Philadelphia Chapter

Peter Kwasniewski

Sacred Scripture says: “In much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow” (Ecclesiastes 1:18). The more a devout Catholic studies the history, theology, and spirituality of the Roman liturgy, the more he or she tends to become deeply discontented with the current state of affairs; and if this student has been fortunate enough to discover in a personal way the traditional Latin Mass, Divine Office, sacramental rites, blessings, processions, and so forth, sharp melancholy and intense indignation are bound to ensue. How could it be otherwise? One comes to see the vast, rich treasures that were squandered; one comes to see the shallow, brittle academic novelties that were set up in their place. One sees how it is a replay of Esau trading his birthright for a mess of pottage (or a pot of message), except that this time, it was, grievously, Jacob who did the trading. The Novus Ordo becomes, in a sense, largely spoiled for those who, making an earnest inquiry into the history of the Roman Rite, acquire a keen awareness of the imaginative archaeologisms and audacious innovations introduced by the Consilium in the 1960s and 1970s.[1]

For example, knowing how and why the new “preparation of the gifts” was put together and the old Offertory abolished makes it all the more distracting, even distressing, to hear in person those quasi-Jewish prayers of blessing, which are a total and complete fabrication and aberration in the Roman Rite (or really, in any classical rite).[2] Or knowing how and why the venerable Roman Canon, most ancient of anaphoras, was criticized, nearly cancelled out, and, although retained, eventually marginalized by other manufactured anaphoras that have zero place in the Roman liturgical tradition is enough to make one shudder every time the shorty-sporty Eucharistic Prayer II is selected.[3] It is not easy to go back through those church doors, time after time, fully aware of the spectacle of rupture and discontinuity playing out before one’s eyes and ears in so many texts and gestures — or more often, in so many screaming absences of text and gesture.

How easy, how fruitful, how consoling it would be if one could simply attend the traditional Latin Mass, and peacefully drink in its secrets, its wealth of prayer, its its pure and holy adoration. Yet we are still very far from a situation in which it is possible for most Catholics to attend the TLM on a regular basis.

In fortunate cases, I can find “pegs” in the new liturgy to hang on to, which enable me to yield myself to the liturgical action without too much critical reflection. If, for example, Mass is celebrated in such a way that the preparation of the gifts is done silently while the Offertory antiphon is being sung, I am able to forget about the quasi-Jewish blessing, since my attention is being drawn to the chant, which is truly an element of continuity. Cloaked in this way, the silent Offertory almost looks like the real thing; there is, one might say, a welcome illusion of continuity with the Roman tradition. In general, if Gregorian chants are sung, if there are times of silence, if people kneel for communion, and, above all, if the priest is facing ad orientem, any or all of the above becomes a very substantial help to me in maintaining an interior calm and a focus on the Lord. One ceases to be the theater critic[4] and becomes the simple believer. But when these traditional elements are mostly or altogether absent (as they too often are), what hits me in the face is the massive fact of discontinuity, together with my knowledge of the dubious and, at times, modernist reasons for that discontinuity.

One is hit, as it were, with a left hook and a right hook — an immediate, aesthetic, intuitive reaction, and an intellectual, spiritual, reflective reaction, both negative. And that makes the time at church poorly spent: one can become frustrated and annoyed, and feel that one does not have the right dispositions for receiving Holy Communion. Is it not true for a large number of the faithful — larger than officialdom would ever admit — that the Ordinary Form as typically celebrated puts a serious, almost fatal cap on our genuine “active participation”? Far from helping us along on the road to perfection, attracting us with its inner mystery and outward beauty, such a Mass is an event we just try to get through as quickly and painlessly as possible, hoping we will not think too much about anything we are seeing or hearing. How ironic, that a rite so drastically overhauled and reworked with a view to “reaching the people at last” and soliciting their hearty involvement has, in reality, turned off and distanced so many of the faithful over the decades and made distasteful the very concept of active participation — in spite of the utterly traditional understanding and pedigree of this venerable principle.[5]

With all this spiritual trouble that my decades of studying the liturgy have brought, do I ever find myself wishing that I didn’t know the various things I now know? If I could turn back the clock to a point in time when I naïvely thought the reformed Mass was the cat’s meow, would I prefer that state of ignorance, in order to have an easier time worshiping in this impoverished zone, this region of dissimilitude?

No, in all honesty, I can’t say that. My spiritual life would never have grown as it did, nor my grasp of sacred theology, had it not been for the beauty, reverence, and profundity of the traditional liturgy that I discovered as a young man, fell in love with, and now long for ceaselessly.[6] I would not today be a Benedictine Oblate praying the Divine Office, which is a source of tremendous vitality, light, and consolation to me. My situation is far from optimal, due to the irregular availability of the traditional liturgy in my community, but I do not regret bearing the cross of knowledge, which has opened to me a whole world of wonders to which I would otherwise be blind. It is a flowering cross, and I imagine the same is true for many who love traditional ways.

Sometimes people ask me why it makes such a difference whether one attends the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form. Aren’t they essentially the same — the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Don’t you “get Jesus” at either?

Usually the one asking this common question does not really grasp how great the difference is between the forms, and how much they actually form us, how much they express and shape the very content our faith.[7] The liturgy is an ethical-aesthetic event, it’s not a supernatural slot-machine for receiving a sacrament. How we worship is itself a definite exercise of faith, hope, and charity, one that prepares us well or ill for union with the object of these virtues. Liturgy is a certain icon of Christ and, in a way, an icon of man approaching Christ. Our very self-understanding and our orientation to God, our assimilation of His mysteries, is determined by the rite. One reaches the mystery through the liturgy; the mystery is proportioned to the mind and heart by the texts, actions, music, silence. In a sense, the mystery is given shape by the liturgy, even as it gives shape to the worshiper. Hence, pace the egalitarian conservatives, it is not as simple as “overlooking” the human instruments to allow the divine agent to work; that would be like saying one could overlook one’s wife because she is, after all, a secondary cause, while God is the real primary cause. No child will be conceived that way, nor any marriage problem solved!

