sacred liturgy, we are ultimately servants who ought never presume to impose our own styles, attitudes, ideologies, etc., on the liturgy. Our mission is not to create liturgy, but to be formed by the liturgy. As stewards, our mission is to present faithfully to the People of God the liturgy as given to us by the Church for our edification and sanctification. This can only be done in a spirit of true and humble service.
And what is our reward for being good and faithful servants? Well, for starters, it should go without saying that adherence to the Church and faithfulness to her commands pleases God. And, as importantly, it serves to diminish the sin of Pride in our hearts. Fidelity and humility in ministry are at the heart of the liturgy. If we look to the saints, we can see so many who grew in holiness simply by putting the Church before their own needs and desires. St. Thérese writes beautifully of her love of working in the sacristy, polishing the sacred vessels and laying out the altar linens and vestments, as if there were no place she would rather have been. While it may seem a bit excessive to some, her love is rooted in being a true, humble servant. She understood so well the profound nature of the sacred liturgy, and, like the woman suffering from a hemorrhage, wanted merely to touch the hem of Christ’s garment, to derive so much fulfillment from the simplest and humblest of actions. This is an image that should remain with all of us in how we approach the sacred liturgy as true ministers.

III. To be Pastoral

Without a doubt, the single-most abused and misused term in the post-Conciliar ecclesiastical vocabulary is the word “pastoral.” For close to fifty years now, this word has been synonymous with an attitude that it is acceptable to break any and every rule, guideline, and norm, at any and every level, in the name of making someone’s life easier. From my own experience as a canon lawyer, I constantly receive criticism from superiors when I issue a negative sentence in a case of matrimonial nullity. The reason is always the same: it’s not pastoral not to give people what they want. Of course, my response is that I have no control over whether or not a person has validly contracted marriage, and my obligation is to the truth, not to avoiding the truth in the interest of letting people “get on with their lives.” As you might imagine, this has branded me as a horrible, un-pastoral, hard-line conservative who doesn’t care about people. Go figure!
The word pastoral obviously is an adjective that denotes something being “of or like a shepherd.” At least that was its original meaning. And I am here to declare that it is high-time this word be rescued from its antinomian captors and returned to its most basic meaning. To give a new definition of pastoral, I borrow an idea from Jason Pennington, who originally wrote the essay “The Pastoral Musician: A True Shepherd or a Thief at the Gate?”. It was published on December 29, 2005 on the blog “Christus Vincit.”
While Pennington directs all of his remarks toward the concept of a pastoral musician, I borrow his basic paradigm in the hopes of expanding on it and applying in a way that we might rehabilitate this poor, pitiful word. Pennington writes:
The immediate and simplest answer to [the question of what it means to be pastoral is]: to act like a shepherd, to shepherd the flock. The Western tradition informs our perception of “shepherding.” The Roman poet Virgil describes in vivid imagery the pastoral life in the Eclogues. In fact, literature through the ages, both religious and secular, offers descriptions of the pastoral. The pastoral life is gentle and calm. It is peaceful and serene. Lambs frolic as the shepherd plays his pipe beneath a sprawling shade tree.
And so, an analogy of the 23rd Psalm ensues. Let’s look at how it lines up.

The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.
The Lord is ultimately in charge. He is the Good Shepherd, the true pastor. And he attends to all my needs. To be pastoral means to tend to the needs of the flock, to ensure that receive what is best for them. Notice that there is no mention of what the flock desires. The true pastor knows what is needed. He does not concern himself with what is wanted.

In verdant pastures he gives me repose. Near restful waters he leads me. He refreshes my soul.
The pastoral minister creates an atmosphere of peace and fulfillment. He does not overburden the flock, but seeks to rejuvenate their spirits—again, with what they need, not what they want.

Though I should walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are at my side. Your rod and your staff give me courage.
Here we come to the heart of the matter. The relationship between shepherd and flock is not all sunshine and lollipops! There’s the rod and the staff. Pennington writes the following:
The shepherd’s rod and staff have two purposes. They are used by the shepherd as weapons to keep harm from his flock. They also are used to keep the sheep in line. The shepherd’s staff after all has a crooked end to restrain a sheep that has gone the wrong way. Sure, the rod and staff give comfort in protection from harm, but they also dispense discipline. The shepherd gives the sheep what they want, but more importantly, he gives them what they need, like it or not. He leads the flock to good grazing land, but he also has to keep them together and on track. If all they received from the shepherd is what they wanted, the flock would splinter and wander in all directions: All we like sheep.

The flock wants—and demands—to be pampered, to have everything spoon-fed to them. But that is not being pastoral. If anything, it is doing them no favors.

One of my canon law professors in Rome explained the term “pastoral” in the following way: “The true pastoral tool lies in observing the norm, not ignoring it.” Our obligation at all times is to uphold the rights of everyone. True Christian justice demands that we uphold the rights of the Christian Faithful. Whenever a rule is broken in order to be “pastoral” to someone, then the rights of another are violated. If I alter the words of consecration at Mass because it would be pastoral for the children in the pews, then I am ultimately violating their rights to receive the Sacraments and liturgy of the Church as intended by the Church. As pastoral ministers, we cannot uphold the rights of the Christian faithful through the breaking of rules, the ignoring of norms, or skirting issues. True, people may not appreciate what we are doing; they will think that we’re being hard or even arbitrary. But, again, a pastoral minister is ultimately just what the words describe: a shepherding servant.

