Philadelphia Chapter

From Rorate Caeli

It will rise again, I tell you, […] the Mass will rise again, as I tell so many who come to me to complain (and they do it, at times, crying); and to him who asks me how I can be so sure of it, I answer (as a “poet”, if you would like) bringing him to my balcony and showing him the sun… It will be evening soon and there, in the church of San Domenico [in Fiesole], the friars will sing, at Vespers: Iam sol recedit igneus; but, in a few hours, those same Dominicans, my friends, will sing, at Prime: Iam lucis orto sidere – and thus every day.

The sun, I mean, will rise again, it will shine again after the night, to brighten up the earth from the sky, because…because it is the sun, and God thus established it for our life and comfort. Thus, I add, it is and thus it will be with the Mass – the Mass which is “ours”, Catholic, of all times, and of all people: our spiritual Sun, so beautiful, so saintly, and so sanctifying – against the delusions of the bats, driven out [of their hiding places] by the Reform, [who believe] that their hour, the hour of darkness, will not end.

And I recall: on this large balcony of mine we were several in a past year, watching the total solar eclipse. I remember, and I almost seem to feel it again, the feeling of coldness, of sadness, and almost of disillusion in watching it, in feeling the air darken and freeze, little by little. I remember the silence in the city, while the swallows… while the birds disappeared, frightened, and the repugnant chiropters appeared, flying in the sky.

To him who said, when the sun was entirely covered: -“What if it were not visible anymore?” – a thought to which none answered, almost as if not realizing the joke in it… The sun is visible anew, in fact, the sun rises again, after a brief daytime night, as beautiful as before and, as it seems, more than before, while the air is filled again by swallows, and the bats go back into hiding.

As before, luminous and beautiful, and yet being the same, the sun seems greater than it was before, as in … the Gospel [lesson] of the lost and found drachma.

As it was before, and greater than it was before: thus it will happen with the Mass, thus the Mass will seem to our eyes, guilty of not having esteemed it worthily before the eclipse; our hearts guilty for not having loved it enough.

Tito Casini
Nel fumo di Satana: verso l’ultimo scontro
Florence, 1976 (reposted)

First Friday, July 3, A.D. 2015, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be offered by Fr. Gerald Carey, Parochial Vicar of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church, at the Rectory Chapel of St. Albert The Great Parish, 212 Welsh Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, (T) 215-947-3500, at 7 p.m. preceded by Confessions at 6:30 p.m. This TLM will be the Mass of Saint Irenaeus – Bishop, Martyr, offered in Reparation to The Sacred Heart of Jesus. RED vestments.

First Saturday, 4th of July, A.D. 2015 Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be offered by Fr. Harold B. Mc Kale, Parish Vicar of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Roman Catholic Church, Doylestown, Pennsylvania at the Rectory Chapel of St. Albert The Great Parish, at 9 a.m., preceded by Confessions at 8:30 a.m. This TLM will be a Votive Mass (V) of the Blessed Virgin, offered in Reparation to The Immaculate Heart of Mary. WHITE vestments.

The St. Albert The Great Rectory, also known as the Parish Center, is behind the Church, which fronts on Welsh Road.

Mark Matthews

Priest: Rev. Fr. Harold McKale

Mass Intention: Mr. & Mrs. Fran Ciociola (Living) req. by John A. Laurito

*****************

Reminder: Please remember to write checks out to: Traditional Latin Mass Community of Philadelphia or TLM Community. Also, if you do not yet receive the newsletter e-mail, you can sign up on www.latinmassphila.org and click on the top menu under Contact. Thanks, Fr. McKale.

Upcoming TLM: At the Carmelite Monastery, located at 1400 66th Avenue, Philadelphia PA 19126, a Missa Cantata (High Mass) will be offered on Sunday, July 12 as part of the Novena to Our Lady of Mount Carmel (July 8 – 16). Rosary & Litany will be at 6:45pm and Mass at 7:30pm.

Available Mass Intentions: Please write legibly & include e-mail or telephone number (as of last week).

Sunday, August 16, 2015, Sunday, August 30, 2015,

Sunday, September 6, 2015, Sunday, Sunday, September 20, 2015,

Monday, September 21, 2015, Tuesday, September 22, 2015,

Wednesday, September 23, 2015, Thursday, September 24, 2015
(9am),

Thursday, September 24, 2015 (7pm), Friday, September 25, 2015,

New Mailing address:

Please do not send anything to Fr. McKale at Nativity BVM anymore. Please send all correspondence to him at OLMC Rectory, 235 E. State St., Doylestown 18901-4770. To contact Fr. McKale via e-mail for anything pertaining to the TLM, please use tlmcommunityofphila@gmail.com.

Also, please do not send anything to Fr. Kulczynski at Maternity BVM anymore. Please send correspondence to him at Holy Martyrs Rectory, 120 Allison Rd., Oreland 19075-1896. Thank you.

Welcome to St. Edmond Church

For your information:

To get to the restroom, one enters the door to the right of St Joseph’s altar (there is a sign that says restroom), and proceed through the wooden door. The restroom is on the LEFT.

The parking lot is behind the rectory, and the rectory is attached to the back of the Church. We can use the reserved spaces if necessary.