It is far more like the relationship between the meaning of a play, the words of it, and the way the words are presented — or even better, between a piece of music and its performance. The music has its real existence in the performance, and one accesses it through the performance. In an odd way, the music has no real existence apart from the performance, and neither has the liturgy some objective or generic essence by which we are perfected, in abstraction from the subjective and specific experience of liturgy here and now, in this or that form. We are perfected by the thing as it actually exists and functions, not by its technical validity or licitness. Attending the Ordinary Form is, in most cases, like listening to amateurs acting out a Shakespeare play bowdlerized by Victorians, or listening to a string quartet badly out of tune and time.

The reduction of liturgy to validity and licitness is truly one of the most subtle and pernicious reductionisms of the modern age, since it has long prevented urgently necessary conversations about the mystical-ascetical ascent to God through the contemplative dimension of the liturgy, with its companion goods of fidelity to tradition and cultural excellence. This is the conversation that we must have, precisely for the sake of encountering the real Christ, the just and merciful Pantokrator, and for the preaching of Him to our contemporaries.

NOTES

[1] I certainly don’t deny that similarly dark business took place in the 1948-1955 revision of Holy Week, as documented in a number of places, such as Don Stefano Carusi’s extensive essay. Nevertheless, even this revision cannot compare with what was done across the board to the entire order of Mass, lections, calendar, liturgy of the hours, Rituale, Pontificale, etc. in the 1960s.

[2] As Bishop Athanasius Schneider said: “The third wound is the new Offertory prayers. They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal. In the more than thousand-year tradition of the Church in both East and West, the Offertory prayers have always been expressly oriented to the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross (see e.g. Paul Tirot, Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIème au XVIème siècle [Rome, 1985]). There is no doubt that such an absolutely new creation contradicts the clear formulation of Vatican II that states: “Innovationes ne fiant . . . novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice crescant” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).”

[3] Eucharistic Prayer II is an example of both “the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism” and the “search for novelty” condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei (8; 59-64): cobbled together from bits of Hippolytus thought (mistakenly, as it turns out) to be an early Christian anaphora, given a last desperate edit at a Roman restaurant the night before its due date, and nevertheless so inadequate in conveying the theology of the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice that its content was found perfectly unobjectionable by Protestant consultants. The learned and judicious Fr. Hunwicke has written more than once on the groundless innovation of multiple anaphoras in the Roman Rite.

[4] As Mosebach would put it: see my article “Mosebach’s Paradox.”

[5] On the correct understanding of “active participation,” see, inter alia, “A Note on Participation: What Can We Learn from the Word Actuosa?” and “Is Lack of Solemnity a Cause or a Symptom of Our Problems?”

[6] See “A Young Father at Mass in Linz, circa 2000.”

[7] See “Two Different Treasure Chests” and “Is the Mass ‘Just’ the Mass?”

Since the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI was put into effect in 2007 the following Bishops and Cardinals have celebrated the Immemorial Mass of All Ages.

The Spanish blog Acción Litúrgica has compiled the following list.