IV. Breaking Free of the 1970s

Over the past few years, new buzz-words and phrases have appeared in our vocabulary. We speak of a “reform of the reform,” a “new liturgical movement,” a “hermeneutic of continuity,” and the “mutual enrichment” of the two forms of the Roman Rite. These phrases give vigor to young conservative pundits, and strike fear and frustration into the hearts of old “progressives,” no doubt! But we must always be careful in how we approach them.
We are ministers of the liturgy in an age where we run the risk of inflicting upon the liturgy the same careless and arbitrary abuses that it has endured from “progressive” liturgists. Care must be taken to ensure that everything we do in the liturgy is about the liturgy itself, and not about our own ideologies or opinions. I could list hundreds of changes I’d love to make to my celebration of the Mass in the name of “continuity” or “mutual enrichment.” Yet, I am bound by a far greater loyalty to the Church than I am to my personal preferences. The same must be true for all ministers of the liturgy.
So, how do we reconcile the two paths: mutual enrichment and fidelity to the liturgical books? First of all, clear lines must be drawn. We have an obligation at all times to be faithful to the liturgical books as they are given to us by the Church. To that end, modifying the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite to bring it into closer conformity with the Extraordinary Form (or vice versa) is something which ought only to happen where the liturgical books and documents themselves make explicit allowance for innovation, or where the rubrics and norms are tacit, and therefore lend themselves to some enrichment.
“Mutual enrichment” of the two Roman Rites is something that is obviously desired by our Holy Father, as he stated in his cover letter to bishops upon the promulgation of his motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum.” And what follows logically is a discussion of a “hermeneutic of continuity”—an emphasis on continuity between prior and current rites, as opposed to the “hermeneutic of rupture” that seems to have the predominant focus of punditry over the past 40 years. The great irony is that this is a great shift in rhetoric from 40 years ago. When the Novus Ordo Missae was first introduced, it was given credibility by liturgists touting its conformity to sound, historical liturgical principles, saying that this was actually a restoration of a much, much older form of worship. And the nay-sayers saying that it was a break with tradition were the ones who turned out to be followers of Archbishop Lefebvre and the like. How times have changed!
Overall, there is a great deal of room for seeking to understand all of these principles better. What I’ve presented here is but the tip of the iceberg. There is always room for more discussion, more exploration. And the examples that can be given are too numerous to begin to list.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, I’d like to reflect briefly on the bigger picture. Everything that I’ve discussed in this talk, and in my previous address, has been aimed at a group of dedicated individuals who serve the Church and their community in a very specific way through the sacred liturgy. Our mission, however, ought not be one of self-service. Rather, we’ve explored principles today that should be at the forefront of every Catholic’s consciousness: the true orientation of the liturgy, the true nature of being pastoral, the divine underpinnings of authority, the necessity of true fidelity, etc.
As ministers of the sacred liturgy, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those whom we serve are better catechized, and more properly disposed to receiving the richness that the Roman Rite has to offer. So often, we gloss over the Roman Rite and become entranced by the bells and smoke and chants of other rites, and we seek to integrate them (unnecessarily and illicitly) into our own rites as a way of “dressing them up.” But the Roman Rite is whole and complete. And I would say that we have a moral obligation to explore our patrimony, to seek to uncover the buried treasures of our own rites, and to restore them within the parameters of our current liturgical paradigms, to the glory of God and the edification of His Holy Church. This is how we ultimately may be viewed by our Master as being good and faithful servants, stewards, and ministers of that which the Church has entrusted to our care.

Traditional Latin Mass at Oratory Prep enlightens

SUMMIT — When students at the Oratory Prep School entered the gymnasium recently for a special Mass, guest celebrant Reverend Michael Barone told them why Latin was used historically in Mass. “This is what distinguished the Catholics from the Protestants in years past. The use of Latin today heightens our sense of mystery and awe for that which is sacred.” The entire Mass was conducted in Latin by the guest celebrant and had an audience of students who are studying Latin.

Fr. Michael further explained, “We aren’t meant to understand all that’s going on in Mass; there’s mystery involved.” He went on to tell the boys in grades seven through twelve, “God won’t compete with electronic devices. Mass is not mere entertainment; it is the Mass of the Ages that endures for all time. You are being asked to preserve the traditions of the church.”

One of the traditions that Fr. Michael asked the boys to observe was to kneel during the consecration. Another tradition observed was to have the congregants kneel for the distribution of Holy Communion.

Junior Cormac Rada of Asbury said the priest’s words were important. “It’s a common misconception that priests have their backs to us at a traditional Latin Mass,” Cormac said. “But it’s a form of adoration: he’s not just officiating…he’s one of us as our representation. He is praying with us to God.”

A true Catholic culture is one that not only reflects the liturgy, but through its compelling beauty, is so powerful that it overcomes other cultures and dominates the profane (i.e. the wider culture outside the domain of religious practice). This is the case with the gothic and the baroque. All art, architecture and music during these periods, for example, seemed to be drawing on the forms that were set in the liturgy.

In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI says the following: ‘The Enlightenment pushed the Faith into a kind of intellectual and even social ghetto. Contemporary culture turned away from the Faith and trod another path, so that faith took flight in historicism, the copying of the past, or else attempted to compromise, or lost itself resignation and cultural abstinence.’