At St. Edmond Church, there is a ramp for use by anyone who has difficulty with steps. It is on the east side (observer’s left).

There is no rail, so we will be using the modesty panel in the front. Please look to the ushers for direction.

Please be patient as we all adjust to our new home.

Website: www.latinmassphila.org

International Institute for Culture: Check out upcoming events at http://www.iiculture.org/aboutus.asp

Events: If anyone has pertinent information that would be appropriate for our bulletin, please e-mail it to Fr. McKale @ tlmcommunityofphila@gmail.com.

Mass Intentions: If anyone still has unfulfilled Mass intentions, Fr. McKale can pass them on to a priest that will satisfy the intention by offering a TLM or Divine Liturgy (Byzantine). Please specify if you have a preference. The donation is $10. If you would like a Mass card, please include an extra $5 for the card. Mass cards should be in the back of Church.

********************************************

If you or people you know are attending the World Meeting of Families, please pass this information on to them.

WORLD MEETING OF FAMILIES TLM SCHEDULE

Sunday, September 20 Missa Cantata @ Noon at St. Edmond Church

Monday, September 21 through Friday, September 25 Low Mass @ 9am at Holy Redeemer Chinese Catholic Church (1/2 mile away from the Convention Center)

Thursday, September 24 Missa Cantata @ 7pm at Holy Redeemer in honor of Our Lady of Ransom

Saturday – No TLM scheduled

Sunday, September 27 Missa Cantata @ Noon @ St. Edmond Church

For other locations, please visit www.latinmassphila.org

From William Schenkel

I have sad and joyous news to share with your Organization . Dr. Lucy E. Carroll , DMA , the Organist and Choir Director for the Public Chapel of the Philadelphia Carmelite Monastery , passed away on Friday June 19 , 2015 at 5:30 PM .

Dr. Lucy Ellen Carroll , DMA , one of the writers that have contributed numerous articles to Adoremus Bulletin ( along with the Churchmouse Squeaks Cartoons ) passed away on Friday , June 19 , 2015 in Abington , PA . Lucy was admitted into Abington Hospital for Spinal Surgery , survived the 3 hour surgery with flying colors ; then , succumbed to a heart attack in the recovery room . Her wake will be held on Thursday , June 25th at the Plunkett Funeral Home in Hatboro PA and the Mass of Christian Burial will be held at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Doylestown , PA on Friday June 26 , 2015 .

Lucy was a dear friend these past 45 years ,

Yours,

William D. Schenkel

Peter Kwasniewski of

Two weeks ago we saw how masterfully Guardini spoke of the objectivity, preeminence, and emotional restraint of the sacred liturgy as the Church’s public prayer, and how tradition has bestowed on it a peculiarly balanced, well-rounded expression of the fullness of truth and integrity of doctrine, as well as how liturgy eagerly draws upon culture to enrich and elevate this expression.

This week, we take up at a gem of a work by the same author, Sacred Signs, first published in 1911. It would be difficult to exaggerate the beauty, power, and usefulness of this little book, which I have successfully used as a homeschooling assignment as well as a reading in college theology (it could serve many other purposes, too, such as a parish study circle). For many, this book has been a defining moment in coming to grasp the symbolic language of the liturgy, a language founded in a kind of heightened sensitivity to cosmology and psychology that moderns often lack. The table of contents reads like a grammar of ascent: “The Sign of the Cross, The Hands, Kneeling, Standing, Walking, Striking the Breast, Steps, Doors, Candles, Holy Water, Fire, Ashes, Incense, Light and Heat, Bread and Wine, Linen, The Altar, The Chalice, The Paten, Blessing, Space Sanctified, Bells, Time Sanctified—Morning, Evening, Midday, The Name of God.”

In this book, Guardini helps us to see the Mass as the crown jewel of the liturgical “work” of Christ, who works through His Mystical Body to continue our divinization through sign, symbol, and sacrament. It is the Church’s supreme and ancient love affair with Christ, where He has met to court her sweetly mid-way between heaven and earth, using the tools of every lover—song, word, gesture, symbol. In this splendorous spectacle of their love, we too are invited to join. We yearn to be an active partner in this drama of “fairest love.” To do that, we must make our own the Church’s liturgical love-language, taught Her by Christ, so that with all the angels and Saints we can adore God with that “fairest love” we all desire. Through liturgy, Holy Church teaches us to love God as he deserves. Let us learn from Her!

Sacred Signs has been out of print for a very long time, and used copies are scarce. Since the text itself is in the public domain, I decided to produce a new edition of it, available here for $7.00. I’m pleased with the way it turned out.

Now for some tastes, to show why this has been a favorite book of so many readers over the past century!