GERMANY: Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (President of the Papal Historical Commission), Dick (Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Cologne), Hanke (Bishop of Eichstätt), Mixa (Bishop Emeritus of Augsburg), Ostermann (Auxiliary Bishop von Münster), Overbeck (Bishop of Essen)
AUSTRIA: Cardinal Stickler (+2007), Laun (Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg)
SWITZERLAND: Farine (Auxiliary bishop of Lausanne, Freiburg and Genf), Genoud (Bishop von Lausanne, Freiburg and Genf, +2010), Huonder (Bishop von Chur), Perisset (Apostolic Nuncio in the Federal Republic of Germany)
LIECHTENSTEIN: Haas (Archbishop von Vaduz)
ARGENTINA: Baseotto ( Bishop Emeritus Castrense de Argentina), Laise ( Bishop Emeritus of San Luis), Sánchez Sorondo (Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy de Ciencias)
AUSTRALIA: Cardinal Pell (Archbishop of Sydney), Coleridge (Archbishop of Canberra), Hart (Archbishop of Melbourne), Hickey (Archbishop of Perth), Elliot (Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne), Grech (Bishop of Sandhurst, +2010), Jarret (Bishop of Lismore), Porteus (Archbishop of Sydney), Prowse (Bishop of Sale)
BELGIUM: Leonard (Archbishop of Brussels, Primate of Belgium), Harpigny (Bishop of Tournai)
BENIN: N´Koue (Bishop of Natitingou)
BRAZIL: Pena (Archbishop of Niterói), Taveira Correa (Archbishop of Belem do Pará), Tempesta (Archbishop of Río de Janeiro), Areas Rifán (Bishop of the Apostolic Administration of San Juan Marían Vianney), Bergamin (Bishop of Nova Iguaçu), Canindé Palhano (Bishop of Senhor do Bomfim), Da Silva (em. Auxiliary Bishop von Fortaleza), Fontes de Matos (Bishop of Palmira dos Indios), Guimaraes (Bishop of Garanhuns), Lopes de Faria (em. Bishop of Diamantina,+2009), Paixao (Auxiliary Bishop of Salvador-Bahía), Pestana Filho (em. Bishop of Anápolis,+2011), Romer (em. Auxiliary Bishop of Río de Janeiro), Silva Matthes (em. Bishop of Franca), Sivieri (Bishop of Propriá-Sergipe), Soares da Costa (Auxiliary Bishop of Aracaju), Stringhini (Bishop of Franca)
CHILE: Cardinal Medina Estévez (em. Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith), Piñera Carvallo (em. Archbishop of La Serena). Bishop González Errázuriz (Bishop of San Bernardo)
CHINA: Cardinal Zen (em. Archbishop of Hong Kong)
DENMARK: Kozon (Bishop of Kopenhagen)
FRANCE: Cardinal Barbarin (Archbishop von Lyon), Cardinal Ricard (Archbishop of Bordeaux), Cardinal Ving-Trois (Archbishop of París, President of the French Council of Bishops), Bacqué (Nuncio to Holland), D´Ornellas (Archbishop of Rennes), Le Gall (Archbishop of Toulouse), Madec (em. Archbishop of Toulon), Maillard (Archbishop of Bourges), Thomazeau (Archbishop of Montpellier), Aillet (Bishop of Bayonne), Aumonier (Bishop of Versailles), Bagnard (Bishop of Belley-Ars), Batut (Auxiliary Bishop of Lyon), Boivineau (Bishop of Annecy), Brouwet (Auxiliary of Nanterre), Centène (Bishop of Vannes), De Dinechin (Auxiliary of Paris), De lmas (Bishop of Angers), Dubost (Bishop of Evry), Dufour (Bishop of Limoges), Fikart (em. Auxiliary of Paris), Fort (Bishop of Orleans), Fréchard (em. Bishop of Auch), Gaidon (em. Bishop of Cahors, +2011), Guillaume (em. Bishop of Saint-Dié), Kalist (Bishop of Limoges), Kratz (Auxiliary Bishop of Straßburg), Lebrun (Bishop of Saint-Etienne), Mathieu (Bishop of Saint-Dié), Pansard (Bishop of Chartres), Rey (Bishop of Frejus-Toulon), Riocreux (Bishop of Pontoise), Scherrer (Bishop of Laval), Séguy (em. Bishop of Autun), Wintzer (Auxiliary Bishop of Poitiers)
GABON: Mvé Engone (Archbishop of Libreville), Bischof Madega (Bishop of Port-Gentil)
Great Britain: Cardinal O´Brien (Archbishop of Edinburgh, Primate of Schottland), Conti (Archbishop of Glasgow), Kevin (em. Archbishop of Southwark), Longley (Archbishop of Birmingham), Arnold (Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster), Cunnigham (Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle), Doyle (Bishop of Northampton), Gilbert (Bishop of Aberdeen), Hopes (Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster), Kenney (Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham), McGough (Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham), McMahon (Bishop of Nottigham), Moran (Bishop of Aberdeen), Sherrington (Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster), Stack (Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster), Williams (Auxiliary Bishop of Liverpool)
HAITI: Gayot (em. Archbishop of Cap-Haitien, +2010)
CANADA: Roussin (Archbishop of Vancouver, em. 2009), Miller (Archbishop of Vancouver), Prendergast (Archbishop of Ottawa). Blais (Archbishop of Quebec), Lemay (Archbishop of Quebec)
COLOMBIA: Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos (em. President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission)
CROATIAN: Pozaic (Auxiliary Bishop of Zagreb)
ITALY: Cardinal Antonelli (Archbishop of Florence, em. 2008), Cardinal Bagnasco (Archbishop of Genoa, President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference), Cardinal Bartolucci (em. Choir Master of the Sistine Chapel), Cardinal Caffarra (Archbishop of Bologna), Cardinal De Paolis (Director of the Precture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See), Cardinal Piovanelli (em. Archbishop of Florence), Cardinal Poggi (em. Papal Library, +2010), Cardinal Scola (Archbishop of Milan), Accerbi (Titular Bishop, Prelate of the Sovereign Order of Malta), Appignanesi (em. Archbishop of Potenza), Bassetti (Archbishop of Perugia), Berloco (Apostolic Nuncio in Belgium), Betori (Archbishop of Florenz), Boccardo (Archbishop of Spoleto-Norcia), Brugnaro (Archbishop of Camerino-San Severino), De Magistris (em. Archbishop Pro-Major Penitentiary of Apostolic Penitentiaryr), Molinari (Archbishop of L´Aquila), Ambrosio (Bishop of Piacenza), Cancian (Bishop of Città di Castello), Fisichella (Curial Bishop, President of the Papal Academy for Life), Giovanetti (Bishop von Fiesole), Giusti (Bishop of Livorno), Lambiasi (Bishop of Rimini), Miglio (Bishop of Ivrea), Mistrorigo (em. Bishop of Treviso), Oliveri (Bishop of Albenga-Imperia), Rabitti (Bischop of Ferrara), Ravignani (em. Bishop of Triest), Reali (Bishop of Porto-Santa Rufina), Scanavino (Bishop of Orvieto), Tardelli (Bishop of San Miniato)
IRELAND: Martin (Archbishop of Dublin), Magee (Bishop of Cobh), Moriarty (em. Bishop of Kildare y Leighlin)
KAZAKHSTAN: Schneider (Auxiliary Bishop of Astana)
LITHUANIA: Bartulis (Bishop of Siauliai)
MEXICO: Suárez Inda (Archbishop of Morelia)
MONACO: Barsi (Archbishop of Monaco)
NIGERIA: Cardinal Arinze (em. Prefect for Divine Worship), Ochiagha (em. Bishop of Orlu), Tochukwu Ukwuoma (Bishop of Orlu)
NEW ZEALAND: Meeking (em. Bishop of Christchurch)
HOLLAND: Punt (Bishop von Amsterdam)
PARAGUAY: Livieres (Bishop of Ciudad del Este)
PHILIPPINES: Lagdameo (Archbishop of Jaro), Escaler (em. Bishop of Ipil), De Gregorio (Administrator of the Apostolic Prelature of Batan), Hobayan (em. Bishop of Cazarman), Tobias (Bishop of Novaliches)
POLAND: Cardinal Nycz (Archbishop of Warsaw), Golebiewski (Archbishop of Breslau), Zscysinski (Archbishop of Lublin), Balcerek (Auxiliary Bishop Poznań), Depo (Bishop of Zamosc-Lubaczow), Dziuba (Bishop of Lowicz), Gorny (Bisop of Rzeszów), Malysiak (em. Auxiliary of Krakow), Mizinski (Auxiliary Bishop of Lublin), Pieronek (em. Auxiliary Bishop of Sosnowitz), Szkodon (Auxiliary Bishop of Krakau)
PUERTO RICO: Torres Oliveira (em. Bishop of Ponce)
RUSSIA: Pezzi (Archbishop of Moscow)
SLOVAKIA: Bezák (Archbishop of Trnava)
SLOVENIA: Cardinal Rodé (Prefect em. for the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life)
SPAIN: Cardinal Cañizares Llovera (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship), Martínez Sistach (Archbishop of Barcelona), Curial Bishop Herranz Casado, Navarrete Cortés (em. Rector of the Papal University of St. Gregory, +2010), Ureña Pastor (Archbishop of Saragossa), Fernández González (Bishop of Córdoba), Iceta Gavicagogeascoa (Bishop of Bilbao), Yanguas Sanz (Bishop of Cuenca)
SRI LANKA: Cardinal Ranjith (Archbishop of Colombo)
CZECH REPUBIC: Baxant (Bishop of Leitmeritz)
HUNGARY: Farhat (Nuncio to Austria), Varga Lajos (Archishop of Vácbish)
USA: Cardinal Baum (em. Apostolic Penitentiary), Burke (Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura), Egan (em. Archbishop of New York), Foley (Grand Master of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, +2011), George (Archbishop of Chicago), Levada (Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith), O’ Malley (Archbishop of Boston), Brunett (Archbishop of Seattle), Carlson (Archbishop of Saint Louis), Di Noia (Secretary for the Congregation of Divine Worship), Hugues (em. Archbishop of New Orleans), Kevin (em. Archbishop of Southwark), Myers (Archbishop of Newark), Nienstedt (Archbishop of Saint Paul in Minneapolis), Pilarczyk (em. Archbishop of Cicinnati), Vigneron (Archbishop of Detroit), Wenski (Archbishop of Miami), Backer (Bishop of Birmingham), Boyea (Bishop of Lansing), Bevard (Bishop of Saint Thomas), Blair (Bishop of Toledo, Ohio), Bruskewitz (Bishop of Lincoln), Burbidge (Bishop of Raleigh), Callahan (Bishop of LaCrosse), Conley (Auxiliary Bishop of Denver), Cordileone (Bishop of Oakland), Corrada (Bischof von Tyler), D´Arcy (Bischof von Fort Wayne-South Bend), Daniels (Bischof von Grand Falls), Dewane (Bishop of Venice), Di Lorenzo (Bishop of Richmond), Di Marzio (Bishop of Bofrooklynn), Doran (Bishop Rockford), Etienne (Bishop of Cheyenne), Farrell (Bishop of Dallas), Finn (Bishop of Kansas City), Foley (em. Bishop of Birmingham), Gainer (Bishop of Lexington), García (Bishop of Monterey), Hermann (Auxiliary Bishop of Saint Louis), Hurley (Bishop of Grand Rapids), Keleher (em. Bishop of Kansas City), Kicanas (Bishop of Tucson), Madera Uribe (em. Bishop of Fresno), Matano (Bishop of Burlington), McFadden (Bishop of Harrisburg), McManus (Bishop of Worcester), Morlino (Bishop of Madison), Murphy (Bishop of Rockville Centre), Nevares (Auxiliary Bishop of Phoenix), Olmsted (Bishop of Phoenix), Perry (Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago), Provost (Bishop of Lake Charles), Reiss (Auxilary Bishop of Detroit), Rhoades (Bishop of Harrisburg), Ricken (Bishop of Green Bay), Sample (Bishop of Marquette), Serratelli (Bishop of Paterson), Silva (Bishop of Honolulu), Slattery (Bishop of Tulsa), Timlin (em. Bishop of Scranton), Tobin (Bishop of Providence), Waltersheid (Auxiliary Bishop of Pittsburg), Van Johnston (Bishop of Springfield, Missouri).