In other words, by the 19th century and as a result of the Enlightenment, the culture of faith was separated from the wider culture. Catholic culture, as it was manifested at this time, was not a genuine Catholic culture of beauty, but rather an emasculated, paler version. In the area that I know well, art, we see this very clearly. There are some exceptions, but in general the academic art of the 19th century is only a poorly defined shadow of the 17th century baroque from which it is descended. For those who are interested to know more, you might read for example articles here and here or for a fuller account read the book Baroque by John Rupert Martin.

If we accept the premise and this assessment of the culture, then it indicates that in the 19th century there were problems with the liturgy as well as the culture. This would explain why the response to the Enlightenment in this period was not only intellectual, but also liturgical, with the beginnings of a liturgical reform movement. This being so, the question remains as to what it is about the Enlightenment that affected the liturgy?

I read recently Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: the Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference, edited by Alcuin Reid. One of the presentations was by Stratford Caldecott, who runs the Thomas More College Centre for Faith and Culture in Oxford. Mr Caldecott argues that the problems lay in the fact that the anthropology – the understanding of the nature of man – had strayed from a full recognition of the tripartite anthropology described by scripture. St Paul for example, talks of body, soul and spirit. There had been tendency argues Caldecott, to equate, or at least insufficiently differentiate between, soul and spirit. (His presentation is online, at the Second Spring website, here. Go to the section on the left that says ‘online reading’ and then click the title of the article: Liturgy and Trinity; Towards a Liturgical Anthropology.)

His description of the ‘spirit’ is most interesting. Equating it with the intellectus of the Western medievals or the nous of the Eastern Church in the tradition of Church Fathers, the spirit is the spiritual receptive knowing power of the human mind. This is the aspect that ‘sees’, so to speak, God and is receptive to grace. While the fathers do sometimes use the word soul interchangeably with a description of the full spiritual dimension of man that includes both spirit and soul (when using the scriptural use of the terms), the distinction of the two in the minds of the medievals is never lost. Occasionally in icons the artist paints a ‘bump’ in the forehead. I was told that this shape drawn in the forehead, between the eyes, is sometimes considered a physical manifestation of the spiritual eye, the nous.

A quote from Josef Pieper’s Leisure the Basis of Culture (p. 11-12) was helpful to me here:

The medievals distinguished between the intellect as ratio and the intellect as intellectus. Ratio is the power of discursive thought, or searching and re-searching refining and concluding, whereas the intellectus refers to the ability of ‘simply looking’ (simplex instuitus) to which the truth presents itself as a landscape presents itself to the eye. The spiritual knowing power of the human mind, as the ancients understood it, is really two things in one: ratio and intellectus: all knowing involved both. The path of discursive reasoning is accompanied and penetrated by the intellectus’ untiring vision, which is not active but passive, or better, receptive – a receptively operating power of the intellect.

Without a full acknowledgement of the tripartite anthropology, suggests Caldecott, a flawed dualism consisting only of body and soul is created and an instability in which one of the aspects tends to dominate the other to the exclusion of God (just as Cartesian dualism was inherently unstable and led in two very different direction: materialism and idealism). According to trinitarian anthropology, the human person is by its very nature other-centred. We love God, and this opens us to the life of the other; we love our neighbour, and this opens us to the love of God. Without fully appreciating the spiritual faculty of the soul we cannot properly understand either marriage (based on the self-giving love of man and woman) or the Mass (the marriage of heaven and earth). Thus the crisis over Humanae Vitae in the 1960s was paralleled by the crisis over reforms in the liturgy because both had the same root — an earlier loss of the sense of the spirit uniting husband and wife in openness to new life on the one hand, and of the spirit uniting priest and laity in one single work of sacrifice on the other. To those who had acquired this mentality, it seemed that the Mass had become an exercise in which the priest did his thing at the altar and the laity waited and watched or prayed their rosary in the pews. This is why why they went to the other extreme of over-stressing “activity” in the Mass, along with human fellowship and social justice, as though these were the only things that were important. Many religious orders went into steep decline as the communitarian aspect of their mission took precedence over the liturgical, the love of neighbour over the love of God. It is the spirit in man that opens us to the “vertical” dimension of grace: without it, both marriage and the liturgy are reduced to activities performed on the horizontal plane, with little or no relationship to heaven.

It strikes me that such a neglect as a result of the Enlightenment should result in a cultural decline as well as a liturgical decline is made all the more understandable when one considers the role of the intellectus, or spirit, in the apprehension of beauty. In the first part of her little essay Beauty, Contemplation and the Virgin Mary, Sister Thomas Mary McBride, OP describes succinctly in just a few paragraphs, the traditional understanding of beauty and how man apprehends it. She draws on the Latin medievals and states that beauty illuminates the intellectus, describing the apprehension of beauty as the ‘gifted perfection of seeing’. Then echoing Caldecott in the connection between intellectus and spirit says: ‘In the light of the above, this writer would suggest that the proper place of beauty is in the spirit.’

An appropriate active participation in the liturgy is one that engages the full person in order to encourage within us the right interior disposition. Any participation in the liturgy that does not engage body, soul and spirit therefore does not engage the full person. Our participation in the liturgy is the primary educator in the Faith at all levels. A true conformity of body, soul and spirit is what is desired. One can see that any participation in which consideration of the spirit is neglected (through a balanced active participation of soul and body) will result in therefore necessarily result in a deficiency in our ability to apprehend beauty, which resides in the spirit. This explains this link between culture and liturgy and how important liturgical reform is in our efforts to create a culture of beauty today.