* * *
Kneeling

When a man feels proud of himself, he stands erect, draws himself to his full height, throws back his head and shoulders and says with every part of his body, I am bigger and more important than you. But when he is humble he feels his littleness, and lowers his head and shrinks into himself. He abases himself. And the greater the presence in which he stands the more deeply he abases himself; the smaller he becomes in his own eyes.
But when does our littleness so come home to us as when we stand in God’s presence? He is the great God, who is today and yesterday, whose years are hundreds and thousands, who fills the place where we are, the city, the wide world, the measureless space of the starry sky, in whose eyes the universe is less than a particle of dust, all-holy, all-pure, all-righteous, infinitely high. He is so great, I so small, so small that beside him I seem hardly to exist, so wanting am I in worth and substance. One has no need to be told that God’s presence is not the place in which to stand on one’s dignity. To appear less presumptuous, to be as little and low as we feel, we sink to our knees and thus sacrifice half our height; and to satisfy our hearts still further we bow down our heads, and our diminished stature speaks to God and says, Thou art the great God; I am nothing.
Therefore let not the bending of our knees be a hurried gesture, an empty form. Put meaning into it. To kneel, in the soul’s intention, is to bow down before God in deepest reverence.
On entering a church, or in passing before the altar, kneel down all the way without haste or hurry, putting your heart into what you do, and let your whole attitude say, Thou art the great God. It is an act of humility, an act of truth, and every time you kneel it will do your soul good.

Incense

“And I saw an angel come and stand before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, and the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.” So writes Saint John in the mysterious book of the Apocalypse.
The offering of an incense is a generous and beautiful rite. The bright grains of incense are laid upon the red-hot charcoal, the censer is swung, and the fragrant smoke rises in clouds. In the rhythm and the sweetness there is a musical quality; and like music also is the entire lack of practical utility: it is a prodigal waste of precious material. It is a pouring out of unwithholding love.
“When the Lord was at supper Mary brought the spikenard of great price and poured it over his feet and wiped them with her hair, and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.” Narrower spirits objected. “Whereto this waste?” But the Son of God has spoken, “Let her alone. She hath done it against my burial.” Mary’s anointing was a mystery of death and love and the sweet savor of sacrifice.
The offering of incense is like Mary’s anointing at Bethany. It is as free and objectless as beauty. It burns and is consumed like love that lasts through death. And the arid soul still takes his stand and asks the same question: What is the good of it?
It is the offering of a sweet savor which Scripture itself tells us is the prayers of the Saints. Incense is the symbol of prayer. Like pure prayer it has in view no object of its own; it asks nothing for itself. It rises like the Gloria Patri at the end of a psalm in adoration and thanksgiving to God for his great glory.
It is true that symbolism of this sort may lead to mere aestheticism. There are imaginations in which the fragrant clouds of incense induce a spurious religiosity; and, in such instances, when it does so, the Christian conscience does right to protest that prayer should be made in spirit and in truth. But though prayer is a plain, straight-forward business, it is not the so-much-for-so-muchness which the niggardly imagination and fleshless heart of the religious Philistine would make of it. The same spirit persists that produced the objection of Judas of Kerioth. Prayer is not to be measured by its bargaining power; it is not a matter of bourgeois common sense.
Minds of this order know nothing of that magnanimous prayer that seeks only to give. Prayer is a profound act of worship, that asks neither why nor wherefore. It rises like beauty, like sweetness, like love. The more there is in it of love, the more of sacrifice. And when the fire has wholly consumed the sacrifice, a sweet savor ascends.

SOURCE

Sacred Signs. First published 1911. Trans. Grace Branham (St. Louis: Pio Decimo Press, 1956). Now available again in print.

Posted by liturgy guy on the site “liturgy guy, Life, Liturgy, and the Pursuit of Holiness”

The below [sic] Manifesto of the Catholic Laity was drafted by English Catholics twenty years before the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Dated Pentecost 1943, the long forgotten letter was discovered in the Archives of the Archbishop of Westminster, and appears as a footnote in Dom Alcuin Reid’s excellent work The Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2005, pp. 103-104).

This articulate and heartfelt plea of English Catholics for the preservation of something as venerable as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite is still inspiring to read over seventy years later. It also serves as an important reminder that the “reformers” of the twentieth century Liturgical Movement were very busy in the decades leading up to the Council. Knowing as we do now that the words of this manifesto would have little impact, and that the liturgical revolution would commence in twenty short years, makes this an even more compelling read today.

Manifesto of the Catholic Laity

“We, the undersigned Catholic Layfolk, desire…to make known our true feelings with regard to the present controversy concerning the language used by the Church in her public worship.

“We utterly repudiate the subversive efforts that are being made to discredit the use of the Latin Liturgy, a precious heritage brought to the English people by Saint Augustine of Canterbury from our glorious Apostle, Saint Gregory the Great, and which we are proud to have preserved intact these fourteen hundred years, even throughout the hardships and dangers of the penal times.

“We therefore protest that we are opposed to all attempts to tamper with this venerable Liturgy, or to substitute for it a copy of any non-Catholic rite, however beautiful or impressive.

“We strongly resent the implication that we and our children are not sufficiently intelligent to understand the simple Latin of the Mass, and we declare our readiness to do all we can to equip ourselves with the necessary knowledge so as to be able to take a more active and intelligent part in our parochial Mass.

“We also respectfully petition our bishops to use their authority to make the teaching of simple liturgical Latin obligatory in all our Catholic schools, since we are convinced that such instruction would be of immense spiritual and intellectual value to our children and would help them to realise more vividly the supra-national character of our faith.

“Finally we very humbly beg our Clergy to help our efforts by a distinct and deliberate enunciation of all the words of the Liturgy, so as to make it possible for every one of us to become more at home with the spiritual language of our Holy Mother Church, and thus to assist at her public worship with greater understanding and devotion.”