Finally are still the Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X: Fellay, De Galarreta, Tissier de Mallerais and Williamson.
Text: Acción Litúrgica /Giuseppe Nardi
Bild: Jens Falk/Acción Litúrgica

A Rorate Caeli transltion from Contributor Francesca Romana
Editorial: Radicati nella fede, April 2015
Newsletter of the Catholic community of
Vocogno, Diocese of Novara, Italy

Presently we are watching, resigned, at the vertiginous decline of priestly vocations and the related diminution of the priests’ presence among us. Day after day, parishes without the stable presence of a priest are increasing; undeniably, priests are becoming scarcer. More and more churches are now opened sporadically for the celebration of Holy Mass and closed for most of the year. Moreover, even when the priest is still resident in some big parish, his effective presence is progressively diminished, overloaded as he is, by having to guarantee services to innumerable small communities in the area. In many mountain valleys there isn’t even one priest left.

What is there to say? It is a sadly disheartening picture.

What it the greatest danger though? In our view, it is that the solution to all this is being dictated by those who have caused and accelerated the problem! “Protestantized” Christianity started this disaster decades ago and is now offering us the remedies!

All of the liturgical reform in the 60s and 70s focused on the centrality of the Word of God and a complete revision of the millenarian, Catholic liturgy that bent to the demands of the new ecclesiology and new pastoral approach was violently enforced.

This is the new ecclesiology: the Church no longer as the Mystical Body of Christ, but prevalently as the People of God; emphasis no longer on the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Priesthood, which make up the structure of the Church’s hierarchy, but emphasis on Baptism and the laity obliged to become more and more co-responsible in the action of the Church.

From this new ecclesiology, which stressed the community rather than union with God in Jesus Christ, [there came about] a continual concern that everything be translated into the vernacular for Mass and the Sacraments, so that the faithful didn’t feel inferior to the priests in public prayer. The faithful, co-responsible with the priests in the Church, had to understand everything immediately in order to govern the House of God democratically. Here then is the reason for the excessive importance placed on the Word of God, intended simply as reading the Bible at Masses. The outcome of this is: libidinous creativity in the liturgies of the Word with lay readers, lay commentators, symbolic gestures to accompany the readings, participation in homilies and long-winded prayers of the faithful, followed by a quick, “stripped-down” Consecration which the more illuminated individuals said, was still reserved for the priest, since “we Catholics” would never go all the way down the road to Protestantism.