Introducing Chant into the Domestic Church

by J. Jacob Tawney

The music proper to the Roman Rite is Gregorian Chant. This point has been repeated by numerous Popes, by the Second Vatican Council, and by liturgical scholars spanning the centuries. There are many reasons for this, of course, but the primary one is that Gregorian Chant grew along side the liturgy, so much so that the two are intrinsically connected. Where there is liturgy, there is chant, and where chant is absent, the liturgy suffers greatly.

The term domestic church appears in the documents of Vatican II. There are some who say that Pope Paul VI coined the term, yet there are early church documents that refer to the family as the domestic church. It appears that this concept has been a part of Catholic tradition since the patristic era. The essence of the domestic church is that the family, and not the geographic parish, is the first “church” we encounter. This is true as a child, but it remains true even into adulthood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the home is the first school of Christian life, the place where people learn love, forgiveness, and a life of prayer.

Piecing together these two ideas, it seems that (1) if the music proper to the Catholic Church is chant, and (2) if the domestic church is the first place that we encounter worship, then it follows that Gregorian Chant should find a place within the life of the family. I suggest that there are three ways in which sacred chant can become rooted in the family and thereby serve as a means of formation for both children and parents.

First, while the family has a primary obligation to live out a life in prayer, all prayer finds its source and summit in the sacred liturgy. It is in the sacred liturgy in that the chant of the Church finds its purpose and fulfillment. Parents who attend a parish that employs chant regularly are very fortunate indeed, for these folks will be able to find both a starting point and support for any chant introduction that they bring into the home. It is absolutely essential that we experience chant in the context of the liturgy. For those who are not fortunate enough to have a regular schola or even occasional chant, perhaps parents can find other opportunities in the area.

The second way to bring the music of the Church into the domestic church is through high quality recordings. We live in the age of the internet where albums once obscure are now available at the click of a mouse. Obtaining the chants proper to the Mass is easier than it has ever been. I recommend getting a copy of various settings of the Mass Ordinary (pieces like the Agnus Dei and the Kyrie that are a part of every Mass). Because children are already familiar with their place in the Mass, parents can introduce not only their music but also their meanings quite easily. One need not be a Latin scholar to tell a child, “This is the Lamb of God,” and to remind the child of the vernacular translation. I also recommend getting some pieces that are not familiar and whose translations may not be accessible to everyone. The reason for this is twofold. First, it is not necessary to understand the Latin words in order to appreciate the music. Sometimes it is better just to sit and be absorbed into the glory of the graceful rising and falling of notes. Second, pieces from the Mass Propers (those parts that change form Mass to Mass, such as the Introductory Chant, or Introit) are often more ornate and quite beautiful. In particular, the Communion chants that are part of the Church’s liturgy are often little masterpieces in and of themselves. Finally, I recommend getting copies of the “standards,” chants that are not necessarily a part of the Mass but help form the rich patrimony of the church’s musical tradition. These chants would include the classic Marian hymns (Ave Maria, Salve Regina, etc.) as well as other hymns such as the Te lucis and Tantum ergo.

When purchasing quality recordings, I would begin with the schola out of Oregon that calls themselves Cantores in Ecclesia and is directed by Dean Applegate. They have three albums available. The first is O Lux Beatissima, which is a collection of the Mass Ordinary and many other common Catholic chants. The second is Cantemus Domino, which contains examples of Mass Propers. The third is Inclina Domine which has more Mass parts from both the Ordinary and the Propers. (If you are looking for where to begin, my own personal opinion is with O Lux Beatissima.)

However, we live in an age where many people are posting quality recordings for free online. A quick Google search can usually lead to a plethora of high quality pieces.

The third way in which to bring the chant of the Church into the family is by actually teaching young children these “Catholic classics.” A friend of mine who grew up in Italy often reminisces about the chant that was sung in his humble home. The children all grew up knowing an entire repertoire of Gregorian selections. He also laments the absence of such an environment in our current culture. For my own part, this strikes me as but one of the ways in which we have seen a loss of Catholic identity. This music is our music; it is a part of our heritage. An Italian family would never abandon traditional pasta dishes from their dinner repertoire. Similarly, a Catholic should never abandon his own musical heritage. Despite the fact that most liturgies have, contrary to the recommendation of Vatican II, left Gregorian Chant in the dust of the 1960’s, it remains the traditional music of the Roman rite.

Our own family has taken the idea of domestic church seriously and has brought the Church’s liturgy quite literally in the home in the recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours. The Liturgy of the Hours is a set of prayers that are said at various times throughout the day. Priests are obliged to pray the Divine Office, but the laity are encouraged to do so as well. The purpose of the Hours is to sanctify the entire day by participating in the public worship of the Church. Much like each Mass is a participation in the Heavenly Liturgy, so too is the Liturgy of the Hours. The pope, each bishop, every priest, and even the Angels and Saints are praying each hour along with us. Of course, we are not here equating the Liturgy of the Hours with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but rather recognizing that the Liturgy of the Hours is an echo of the Liturgy of the Mass. There is a parallel here with the domestic church and the manner in which it is an echo of the broader Church.