These words are as relevant today as when they were first penned in 1943. Pray that many priests and bishops may read them now and take them to heart.

By Mark Nowakowski, on One Peter Five Site

Most Catholics in our world seem to take a flippant attitude towards liturgical music. It is all-too-frequently deemed something suitable for competent amateurs, of lesser concern and of secondary importance – until, of course, it isn’t.

The news this week of the unexpected and noteworthy resignation of Johh Romeri as head of Liturgical Music in Philadelphia has put the issue of music front and center in the Catholic world. Mr. Romeri – once named “Full-time Pastoral Musician of the Year” by the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, is held in high regard as a performer, educator, and clinician in the world of Catholic music. It is worth noting that he is generally considered an aesthetic moderate, and thus, not a controversial figure.

Regarding the reasons for his resignation, Romeri cited a “constant griping” on the part of his boss, Archbishop Chaput, and “irreconcilable differences” regarding their understanding of the role of music in the liturgy. Perusing the Sacred Triduum congregational Mass handout for 2015, we can see Romeri’s tasteful selection of music, which alternated between simple chants, congregational singing, and choral polyphony. It is the kind of musical selection that might be heard in many liturgically conservative areas, and comparable to the regular and excellently executed musical fare at the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. The work of this latter has become, by most accounts, the American standard for music at a well-executed Novus Ordo. It is therefore distressing that Romeri, in his otherwise genteel and understated letter of resignation, wrote:

“This Holy Week, while [sic]some of the most beautiful liturgies I have ever conducted, was not well received by the archbishop. This is the continuation of several years of discontent on his part with the Liturgical Music at the Cathedral and at Archdiocesan liturgies. There are simply irreconcilable differences in our understanding of the role of music in the Liturgy and the role of the choir. While at this point, I am not sure just what my next musical adventure looks like, it is absolutely the right thing for me to leave this present situation.”

While Archbishop Chaput is a well-respected and highly articulate theological conservative – as well as a gifted homilist – he has never been known for liturgical traditionalism. This author recalls his time spent in Denver, where Abp. Chaput’s masses were often accompanied by a well-rehearsed but aesthetically deficient contemporary band. The kind of music presented on these occasions rarely reflected the wishes of the Church regarding proper liturgical fare. In light of this, one can only speculate that the Archbishop may be pushing his See’s music program to sound more “contemporary” and less Catholic, especially in anticipation of the pope’s forthcoming visit to Philadelphia.

Regardless of the reason, this tragic misunderstanding between competent ecclesial authority and competent musical authority brings to light a long-standing conflict between the proper Catholic aesthetic and what is assumed to be the aesthetic derived from the so-called “Spirit of the Council.”

The simple fact that Catholic liturgy has historically evolved organically along with its music – that it is traditionally a sung liturgy (as aptly documented in William Mahrt’s “The Musical Shape of the Liturgy”) – puts music near the center of the hermeneutical debate over authentic liturgical development that is such a staple of modern Catholic discourse. Yet it seems that outside of the small community of competent musical authorities, few Catholics – let alone their clergy – seem cognizant of the fact that musical choices in the Mass are anything but a “matter of taste.”

The “tyranny of taste” is part of the “dictatorship of relativism,” each boiling over, often with disastrous results, into the Church’s liturgical life. This situation is made worse by a strong lack of seminary education on Catholic liturgical music and aesthetics, along with a general attitude which precludes the competent Church musician’s natural authority in such matters. At the very least, a pastor or bishop should know that the Church has specific wishes in regards [sic] to music in the liturgy, and be able to hire a well-trained music director to execute the Church’s vision. The pastor or bishop should also be willing to consult with – and when appropriate, defer to – the director’s long developed specialty. In the case of Mr. Romeri, we have just such a specialist whose clear, Catholic aesthetic vision seems to have been senselessly pushed aside. Only time – and the future musical direction of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia – will reveal to what extent this conflict was over a proper understanding of the Church’s musical tradition and aesthetics. We’ll be watching – and listening – very carefully indeed.

3rd Sunday after Pentecost

Priest: Rev. Fr. Dennis Carbonaro

Mass Intention: Frank & Carol Saraco (Deceased) req. by Lisa Saraco

*****************

Reminder: Please remember to write checks out to: Traditional Latin Mass Community of Philadelphia or TLM Community. Also, if you do not yet receive the newsletter e-mail, you can sign up on www. latinmassphila.org ad click on the top menu under Contact. Thanks, Fr. McKale .

New Mailing address:

Please do not send anything to Fr. McKale at Nativity BVM anymore. Please send all correspondence to him at OLMC Rectory, 235 E. State St., Doylestown 18901-4770.

Also, please do not send anything to Fr. Kulczynski at Maternity BVM anymore. Please send correspondence to him at Holy Martyrs Rectory, 120 Allison Rd., Oreland 19075-1896. Thank you.

Welcome to St. Edmond Church

For your information:

To get to the restroom, one enters the door to the right of St Joseph’s altar (there is a sign that says restroom), and proceeds through the wooden door. The restroom is on the LEFT.

The parking lot is behind the rectory, and the rectory is attached to the back of the Church. We can use the reserved spaces as well if needs be.