We could explain it like this. Since the Council a kind of semi-Protestantism has been progressively formed, which doesn’t eliminate the priest entirely but leaves him a little corner: the Consecration. Yet even this rigorously translated into the vernacular, with the words taken from the Bible said aloud, so that the faithful listening may ratify it all with their “Amen”. Naturally, since the democratizing of the Church needs the assent of the faithful: at [the proclamation of] the “mystery of faith” and at Communion, the faithful by saying their “yes” give reinforcement to the Presence of Christ, made through the priest! It really is a kind of semi-Protestantism!

The liturgical revolution along these lines, wanted to bring a new impulse to Christian life and the mission of the Church in society. However, it immediately became apparent that it was producing confusion. The 1968 social and cultural revolution which was exploding in society precisely during the post-concilar years, was blamed [for the confusion]. It was said that everything would fall into place eventually, that after the confusion and the mistakes in application, a time of tranquility and fruitful edification would have arrived. We are still waiting for it!

The last attempt along those lines was the interrupted Pontificate of Benedict XVI, who stalwartly promoted a re-balancing of the reform in a traditional sense; but these illusions disappeared with his abdication.

Today the Church is like a field after a battle: in ruins, with bodies left to bury. Not only has society not turned back to Christianity, but there are no more priests to embark on a new mission.

Yet, what do grandchildren of the liturgical and ecclesiastical revolutionaries of decades ago do? They propose replacing the Masses with the liturgy of the Word, animated by laypeople, ending with Sacramental Communion! It is the logical conclusion to the most disastrous, fake reform in the Church! And these descendants – we say this now with certainty – will bring about a consummation of the disaster.

The illness cannot drive away the disease, the plague does not stop the pestilence, unless it makes everyone die – and if it were so, what kind of victory would that be?

Throughout the periods of crises in the Church, She never watered down Her identity in order to reach everyone. On the contrary, She increased in zeal so that Her priests were more priestly and the faithful more Catholic.

In Medieval times, around the year 1000, there was a great crisis and priests united in the parishes, established the canonries so that the ministers of God would sanctify themselves through an almost monastic life. They purified and rendered the liturgy more splendid along with an increase in their prayer. In short, they formed the basis for a profound regeneration in priestly vocations, aware that without the priest there is no Church.

We read recently in the press – in very large letters: “There are no more priests, the laity will offer the Mass” . With this, everyone is able to understand that we are travelling, unperturbed, in the opposite direction of true reform in the Church. Certainly the press exaggerate, the laity would not offer the true and proper Mass, they would read the Scriptures and give Communion: but how can we not see that this is the final phase for the disappearance of the Mass in our midst? We are already used to doing without the priest for doctrine and the laity already interpret the Bishops and the Pope freely ,all we need now is for them to do a pseudo-mass to declare the uselessness of the priest!

What will a seminarian (a living miracle in this Church) think reading such headlines in a newspaper? Will it not be clear to him that the Church has no longer any need of him?

In all of this chaos, one has the secret suspicion that the priests and the faithful re-educated in the spirit of the semi-Protestantized, New Church, see in the pseudo-masses of the churches (with no priests) the last chance to complete the reform of the Church that Vatican II had left half-done. Yes, they want a church where everyone is a priest, where Christ is born inside the individual conscience and from inside the community; a church in which Christ no longer descends from on high, a church where the priest is a legacy from the past, destined to disappear – or almost: the end of Christianity.

We continue to be increasingly more convinced that we did not err in returning definitively to the Old Mass, which certainly won’t permit this drift. If only more priests and faithful understood this, they would then have the chance of a true re-birth offered by God.

What more has to happen for hearts and minds to be set free?

Rev. Fr. Leonard Goffine’s
The Church’s Year

What is the festival of Easter?

Easter, in Latin Pascha, signifies passing over, and has the following historical origin: Under Pharao, King of Egypt, the Jews in that country groaned under intolerable bondage. God had mercy on His people, and the hour of deliverance came. By His com­mand the first-born of all the Egyptians was killed by an angel. The Jews had been ordered by God to be ready for emigration, but first to kill a lamb, eat it in their houses in common, and sprinkle the door­posts with its blood. And the angel of death, by order of God, passed the doors sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, and did no harm to any child of the Israelites, whilst he slew all the first-born sons of the Egyptians. In grateful memory of this passing their doors, the Jews observed the festival of Easter, the Pasch, or Passover. After the death of Jesus, the apostles introduced the same festival into the Church in grateful remembrance of the day on which Jesus, the true Easter Lamb, took away our sins by His blood, freed us from the angel of eternal death, and passed us over to the freedom of the children of God.

Where, during this time, was Christ’s holy soul?

In Limbo, that is, the place where the souls of the just who died before Christ, and were yet in original sin, were awaiting their redemption.

What have we to expect from the resurrection of Christ?

That our bodies will rise again from death. (Rom. VIII. II) For if Christ our head is alive, then we His members must also become reanimated, because a living head cannot exist without living members.

What is meant by the Alleluia sung at Easter time?

In English Alleluia means Praise the Lord, and expresses the joy of the Church at the Resurrection of Christ, and the hope of eternal happiness which He has obtained for us.

Why does the Church on this day bless eggs, bread, and meat?

To remind the faithful that although the time of fasting is now ended, they should not indulge in gluttony, but thank God, and use their food simply for the necessary preservation of physical strength.

At the Introit the Church introduces Christ, her Head, as addressing His Heavenly Father in these words:

INTROIT I arose, and am still with thee, alleluia; thou hast laid thy hand upon me, alleluia: thy knowledge is become wonderful, allel., allel. Lord, thou hast proved me and known me: Thou bast known my sitting down arid my rising up. (Ps. CXXXVIII.) Glory be to the Father, etc.

COLLECT O God, who on this day, through Thine only-begotten Son, didst overcome death and open unto us the gate of everlasting life; as by Thy prompting grace Thou dost breathe on the desires of our hearts, so do Thou ever ac­company them with Thy help. Through &c.