We have taken to reciting Compline (or Night Prayer) with the children before bedtime. Compline is well suited for children because it repeats every week. Little ones will memorize virtually the entire week in under year merely by listening. (It takes “big people” much longer, of course!) This all has bearing on the topic of Gregorian Chant because it is traditional to chant the psalms that form the backbone of each hour. This need not be done in Latin, of course, for there are easy plainchant tones that can be learned by even the musically untrained. More to the point, it is common to end the hour with a Marian chant proper to each liturgical season. For instance, in the season of Advent the chant is the Alma Redemptoris Mater. The others include Ave Regina Caelorum (Lent), Regina Caeli (Easter), and the Salve Regina (Ordinary Time). Over the years, my children have been picking up each of these (and the Ave Maria as well). This past Advent we added the last of the collection (Alma Redemptoris Mater), and nothing touched my heart more than when three of my children greeted me at the door about a week later excited to tell me that they had “learned it.” There they stood in front of the fireplace mantel, and they chanted in unison the most angelic melody I have ever heard.

Obtaining quality recordings can go a long way in helping a family to learn the chants that they will integrate into their prayer life. Of course, obtaining the musical scores is helpful as well. The internet is filled with these Gregorian scores. However, for Compline, I recommend Fr. Samuel Weber’s book by the same name published by Ignatius Press. It contains both Latin and English text and music printed in an exquisite setting for the full week of Night Prayer.

Gregorian Chant is the music that is proper to the Church. It seems only right that it should find a place in the home as well; that is but one way in which the domestic church can orient itself to the Universal Church.

The Association “Sacra Liturgia” invites to the conference “Beauty in Sacred Art and in the Liturgy,” with the pontifical ceremoniary Mons. Marco Agostini, which will take place in Trent on Saturday, February 11, at 1700, in the great hall of the Major Seminary. The Feininger Choir will present some Gregorian chants. On the following day, Sunday, February 12, the Mass will be celebrated in the Seminary, at 1800.

Regarding this, this was the note of the diocesan press office:

“It is the constant and prioritary concern of our Diocesan Church the effort that the liturgical celebrations be the summit and source of Christian life, with an active participation of the faithful, and convergence of the various ministries.

“The initiative, taken by a diocesan priest, of promoting the celebration of H. Mass according to the ancient rite in the Diocesan Seminary is occasional. Although within the scope of catholicity, the initiative is personal and brings forth some perplexity; precisely for this, the choice of place intends to make clear that those to whom the celebration is destined are those persons capable of understanding it and participating in it, any form of spectacle being excluded.

“Regarding this, it is affirmed that the Council of Trent did not choose a single rite, and that Pope Benedict XVI has supported the one approved by Paul VI, but has consented that also the rite approved by Pope John XXIII, which, with successive modifications, dated from Pope Pius V, may be celebrated, in the presence of specific conditions.

“It is recalled that, also on the occasion of this celebration, as for other events, access to the Seminary church and square is not indiscriminately granted to the public.”

We are often accused of wishing to promote “scandal” by mentioning the shameful shenanigans which seem to be inseparable from the celebration of the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite”, the Mass of Paul VI. Yes, we are fully aware that there are a handful of places around the world where it is celebrated “reverently”, according to variable unpublished standards – but other kinds of celebrations have been part and parcel of this Rite from the beginning, and they are in most cases considered quite legitimate. In fact, they are promoted from the highest places, and are the ordinary part of Church life everywhere worldwide.

We bring this up only because, on the very same day on which the above note was published, with “perplexity” for a single celebration in the only rite Trent knew for centuries (and for a millenium before the Council of Trent, in celebrations identical to the Traditional Mass or almost indistinguishable from it), the Archdiocese published as its main event for that same Saturday (Feb. 11) a “Rock Mass” (Messa Rock), with the participation of “Trent metal band ‘High Voltage’”:

Honestly, we are not the ones who cause scandal. The Archdiocesan Curia is, by publicly shaming a priest and faithful who are merely exercizing their (literally) God-given papally-recognized rights, and limiting them – at the very same time they promote a “Metal Mass”.

Shame on the Trent Curia: vergogna!!

By Salvatore Cernuzio

ROME, FEB. 9, 2012 (Zenit.org).- On Feb. 22, 1962, Pope John XXIII signed the apostolic constitution “Veterum Sapientia,” on the study and use of Latin, as a result of which he hoped, among other things, that an Academicum Latinitatis Institutum would be created.

The institute was founded later by Pope Paul VI with the apostolic letter “Studia Latinitatis” of Feb. 22, 1964, entrusting the Salesians with the task of “promoting its prosperity.”

Half a century later the Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis is organizing a conference to be held Feb. 23, titled “Veterum Sapientia: History, Culture and Timeliness.” The congress will examine some important episodes in the history of the institute and will also consider the challenges today regarding the study of classical languages.

ZENIT spoke with Father Roberto Spataro, a teacher in the Faculty of Christian and Classical Literature of the Pontifical Salesian University, about the forthcoming congress.

ZENIT: Professor Spataro, how did the idea for this conference come about and what are its objectives?

Father Spataro: The congress is being held on the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of a solemn document, the Veterum Sapientia, unfortunately quickly, unjustly forgotten.

We intend to re-visit that document and to show how it is still very timely in proposing the need that in the Church, especially among priests, that the great ethical, spiritual and religious values be known that the ancient world developed and that Christianity perfected, thus constructing the foundations of contemporary civilization.