At St. Edmond Church, there is a ramp for use by anyone who has difficulty with steps. It is on the east side (observer’s left).

There is no rail, so we will be using the modesty panel in the front. Please look to the ushers for direction.

Please be patient as well all adjust to our new home.

Website: www.latinmassphila.org

International Institute for Culture: Check out upcoming events at http://www.iiculture.org/aboutus.asp

Events: If anyone has pertinent information that would be appropriate for our bulletin, please e-mail it to Fr. McKale @ frmckalenativitybvm@gmail.com.

Mass Intentions: If anyone still has unfulfilled Mass intentions, Fr. McKale can pass them on to a priest that will satisfy the intention by offering a TLM or Divine Liturgy (Byzantine). Please specify if you have a preference. The donation is $10. If you would like a Mass card, please include an extra $5 for the card. Mass cards should be in the back of Church.

********************************************

If you or people you know are attending the World Meeting of Families, please pass this information on to them.

WORLD MEETING OF FAMILIES TLM SCHEDULE

Sunday, September 20 Missa Cantata @ Noon at St. Edmond Church

Monday, September 21 through Friday, September 25 Low Mass @ 9am at Holy Redeemer Chinese Catholic Church (1/2 mile away from the Convention Center)

Thursday, September 24 Missa Cantata @ 7pm at Holy Redeemer in honor of Our Lady of Ransom

Saturday – No TLM scheduled

Sunday, September 27 Missa Cantata @ Noon @ St. Edmond Church

For other locations, please visit www.latinmassphila.org

by Peter Kwasniewski, of NLM

Obviously, not the zealous Catholics who participated in the Sacra Liturgia 2015 conference and its liturgies. According to some left-leaning news reports, the conference was an esoteric gathering of a tiny elite. Interesting. I was there for the whole time and I saw hundreds of people, mostly young and middle-aged, including families with small children who came for the Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Manhattan — the vast majority born after the annus horribilis of 1970. When one looks at photos of more liberal gatherings, one tends to see a disproportionate representation of graybeards and aging hippies, longing nostalgically (one might say) for the good old days.

In truth, the Sacra Liturgia conference was a glimpse of the future of the Church. Even as the statistics tell us that bored, uncatechized, unchallenged, and utterly secular faithful are leaving the Church in droves, we see renewal coming from a joyful and serene embrace of the Church’s patrimony of liturgy, doctrine, morality, beauty, and holiness. Experience, a good teacher yet seldom heeded, tells us that most of the reforms following in the wake of Vatican II have been a resounding failure; experience is also telling us that the way forward is the recovery of Tradition.

Let us return to our question. Who, after all, can be afraid of or offended by pomp and splendor? Well, some of the bishops at the Second Vatican Council were certainly nervous about it, at times indignant. In the first volume of his Vatican Council Notebooks,[1] Henri De Lubac notes a number of speeches of council fathers who seemed to be calling for a “church of the poor” in a manner strikingly reminiscent of recent papal statements:

Bishop Argaya, Spanish, expressed a wish “de solemnibus . . . formis simplificandis” [concerning the solemn forms to be simplified]. The norms should be: pietas, simplicitas, et dignitas. Let everything be brought back to the spirit of the Gospel, especially in the Pontifical. We should eliminate everything that in dress and ceremonies resembles “alicui pompae humanae et mundanae” [some human and worldly pomp]. (p. 177)

Bishop Pham Ngoc Chi of Quinhen, Vietnam. No. 47: the ceremonies are too long and too complicated. (244)

A bishop from Vietnam. … Let us eliminate the maniple and the amice, useless. (277) [Note 2]

A bishop from Chile, in the name of numerous bishops of South America: on the necessity of poverty. Renounce all “vanitas”; vestments should be simpler. We must be Ecclesia docens, non verbo tantum, sed re [the teaching Church, not in word alone but also in deed]. (278)

An Italian bishop. … We can accept greater simplicity in the vestments. (278)

Bishop Paul Gouyon of Bayonne. Evangelical poverty. Simplify the vestments, even the liturgical ones, etc. (278)

Archbishop Joseph Urtasun of Avignon: on no. 89. (1) Missa pontificalis simplicior reddatur; minuantur honores externi. [Let the pontifical Mass be made simpler; let the external gestures of honor be reduced.] (281-82)

Archbishop Henrique Trindade of Botucatu, Brazil. … “humana vanitas” [human vanity]: yes, alas! … Remember that true beauty lies in simplicity; it is compatible with austerity and poverty. Remember also the demands of our times. … The temporal princes have disappeared, but, proh dolor! the Church preserves princely baubles. The legitimate tradition is the antiquissima et genuina liturgia [the most ancient and genuine liturgy]; that is, the life of Christ, consummata in cruce. For a serious reform, nunc est tempus opportunum [now is the opportune moment]. … All of us are acquainted with the social situation, the aversio a luxu et ostentatione [the aversion towards luxury and ostentation]. Reducantur res ad antiquam formam [Let things be brought back to the ancient form]. (283-84)

Here we can see how ideas prevalent among the Modernists resurfaced at the Council. For Pope St. Pius X had written in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Regarding worship, they [the modernists] say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase … They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty …

From a more positive angle, Pope Pius X had praised the Church’s cultivation of fine art in his encyclical on St. Gregory the Great, Iucunda Sane:

The arts modeled on the supreme exemplar of all beauty which is God Himself, from whom is derived all the beauty to be found in nature, are more securely withdrawn from vulgar concepts and more efficaciously rise towards the ideal, which is the life of all art. And how fruitful of good has been the principle of employing them in the service of divine worship and of offering to the Lord everything that is deemed to be worthy of him, by reason of its richness, its goodness, its elegance of form. This principle has created sacred art, which became and still continues to be the foundation of all profane art. We have recently touched upon this in a special motu proprio [viz., Tra Le Sollecitudini] when speaking of the restoration of the Roman Chant according to the ancient tradition and of sacred music. And the same rules are applicable to the other arts, each in its own sphere, so that what has been said of the Chant may also be said of painting, sculpture, architecture; and towards all these most noble creations of genius the Church has been lavish of inspiration and encouragement. The whole human race, fed on this sublime ideal, raises magnificent temples, and here in the House of God, as in its own house, lifts up its heart to heavenly things in the midst of the treasures of all beautiful art, with the majesty of liturgical ceremony, and to the accompaniment of the sweetest of song.

Not all of the council fathers were as short-sighted as their confreres quoted above; indeed, many would have concurred with the sentiments of Pope Pius X. In addition to the large number of prelates who expressed grave concerns over the negative pastoral effects of rapidly changing liturgical texts, ceremonies, and customs and who, appreciating the need for better catechesis and formation, saw nothing really broken in the liturgy that needed “fixing,” there were at least three — in de Lubac’s telling — who directly addressed the “simplifying” trend of thought:

Bishop Luis Hernandez Almarcha of Léon (Spain). No. 99: do not allow ancient works of art to be destroyed. Revere and preserve ecclesiastical traditions. Guard our treasures. Found institutes of sacred art and practical schools. (282)

The Abbot of the Olivetans. De sacra supellectile [on sacred furnishings]. In our regions, no scandal; on the contrary, populus christianus videt cum magna laetitia [the Christian people regard with great joy] everything that contributes to the splendor of the ceremonies. Jesus, who was poor in his private life, received ointment on his feet. Cf. Saint Thomas, Prima Secundae, q. 102, art. 5, ad 10. And the holy Curé of Ars. The Church has always loved beautiful churches, etc. We must preserve our sacred patrimony, see to it that sacred objects do not become secular possessions. (282-83)

The Abbot of the Canons Regular of the Lateran. … Propter splendorem cultus divini [On account of the splendor of divine worship], do not suppress the usus pontificalium [the use of pontifical insignia]. He claimed to speak in the name of several canons regular and even of the Benedictine and Cistercian abbots. (283)

Another archbishop warned of “the new iconoclasts” (p. 282) who wanted to strip the churches of their sacred images.

Thanks be to God, sacred images most broadly understood — all the sensible signs that draw our minds and hearts to the transcendent beauty of God, conveying to us something of His divine attributes and powerfully expressing our own acts of faith, hope, and charity — these images were alive and well in the “treasures of all beautiful art” with which we were surrounded in the first week of June in New York City, in the churches of St. Catherine of Siena, St. John Nepomucene, and St. Vincent Ferrer. Laus Deo!

NOTES

[1] Henri de Lubac, Vatican Council Notebooks, vol. 1, trans. Andrew Stefanelli and Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015). Note that de Lubac writes in a blend of Latin (when quoting the council fathers) and French. The French was, of course, translated into English, but the Latin was left intact; English has been supplied in brackets. In the Ignatius Press edition, the Latin is not italicized.

[2] This, in itself, speaks volumes: all of the vestments are, in a certain sense, useless. They are not worn because they are useful; jeans and a T-shirt might suffice if utility were the only criterion. See my article “Maniples, Amices, Cassocks–Lost and Found.”

By Steve Skojec, on One Peter 5 Site

Dr. Jeff Mirus is the Founder and President of CatholicCulture.org, one of the most popular Catholic websites on the Internet. CatholicCulture does a lot of good work for the Church, and we link to their articles frequently to buttress the points made in our own work.

Last week, however, Mirus wrote a perplexing article entitled, “The vernacular in, Latin out. Why?” In it, Mirus argues forcefully against the use of Latin in the liturgy:

I know that some Catholics remain very attached to Latin in the liturgy. The arguments in favor of it are easily summarized and a significant number of the Council fathers did make those arguments: In 1962, these arguments were as follows: First, Latin facilitated the universality of the Church because it enables every Catholic to worship in the same language; second, Latin had been used to good effect for a very long time, with the result that there was a great wealth of liturgical material in that language; third, the use of Latin made it easier to avoid certain dangers of change and experimentation which are congenial to the modern mind; fourth, the continued use of Latin in the liturgy would make it easier to maintain Latin as the official language of the Church.

There was merit in all of these points. However, it must be said that the first conveniently ignored other rites, traditions, and accommodations already in force in non-Western regions. Moreover, the third argument reflected a dominant fear of the pre-conciliar generation, the fear of running new risks (as I explained in Vibrant Catholicism, 1: Lamenting the entire 20th century). The great weakness of this attitude was its presumption that maintaining the status quo was not itself a grave risk—which was the whole point of Pope St. John XXIII in calling the Council. (Perhaps I should also mention that, as far as I can tell, no Council father made the argument, often heard later, that saying prayers in a language one did not understand created a more mysterious, reverent and transcendent atmosphere.)