EPISTLE (I Cor. V. 7-8.) Brethren, purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened: for Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

EXPLANATION St. Paul here exhorts us that we should at this time remove by a good confession and true penance the leaven, that is, the sins we have committed, and partake of the Paschal lamb in holy Communion with a pure, sincere heart; as the Jews were on this day com­manded to eat the Paschal lamb with unleavened bread, abstaining on this day from the old leaven.

During the octave of this festival repeat often with the Church: “Alleluia! Praise to the Lord, for He is good, and His mercy endureth forever. Alleluia! This is the day the Lord has made, Alleluia! Let us rejoice therein, Alleluia! Our Paschal Lamb is Christ who sacrificed Himself for us, Alleluia!”

GOSPEL (Mark XVI. 1-7.) At that time, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, bought sweetspices, that, coming, they, might anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning, the first, day, of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen. And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And looking, they saw the stone rolled back, for it was very great. And, entering into the sepulchre they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed with a white robe, and they were astonished. Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you seek Jesus of Nazareth; who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he told you.

Why did the holy women desire to embalm the body of Jesus with slices?

Because it was the custom of the Jews to embalm the dead, and as the Sabbath was so near and the time so short that they could not do it before the burial, these pious women procured the spices, and immediately after the Sabbath, hurried in the early morning to the sepulchre, to perform this act of love. We are taught by their conduct, that true love is never indifferent or slow, and what is agreeable to God it does without hesitation.

Why did the angel send the women to the disciples, and especially to Peter?

Because the disciples were to announce the Resurrec­tion of Christ to the whole world, and they were now much saddened, and disturbed because of His death. Peter was the head of the apostles, and on account of having three times denied our Lord, he was greatly dejected and faint of heart, and was, therefore, above all to be comforted.

What encouragement does the Resurrection of Christ give us?

It encourages us to rise spiritually with Him, and live henceforth a new life, (Rom. VI. 4.) which we do if we not only renounce sin, but also flee from. all its occasions, lay aside our bad habits, subdue our corrupt inclinations, and aim after virtue and heavenly things.

ASPIRATION I rejoice, O my Jesus, that Thou hast victoriously risen from death. By Thy triumph over death, hell and the devil, grant us the grace to subdue our evil inclinations, walk in a new life, and die to all earthly things. Amen.
INSTRUCTION It is certainly true that Christ, by His death on the cross and by His resurrection, has rendered perfect satisfaction; and effected man’s redemption; (Heb. IX. 12.) but we must not imagine that there is no further need of doing penance, or of working out our salvation. For, as the children of Israel, though freed from Pharao’s bondage, had to fight long and against many enemies in order to gain the Promised Land, so also must we, though freed by Christ from the servitude .of the devil, battle against our enemies to the end of our lives to obtain the promised, heavenly land, for no one is crowned unless he has prop­erly fought. (II Tim. II. 5.) We must apply the merits of the redemption and satisfaction of Christ to our soul by the frequent reception of the holy sacraments; by imitating His virtues; by patiently bearing our trials and suffer­ings, and by a penitential life. The pious Angelus Silesius very appropriately writes:

“God is a Lamb that avails yon not, my Christian,
If you become not also a lamb of God.
The cross on Golgotha redeems not from evil,
If it is not also erected in thee;
The dear Christ’s death aids you not, my Christian,
Until in Him and for Him you also have died:”

Written by Father Ladis J. Cizik

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Welcome to the Traditional Latin Rite Mass by which the Roman Catholic Church had worshipped Almighty God for centuries prior to Vatican Council II.

It is an ancient maxim of the Church that how we worship is how we believe. In Latin, that is called lex orandi, lex credendi …The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays…” That is why, for centuries, the Church resisted changing one iota of the Sacred Liturgy for fear that it would change our Catholic beliefs. In the wake of Vatican II, radical changes to the Mass have taken place, which resulted in a New Order of Mass (the “Novus Ordo”). We will now review just a few of these changes, that will be noticeable to you, and see how they may have impacted our Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith; which was preserved intact for centuries by the Traditional Latin Mass.

The Mass that you are attending this evening is said entirely in the official language of the Church, Latin, as it had been said for centuries. This is to help ensure the purity and integrity of our Catholic beliefs and doctrine. When the language of the Mass was switched to the vernacular (in our country to English), that resulted in numerous mistranslations that had a negative impact on our Faith, such that Pope Benedict ordered a new English translation to more closely conform to the official Latin. In addition, we once were able to travel anywhere in the world and attend the Latin Mass in the same language as said in our local parish. Now, we have a “Tower of Babel” effect, where we can no longer understand the prayers of Catholics from other countries who speak different languages.

After Vatican II, the priest was turned around to face the people. At the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest and the congregation all face the same direction; we all are turned toward Almighty God, toward the “Mystical East” (ad orientem). The focus of the Traditional Latin Mass is on God, not on the community. The priest facing the community suggests a man-centered Mass, as opposed to God-centered; horizontal worship versus vertical worship.

The Traditional Latin Mass was said on a High Altar, which represented that the priest was going up to offer Sacrifice to God; an unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross on the mount of Calvary. In both the Old and New Testament, God demands sacrifice on an altar. After Vatican II, the altar has become a table, along with having cups and plates in place of chalices and ciboriums, which suggest that the somber Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been transformed into a community “Happy Meal,” complete with “cheerful” music. None of Christ’s disciples were “rejoicing” at Calvary. In contrast, the Traditional Latin Mass gives us the feeling that we are actually present at Calvary beneath the Cross of Christ, standing beside our Sorrowful Mother, Mary Most Holy.

Tonight, those who receive Holy Communion will receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue, as we had done for centuries. Kneeling symbolizes that we are subservient to God; standing for Communion indicates that we are God’s equals. Receiving on the tongue represents our Catholic tradition that only the consecrated hands of the priest should touch the Sacred Host. In addition, the danger of particles of the Body of Christ falling off into the hand of the communicant is an outrageous unnecessary risk. Protection of the Sacred Species is why the Latin Mass also uses the paten under the chin during the distribution of Holy Communion. Failure to take precautions with the Body of Christ may lead to a lack of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Church has always taught that Jesus Christ is entirely present in the Sacred Host: His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That is one reason why we do not have “Communion under both species” at a Traditional Latin Mass. To insist on “receiving from the cup,” as it is called today, suggests a denial of that Catholic Truth and an adherence to the Hussite Heresy, which insisted on the laity receiving the Blood of Christ separate from the Consecrated Host. “Communion under both kinds,” as it is sometimes called in the New Mass, can also lead to a Protestant-like “memorial meal” view of the Mass taking pride of place over the Sacrificial reality of the priest, acting in the person of Christ, re-presenting Christ’s one Sacrifice on Calvary to the faithful in our time and place.