ZENIT: Many believe that Latin is a “dead language.” What is your opinion?

Father Spataro: This is truly an unfortunate expression. I wonder how a language can be defined as dead in which Seneca, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and generations of scientists, from Galvani, inventor of electricity, to Gauss, the “prince of mathematicians,” wrote.

How can one hold as “dead” a language that is studied today by so many persons, and nourishes lofty and noble thoughts? Not forgetting that it is the language of the Holy See and that the liturgy in Latin attracts in ever increasing numbers the faithful, many of them young people.

ZENIT: In recent times, instead, it seemed that Latin was dying out: Seminarians did not study it any longer and it was not used in the liturgy. What is your Institute doing about this situation?

Father Spataro: In recent years, tentative beginnings have taken place within the Catholic Church in terms of renewed interest in the study of Latin. Among these are the birth of new religious communities and lay movements that have understood well how a most precious patrimony belongs to the Tradition, to the life itself of the Church, of liturgical, canonical, magisterial, theological expressions whose content is comprehensible only in its linguistic form, namely, Latin. Hence, our Institute wishes to teach a greater number of clerics and lay people to be able to appreciate this patrimony, so that every Church is able to have access to people who love the way in which truth, beauty and harmony are united in this language.

ZENIT: It seems that in many parts of the world there is a renewal of interest in Latin. Is this true?

Father Spataro: It is true! Some time ago, a distinguished German university professor told me that in Germany there are more than 800,000 students in high schools and university institutes who study Latin. In our Institute, for example, we receive students from China, sent by their Universities, because they feel the need to know European civilization and its cultural origins expressed in Latin.

ZENIT: What are the reasons for this renewed interest?

Father Spataro: Talking with professors and students from all over the world, I have come to believe that there is a desire to study Latin so as to access a world, a res publica litterarum, of a very high spiritual level. The present economic and financial crisis is no more serious than the ethical and the anthropological. Young people in so many parts of the world study works written in Latin, from Cicero to Cyprian to Erasmus of Rotterdam, and are tired and disappointed by “bad teachers” of the contemporary age, and want to acquire for themselves pure, true thought. The study of Latin makes it possible to reacquire this “spiritual innocence.”

ZENIT: Even in Italian Middle Schools there is a return to the study of Latin.

Father Spataro: Latin is a very pleasing language to learn, with one condition: that the method is abandoned that morbidly reigns in schools, imposed by a German philology beginning in the 19th century. If taught, instead, with methods of the great humanists — for example, that which was practiced for centuries in the Jesuits’ schools, or the “nature-method” taught in 150 hours — a student, without excessive toil and especially without boredom, is already able to read the classics. There is need of a new generation of teachers that know this method and adopt it enthusiastically because it works miracles!

ZENIT: Are there examples of the success of this method?

Father Spataro: Certainly! An example is the Vivarum Novum Academy, an institution with which our Faculty has collaborated for some time and that operates in Rome. Young people from all over the world go there, for one or two years, to study Latin and Greek. They arrive without knowing a single word of the language of Caesar or Plato and after a few months they are able to speak fluently in Latin, acquiring at the end of the course a true knowledge of the humanistic civilization, that is, of the genuine values of man that come from the Veterum Sapientia.

[Translation by ZENIT]

First Saturday Confessions, February 4, A.D. 2012, will be heard at 8:45 a.m. followed by 9:15 a.m. TLM offered by Fr. Dominick Finn, O.S.F.S., at St. Albert the Great Rectory Chapel, whose schedule requires that he be fifteen (15) minutes behind our normal First Saturday schedule.

It may be noteworthy to the readers of the Latin Liturgy Association Philadelphia Chapter website to learn that the First Friday and First Saturday TLM’s at St. Albert The Great Parish, Huntingdon Valley, Pa. are the only continuously scheduled, canonically regular, First Fri. & First Sat. TLM’s offered in the entire Archdiocese of Philadelphia. There are no others known to me within the Archdiocese; (with well-wishes to other distant locations, Mater Ecclesiae is in the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, and the SSPX, in Eddystone, and Rome are attempting to resolve the Society’s canonical status).

Thank you for publicizing these First Friday and First Saturday TLM’s at St. Albert The Great Parish, 212 Welsh Road, Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery County, Pa. 19006 (T) 215-947-3500.

Mark Matthews
Advisory Council Committee Chairman

The International Federation Una Voce presents its objections
The International Federation Una Voce (FIUV) has learned that modifications of the 1962 Missale Romanum could be proposed by competent authority in the near future. It therefore presents its objections and concerns on a reform of the Traditional Missal to competent authority, also making its 2008 letter on the matter public.

The Revision of the Missal of 1962.

The Concerns of the International Federation Una Voce,

Preamble:
It is known that work has commenced in Rome on the revision of the Missal of 1962. As has been the norm in recent years, these matters are being conducted discreetly and only made public when the relevant document is promulgated, viz: Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The very narrow remit given by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his Letter to Accompany Summorum Pontificum [7 July, 2007] was that: “..new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” No other changes were sanctioned. Pope Benedict also stated that “The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the possibilities in this regard.”