His re-statement of the arguments in favor of Latin may sound like just “points” or opinions, but they are in fact drawn, at least in part, from Magisterial teaching at the time. While the unfamiliar may think his mention of 1962 was in reference to the opening of the Second Vatican Council in October of that year, there was another event that happened in February, 1962 that has special significance to this topic: the publication of Pope St. John XXIII’s apostolic constitution, Veterum Sapientia.

It is important to note that an apostolic constitution is the most authoritative form of papal document. More than an an apostolic exhortation or letter, more than an encyclical, the apostolic constitution sits at the top of the hierarchy of magisterial texts, along with conciliar documents and decrees. In other words, apostolic constitutions are binding on the entire Church.

So what does Veterum Sapientia say about Latin? More than we can adequately summarize here. Suffice to say that Mirus’ objections were already considered by Pope St. John in this important papal document. With that in mind, I will attempt to break down Mirus’ arguments so that we can see the ways in which this text corresponds to (and precludes) his objections. I will present a paraphrase/summary of Mirus’ argument first (only using quotation marks when quoting him directly), a response from Veterum Sapientia next, and if necessary, my own comment beneath.

Mirus: The argument that Latin facilitates the Church’s universality through a unified language of worship ignores “other rites, traditions, and accommodations in force in non-Western regions.”

Veterum Sapientia:

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

[…]

Since “every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,” and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

My Comment: It is important to note that Pope St. John was specifically instructing those Churches of the Latin rite. That is to say – the Roman Catholic Church. The Apostolic See has always made provisions for the other rites of the Church to retain their structure and language, as is evident in the liturgies of the Byzantine, Ukranian, Greek, Melkite, Ethiopian Coptic, and other Catholic rites.

Strangely, Mirus glosses over the second argument in favor of Latin — namely, that it “had been used to good effect for a very long time, with the result that there was a great wealth of liturgical material in that language”; but this is a point of serious significance, not just in the liturgy, but in the Deposit of faith as a Whole. As Veterum Sapientia states:

[T]he Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Mirus: The argument that the use of Latin made it easier to avoid certain dangers of change and experimentation which are congenial to the modern mind “reflected a dominant fear of the pre-conciliar generation, the fear of running new risks … The great weakness of this attitude was its presumption that maintaining the status quo was not itself a grave risk…”

Veterum Sapientia:

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

My Comment: VS makes explicitly clear that the Church, “precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” Immutability is a key feature of the retention of Latin. If there was a “dominant fear” of “running new risks” as Mirus states, the half-century since the Council has shown it to be a well-founded one. Aggiornamento has been proven to be a spectacular failure, as every poll conducted on core Catholic belief, Mass attendance, and adherence to moral teaching attests.

But it is also worth noting that a great deal of the discord now reigning in the Church is because of an inability to communicate effectively across cultures. To give a perfect and commonplace example: think of the frequency with which Catholics are upset upon reading a report of some strange thing that Pope Francis has been alleged to have said, only to be later informed that the confusion was due to a translation error.

It was the Church’s ancient wisdom that official pronouncements were made first in Latin, so that discrepancies such as these were easily cleared up, so that idiom and colloquialism were unable to confuse translators, and precision of thought and speech would bring clarity, not misunderstanding.

Mirus then goes on, again, to ignore the fourth argument he re-states in favor of Latin: that “continued use of Latin in the liturgy would make it easier to maintain Latin as the official language of the Church.”

Again, VS contends that this is an important concern:

We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons — the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods — are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

[…]

In the exercise of their [the Bishops] paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Mirus: Only the educated people in the West knew Latin, and that period of history had already come to an end. Latin was no longer the language of the people, or for that matter, of science, law, and medicine…

Veterum Sapientia:

It is a matter of regret that so many people, unaccountably dazzled by the marvelous progress of science, are taking it upon themselves to oust or restrict the study of Latin and other kindred subjects…. Yet, in spite of the urgent need for science, Our own view is that the very contrary policy should be followed. The greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to man’s nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build — cold, hard, and devoid of love.

Mirus: The language of international diplomacy had moved away from Latin by the mid-to-late 20th century, and its retention in various areas of study after its time as the vernacular was favored only because of a “Euro-centric” world – a world which was no longer in focus.

Veterum Sapientia:

[T]he Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

Mirus: Even the educated men and women of the latter half of the 20th century were ignorant of Latin.

Veterum Sapientia:

There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.

[…]

Wherever the study of Latin has suffered partial eclipse through the assimilation of the academic program to that which obtains in State public schools, with the result that the instruction given is no longer so thorough and well-grounded as formerly, there the traditional method of teaching this language shall be completely restored. Such is Our will, and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the necessity of keeping a strict watch over the course of studies followed by Church students; and that not only as regards the number and kinds of subjects they study, but also as regards the length of time devoted to the teaching of these subjects.

Mirus: Seminarians were also ignorant of Latin.