To emphasize the Sacrificial reality of the Mass, the Sign of the Cross is made over fifty times (fifty-seven by one count) at the Traditional Latin Mass, not including each time a person receives Holy Communion. The Sign of the Cross is also present on the priest’s vestments, and on altar linens. The Cross of Christ at Calvary is ever-present to us at the Traditional Latin Mass, whereas the Novus Ordo Mass has less than five Signs of the Cross and often has the Risen Christ image in the most prominent place near the altar/table instead of the Crucifix.

To emphasize the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Traditional Latin Mass priest will hold his thumbs and forefingers together after the Consecration of the Host, so as not to lose the smallest particle of the Body of Christ. For that reason, he will not shake hands after the Consecration, as is lamentably done at the Novus Ordo Mass. Numerous genuflections and the ringing of altar bells also emphasize the Catholic Truth that through the miracle of Transubstantiation, effected by a validly ordained priest acting in persona Christi, mere bread and wine are truly changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

To maintain his focus on God, the priest also keeps his eyes downcast whenever facing the people during the Traditional Latin Mass. Note that the sermon is not considered to be an official part of the Mass; therefore the priest removes the maniple from his left arm (some may also remove their chasuble) just before the sermon and can freely look toward the congregation as he is speaking to them. After the sermon, the maniple goes back on his left arm and the Mass resumes.

In conclusion, this will explain just a few of the differences that you will notice between the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass. The changes made to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the wake of Vatican Council II, may seem to be insignificant to some; although any reasonable person would admit that the changes were SUBSTANTIAL. However, no matter how significant or insignificant a change may appear to be, any single alteration can be expected to impact our beliefs. How we worship is how we believe; lex orandi, lex credendi …The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays…”

It should not be surprising therefore, if modern-day “Catholics,” of all levels in the Church, no longer seem to believe as we did prior to the changes in the Mass following Vatican Council II. The problem for these Neo-Catholics is that the Apostolic Faith is unchanging, just as the Traditional Latin Mass was unchanged throughout the centuries.

Hold on to the One True Faith founded by Christ by holding on to the Traditional Latin Mass! There are many more elements of the Mass that have changed, that we can address in the future. Perhaps in another sermon, at another Traditional Latin Mass here in the future, we can address these changes. God bless you and your pastor for inviting the Traditional Latin Mass into your parish this evening!

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

From Rorate Caeli

Sunday, March 8, 2015
It seemed a regular unsurprising event for the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris (and not the first time for him, either). In the historic parish church of Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois, in the heart of Paris (right across the street from the cour carrée of the Louvre), where the traditional Mass is celebrated every Sunday, Cardinal Vingt-Trois celebrated the Traditional Mass (Mass in the Extraordinary Form) for the faithful in his visit to the parish. The Church in France will rise again – one day, it will rise again.

Slowly, but surely, the Traditional Mass re-enters the regular life of the Latin Church, from which it should never have been banished. May all Cardinals and Bishops follow the Cardinal’s example.

From Rorate Caeli. One can analogously see this decline in the liturgy.

Among the bishops of Italy currently serving as Ordinaries, Archbishop Luigi Negri stands out for his trenchant commentary and prolific writings (including a multitude of articles and around 30 books) on a wide variety of topics, always with the object of defending a conservative Catholic world view and its presence in the public square and the world of culture. A close student and collaborator of Msgr. Luigi Giussani, founder of Comunione e Liberazione, he was appointed Bishop of the small diocese of San Marino – Montefeltro in 2005 and then Archbishop of the small Archdiocese of Ferrara-Comacchio in 2012. He is already well-known to Traditional Catholics for his interventions in favor of the Traditional Latin Mass: his telegram to Pope Benedict XVI thanking him for Summorum Pontificum, his denunciation of episcopal opposition to the same, and his 2013 homily to Traditional Catholics with its precious words of encouragement and praise.

A friend and reader of Rorate has kindly presented us with this translation of an article written last month by the Archbishop and published by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. This is a bishop who knows how to fight, who knows how to denounce the French Revolution (and its Catholic apologists) in the same breath as the Islamist menace that he does not fear to name either.

The End of Western Civilization is in the Museum of Mosul
By Luigi Negri, Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio
02/28/2015

Ancient Statues and bas-reliefs were toppled down by bearded men who then proceeded to destroy them by using jackhammers. This is the latest video released by ISIS in Mosul. It is the continuation of a campaign against remnants of the past. Islamic State militants have been blowing up places of worship, feeding flames with books taken from libraries, and destroying a part of Nineveh’s city walls, the ancient Assyrian capital in the outskirts of present-day Mosul. These images, spread by a Twitter account used by the Caliphate, show the methodical destruction perpetrated in the rooms of what looks like a museum in Mosul. During the five-minute long video, we notice museum labels in Arabic and English describing exhibited artefacts. It is because of this that we have recorded the comments of Mons. Luigi Negri, the Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio.

I hope that the technological means which our society uses – and oftentimes abuses – can vividly preserve for future generations the images of such terrible scenes of barbarism which we have been able to see “live” in different parts of the world. This is rage, much more demented than barbaric, against the artistic expressions of one of the greatest ages of world culture, which have been handed down with devotion and respect from one generation to another, from one culture to another, from one civilization to another. And so culture and civilization are not exclusive, unlike the case of this horrendous ideology, even if it is religious. Culture and Civilization are inclusive and even know how to incorporate cultural and historical realities not born from the limitations of their proper milieu; thereby becoming all the more enriched.