Those who are “devoted to the usus antiquior” must continually and carefully ensure that this specific and narrow remit is not exceeded by those in Rome and elsewhere who desire to undermine the integrity of the Missal of 1962 by demanding the inclusion of some of the novelties which were introduced into the liturgy post-1962. The International Federation Una Voce was founded in early 1965, even before the Second Vatican Council had ended, and is by far the oldest organisation, lay or clerical, which is devoted to the usus antiquior. While other organisations and societies, clerical and lay, may also be devoted to the ‘usus antiquior’, none can match the 46 year history of the Una Voce Federation in its unswerving devotion to this cause. The Federation has played a unique role in being the first, and the continuous voice of the lay faithful in seeking adherence to the expressed wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council as declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium n.4:
“Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

The members of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, being ever mindful of this decree of the Council Fathers, have been faithfully obedient to tradition, have consistently upheld the equal right and dignity of the Mass of Antiquity, and have striven since 1965 to preserve and foster this lawfully recognised rite. In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, confirmed what the International Federation has always claimed, that the Missal of 1962 ‘was never juridically abrogated’. The Holy Father also confirmed in his letter that his decision was to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the church.”

Liturgical innovation and creativity is unwanted by the faithful and has consistently disturbed, angered and alienated them in the years following the Second Vatican Council. This must not happen again with the adulteration of the Missal of 1962. The International Federation accepts organic development but emphatically rejects liturgical innovation which is alien to the character, spirit, and integrity of the usus antiquior. The inestimable treasure of the ancient liturgy must not be undermined by novelty, reductionism, and destructive modernisation. Nothing describes the attraction of the usus antiquior more powerfully than the growing number of young Catholics world-wide, including many seminarians and young priests, who are discovering this ancient and deeply spiritual liturgy and are being captivated by it.

We are now entering a critical period in the life of the liturgy of Holy Mother Church. Decisions that are being taken in Rome today will have a lasting impact on the spiritual welfare of the faithful for generations. The need to implement the will of the Holy Father for a limited and organic change in harmony with the character of the Missal of 1962 must not be the excuse for the introduction into the traditional Roman liturgy of alien concepts that created so much disunity and disharmony in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council.

Following the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the President of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce presented a document to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in June 2008. Now that work on amending the Missal of 1962 has commenced, it may be timely to republish this document, in an updated form, to make clear, once again, the desires and aspirations of the members of the Una Voce Federation.

A Reflection on Summorum Pontificum and the Role of the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Prior to, and Post, September 2007.

Leo Darroch,
Executive President – International Federation Una Voce.

2 June 2008.

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in July 2007 there has been great rejoicing from those in the Catholic Church who wish to retain traditions, and protect Tradition. There is no doubt that the statement from Pope Benedict that the Missal of 1962 had never been abrogated, and the freedom he has granted to priests of the Roman Rite to celebrate this form of the Mass, has led to a great increase in the celebrations of the ancient and venerable rite. However, it is also clear that the promulgation of this Motu Proprio has led to many questions about the manner of celebration and the rubrics that apply to the Missal revised by Blessed John XXIII. It seems that there are some, including many bishops, who deliberately wish to create confusion and dissent in an attempt to dissuade priests and faithful from benefiting from the Holy Father’s pastoral solicitude, and insist that post-1962 developments (such as Communion in the hand, and female altar servers) are perfectly valid in Masses celebrated according to the Missal of 1962. On the other hand, there are others who have genuine queries about what is allowed during the celebration of the Extraordinary form of the Mass. Questions are being raised more or less on a daily basis and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei [PCED] is being inundated with letters containing requests for clarification; to such an extent that a document has been prepared that seeks to clarify matters once and for all. We have been advised to wait patiently for the publication of this document.

As I made clear in my Report to the PCED on 29th April 2008, I believe that Summorum Pontificum (and Quattuor Abhinc Annos [1984] and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta [1988] before it) should be interpreted according to the mind of the Legislator in his desire to redress, among other things, what many traditional Catholics believe to have been abuses of their legitimate aspirations. I believe those who seek to modify the directives of Summorum Pontificum to incorporate the changes post-1962 should be informed that they may freely avail themselves of the Novus Ordo in Latin where most of the various adaptations are already available, or can be adopted without any difficulty. The 1965 Ordo and the 1967 Missa Normativa were, by their own nature, only transitory and temporary stages and lost any particular significance once the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal was published by Pope Paul VI. There is, consequently, no sense in encouraging the adoption of elements of those ordos as somehow being natural and genuine evolutions of the 1962 Missal, which remains the only legitimate expression of the Extraordinary form of Roman Rite as defined by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Recently, there has been much publicity given to a letter that was issued by the PCED in 1997 and signed by the then President, Cardinal Felici, and by Monsignor Perl, the Secretary. This letter permits a number of modifications to celebrations of the Missal of 1962 concerning the Epistle, Gospel, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, and Prefaces from the appendix of the 1965 Missale Romanum and from that of 1970. They, therefore, are superseded by the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. For if the Supreme Pontiff wished prior liturgical provisions to be observed, he would have stated as much in his Motu Proprio of 7th July 2007.

In the midst of all this confusion there is, perhaps, a single question to be posed, the answer to which may make the responses to all the many queries irrelevant. But first it is necessary to set the scene.

The Holy Father, in Summorum Pontificum, could not have been clearer in stating what he means and meaning what he stated. He constantly refers to the Missal of 1962 OR the Missal of 1970. There is no ambiguity; it is a straight choice between one or the other. There is no in-between.