Veterum Sapientia:

Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

[…]

As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, following a method designed to teach them the language with the utmost accuracy. “And that too for this reason: lest later on, when they begin their major studies . . . they are unable by reason of their ignorance of the language to gain a full understanding of the doctrines or take part in those scholastic disputations which constitute so excellent an intellectual training for young men in the defense of the faith.”

We wish the same rule to apply to those whom God calls to the priesthood at a more advanced age, and whose classical studies have either been neglected or conducted too superficially. No one is to be admitted to the study of philosophy or theology except he be thoroughly grounded in this language and capable of using it.

[…]

In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, “must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts.”

Mirus: Catholicism was experiencing growth in the third world — notably Africa and Asia — making Latin impractical since it did not form the basis for the languages of the people there.

Veterum Sapientia:

[T]he “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”

Mirus: Non-European members of the Curia were treated as outsiders. To that end, Latin had become “the language of ecclesiastical insiders—the language of the club.”

Veterum Sapientia:

[T]he Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

My Comment: This complaint requires further comment, since it steps outside the scope of Latin and into internal Church affairs. If Euro-centrism or other forms of elitism within the Curia are the problems, then deal with those problems. Latin has nothing to do with exclusionary practices, provided that prelates from across the world are educated in it, as they should be.

The Church, by its nature as a global, universal religion, requires a universal language to transcend nationalities and allow for communication amongst its prelates, clergy and theologians. If not Latin, then what? If Catholic constituencies of every nation are to communicate each in their own vernacular, this creates an obstacle to understanding where clarity and unity are of paramount importance.

Mirus: Latin affected all the Mass parts, not just the “Ordinary of the Mass” (the parts that always stay the same.) All of the Propers (the parts of the Mass that change) were also in Latin, as were the readings.

Veterum Sapientia (stated again as cited above):

In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

My Comment: This is precisely the point of a universal liturgy for a universal Church. A Catholic of the Latin rite should be able to go to Mass in New York or Naples, Baton Rouge or Belgium, and experience the same liturgy. It is already a common practice during the Mass according to the 1962 Missal to offer the readings a second time in the vernacular preceding the homily, but the rest of the liturgy can (and should!) be easily followed in a hand missal. (I have written before about my own ignorance of Latin; it is no impediment in my attendance at the Traditional Latin Mass.)

Even Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council, stated in no uncertain terms:

36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

In a more permissive section of the document, we read:

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Latin was never meant to be removed from the liturgy. This is not what the Council Fathers agreed to.

The loss of the Church’s universal liturgical language represents part of a larger phenomenon that is creating a new scattering of Babel within our Faith. With the additional deconstruction of the rubrics of the Mass in the Novus Ordo, we also have lost the uniformity of sacred posture, gesture, and vesture. The diversification of language and action within the context of modern liturgy creates a disunifying experience for Catholics. Many of us have experienced this when traveling. Picking a Mass at random in a strange town can mean an experience that is either comfortable and familiar or (most often) almost completely alien, depending on the circumstances.

Mirus: In addition, the other sacraments and the Divine Office were prayed in Latin.

My Comment: This is a point that Veterum Sapientia does not directly address, and is one I partially agree with. I believe fervently in the superiority of the theology in the older sacramental forms — particularly baptism — and I think Latin plays a common role here to that offered in the Liturgy. On the other hand, the matter of the Divine Office may merit some consideration. I know some priests who, through their proficiency in Latin, can pray the office in that language with no ill effect — and it seems clear that such proficiency was willed by Pope St. John for all priests. Still, I have no particular objection to the praying of the breviary in the vernacular, provided that it is a faithful translation. I have an electronic copy of the 1962 Divine Office with Latin and English side-by-side. I find the presence of both informative, and when I have the opportunity to pray it, I switch back and forth between the languages, depending on my familiarity with each section.

In conclusion, while I understand the pragmatic reasoning behind the objection Mirus presents, I find that these not only fall short, but in fact contradict the provisions laid out by Pope John XXIII, who issued his constitution “in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority” and who said “We will and command that all the decisions, decrees, proclamations and recommendations of this Our Constitution remain firmly established and ratified, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however worthy of special note.”

In other words – this is what the Church believes about Latin as the language of the Church. Neither Dr. Mirus — nor the bishops he goes on to quote from to bolster his arguments — have the authority to change it.

The universality of the Church’s living language is of particular importance in the common prayer of the liturgy, the communication between clergy, and in the production of documents pertaining to the deposit and practice of the faith. And when so many of these arguments boil down to “People don’t know this stuff anymore,” or “it’s just too difficult,” they ring particularly hollow. Literacy has never been higher in the world. Access to modern printing techniques and digital content makes it possible to put resources in the hands of every Catholic to help them to understand — or at least follow along — with any sacrament offered in Latin.

Good Pope John didn’t seem particularly impressed with this sort of argument, either. When addressing professors of Theology and Philosophy, he wrote, “professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.”

With respect to Dr. Mirus, vernacular comes and goes, but Latin will always be the living language of the Church.

UPDATE: Despite the still-binding nature of Veterum Sapientia, some will be tempted (erroneously) to write it off as a pre-conciliar document. I was reminded by a reader, however, that the current code of Canon Law also mandates that seminarians learn Latin:

Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.

There’s really no wiggle room on this.