With the full authority of Peter, the Supreme Legislator stated “We Decree”. He then states that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII:
● “must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage” [Art.1];
● that the priest may use “the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 OR (my emphasis) the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970” [Art.2];
● In parishes a pastor may “celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962” [Art. 5].

The only concession granted by Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio itself is in Article 6 when he states: “In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings MAY (my emphasis) be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.”

Thus, the mind of Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio is clear – it is either the Missal of 1970 OR the Missal of 1962. His Holiness remains true to this theme in his Letter to Bishops which accompanied the Motu Proprio. He states that, “the last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council…..in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.” He also states that, “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal”, thus indicating, once again, that, while there is no contradiction, there is a distinct difference between the two Missals.

And now I come to the crux of my argument. An indult is a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent ecclesiastical authority – the Holy See or the local ordinaries as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case. Both Quattuor Abhinc Annos of 1984, and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 1988, were granted on the widespread opinion that the Missal of 1962 had been abrogated – abolished – following the publication of the Missal of Pope Paul VI in 1970. The motives for Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta would have been very different. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (after the Commission of Cardinals had reported) may have been pro bono pacis, but this would not have applied to Quattuor Abhinc Annos.
[Note: A Commission of nine Cardinals was established Blessed Pope John Paul II in 1986 to determine whether the Missal of 1962 had been legally abrogated, or whether the bishops had the power to forbid the traditional Mass. The unanimous answer was ‘No’.]

In his Letter to Bishops Pope Benedict states:
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal …I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

In Summorum Pontificum he repeats this with the full force of law and states:
“….It is therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated (my emphasis) …………The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annos’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei’ are substituted as follows:”[Art.1]

In the case of both these indults they were substituted as from midnight on 13th September 2007 and ceased to have any force of law. They are redundant, obsolete.

The Pope has given us two clear statements: that the Missal of 1962 was never abrogated, and that the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum given Motu Proprio replaces the indults Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. All the various permissions and modifications granted by the PCED were granted during the periods of the indults. Logic dictates, therefore, that if the Missal of 1962 was never abolished and the Holy Father states that the conditions laid down in earlier documents [Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta] for the use of the Missal of 1962 are substituted with effect from midnight on 13th September 2007, then all permissions, interpretations, relaxations, modifications et al that flowed from Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta must also be ‘substituted’ with effect from midnight on 13th September 2007 and no longer apply. The Pope has clarified the situation that has existed since 1970 and has wiped the slate clean concerning the indults of 1984 and 1988. The 14th September 2007 brought us a new beginning in the understanding of the law, one which is based on juridical principles and not on the granting of a privilege.

If it is accepted that all the concessions and privileges that were granted under Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta have been superseded by the new law, what, then, is the current position? Quite clearly we start with a clean slate. From 14th September 2007 we start once again with the Missal of 1962, untouched and without modification or adaptation. In his Letter to the Bishops, Pope Benedict recognises that some change will take place but he is very specific; and he speaks in the future tense only, not in the past. He says:
“new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The ‘Ecclesia Dei’ Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.”

In effect, no changes can be made to the Missal of 1962 until the Ecclesia Dei Commission implements the will of the Holy Father and consults with the “various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior”. One would imagine that the first action of the Pontifical Commission would be the establishment of a list of ‘bodies’ to be consulted. Only when the various bodies have been identified can the process begin of studying the practical possibilities of inserting new Saints and new Prefaces. We should be entering a period of quiet diplomacy and consultation during which the Missal of 1962 should remain untouched. Engaging in this properly-structured process will have a number of benefits. Those who fear that the Missal of 1962 will be adulterated bit by bit, as happened during the 1960s, should be reassured that nothing will change until serious debate has taken place between the PCED and those who are attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition, and the PCED will be able to address itself to the task entrusted to it by Pope Benedict XVI without being inundated on a daily basis with requests for clarifications on various matters, many of which are trivial and serve only to overwhelm the staff in the Commission and divert them from the important work they are there to do. ●

Addendum:
The long-awaited clarification document, Universae Ecclesiae, was published by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 30th April 2011 and was subject to much comment and detailed analysis in the media. The International Federation Una Voce welcomed the document.

Although some have commented that Universae Ecclesiae still leaves some questions unclear, what is perfectly clear is that the Holy Father has fully restored to the universal Church the traditional Roman rite as enshrined in the liturgical books of 1962, that the rubrics in force in 1962 must be strictly observed, and that Latin and the Usus Antiquior must be taught in seminaries where there is a pastoral need. And this pastoral need must be determined by those who wish to benefit from Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, and not be decided by those many in authority whose natural desire is to prevent their implementation.

The International Federation Una Voce has worked patiently and tirelessly for the restoration of the traditional liturgy for more than 45 years and is now witnessing a vindication of its fidelity to Holy Mother Church and the See of Peter. However, its members, the lay faithful of Holy Mother Church, are fully aware that many in the ranks of the clergy have a burning desire to thwart their legitimate aspirations to benefit spiritually from the pastoral solicitude of Pope Benedict XVI. To this end, we who are beneficiaries of these documents, wish to state unequivocally that, while accepting the stated will of our Holy Father for the inclusion of new Saints and some new Prefaces into the Missal of 1962, we will respectfully and vigorously challenge any proposal that strays beyond these clearly defined limits and seeks to adulterate the integrity of that Missal.

Leo Darroch,
President – Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce.
30th January 2012.