It has rightly occurred to those few men of culture who yet still exist in this weak society, the great Catholic tradition which for ages and ages has welcomed the expressions of classical culture, both Greek and Roman, and then later on of other traditions even of the Far East.

It is enough to recall the passionate dedication, for example, with which the Benedictine school and later on, the Cistercian, have received, guarded, copied, recopied, and commented on the documents of classical tradition. It is this movement of reception and greater understanding that has produced the great culture of monasteries, of convents, and then of great universities, as taught to us in an incomparable manner by the great Fr. Chenu, and in Italy by the renowned Don Inos Biffi.

This capacity of reception, of respect, of greater understanding has been crushed. Its vilest expression is the destruction of the diverse. In reality as well, we Europeans have experienced this. We have seen before our very eyes the destruction of preceding traditions perpetrated, for example, by the French Revolution which European secularism still considers an undisputed point of departure. Regrettably, it is not only the secularists but it is also a certain sector of the Catholic world that considers the French Revolution as an unsurpassable event for the good.

In advance, the West has seen its own end. In the tragedy brought to completion within Mosul’s beautiful museum which preserved the highest masterpieces of artistry from a great culture; the West sees the death of its very own civilization which was called to mind in an unequalled manner by Benedict XVI in his misunderstood Regensburg address. The great Western Civilization is a civilization in which myriad ways of life, of thought, of customs have known and know how to encounter, understand, value, and contend with each other if necessary, for the sake of developing human life and history which is the mark of a civilization.

This civilization, whether we like it or not, is now ending if it has not truly and already ended. The horizon is marred by the black flag of the Caliphate, under which lies dead the freedom of conscience and of the heart, of movement, the liberty to live in a dignified way, and to profess one’s own convictions in a free and responsible manner.

This atrocity, all atrocities have been transformed into casual occurrences by the surreal fantasies of western man. He can quickly read of them in newspapers or on social networks; news headlines flashing at the bottom of the television while he eats tranquilly; as if they were current events from another world.

Civilization has ended. A society on the brink of death would not even have the capacity to initiate an authentic and critical examination of its own life. If it would do so, what shall be unveiled are all those who, knowingly or unknowingly, have arranged and continue to prepare in more diverse ways its own death. These are all those who have persecuted dialogue beyond all limits; all those who deep inside themselves have more fear of the Christian Faith than the barbarism of fundamentalist Islamic Ideology. Maybe, the responsibility can be claimed, above all, by all those who have apostatized; while apostatizing from Christ, they have apostatized from themselves. Since man is always intimately linked to a society; by apostatizing from themselves, they have destroyed civilization.

Peter Kwasniewski (From New Liturgical Movement)

When discussing participatio actuosa back in December, I had made a claim (which others, too, have made before me) that actuosa meant “actual” more than “active.” Latinist friends of mine were quick to point out that my claim was linguistically dubious. Whitaker’s Words defines actuosus as “active, busy, energetic, full of life; acting with extravagant gesture.” Forcellini’s authoritative lexicon says that actuosus “properly is one who is totally engaged in the act or motion of the body…such as an actor and a dancer, who for this reason are called actuosi.”

As a result, I rewrote the pertinent paragraph of the article as follows:

The most notorious victim of this process of journalistic simplification has been the notion of “active participation” or participatio actuosa. The word actuosa itself is very interesting: it means fully or totally engaged in activity, like a dancer or an actor who is putting everything into the dancing or the acting; it might be considered “super-active.” But what is the notion of activity here? It is actualizing one’s full potential, entering into possession of a good rather than having an unrealized capacity for it. In contemporary English, “active” often means simply the contrary of passive or receptive, yet in a deeper perspective, we see that these are by no means contrary. I can be actively receptive to the Word of God; I can be fully actualizing my ability to be acted upon at Mass by the chants, prayers, and ceremonies, without my doing much of anything that would be styled “active” in contemporary English.

I am glad to have been corrected and to have made this revision, because it seems to me that the semantic range of actuosus, as well as its context in the document, makes the case for a different translation than “active” not weaker but stronger.

In everyday speech, the word “active” tends to connote activism, in the sense in which the Americanists excoriated by Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae exalted the “active” virtues of secular engagement over what they called “passive” virtues, such as contemplation. In the liturgical sphere, “active” has been wielded like a sickle to cut down various modes of receptivity, the alert absorption of listening, the silence conducive to meditation.

What we need to recover, therefore, is that deeper sense of engagement that begins and ends with interior activity — faith leading to contemplation, contemplation feeding the flame of charity—for which the usus antiquior is so well suited. As Aristotle had shown long ago in the Nicomachean Ethics, the most intense human activity is contemplation.

Since Sacrosanctum Concilium establishes that participation is first and foremost interior and then is further expressed and solidified through external actions such as singing responses and adopting postures, it is clear that the Council Fathers did not intend to use actuosa to mean “hyper-external-activity.” They intended to underline what Pope Pius XI had already said decades earlier, namely, that the faithful should not be inert spectators at Mass, but should enter into it with mind, heart, and body. In a forthcoming Foreword to Fr. Samuel Weber’s Proper of the Mass, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone offers the following gloss:

Perhaps a better word to express this teaching of the Council (“actuosa” in the original Latin) is “engaged”: we are present to the liturgical action, allowing it to seep down into the depths of our consciousness. Thus, in speaking of the “restoration” of the sacred liturgy, the Council fathers articulated their vision of restoring the liturgy to what it was always meant to be: Catholics at Mass engaged in understanding and praying the liturgy with heart and mind, and this active engagement expressed in their reciting and singing the parts of the Mass proper to them, rather than sitting (or kneeling, as the case may be) as passive observers, saying their own private prayers. That is, personal devotion is to enhance one’s full, active and conscious participation at Mass, not substitute for it.

Actuosa bespeaks a profoundly (one might even say totally) active response that goes beyond superficial sayings or gestures, beyond the moving of the mouth or hands, to the motions of the heart. Participatio actuosa calls forth a total response, beginning from the mind, involving memory, imagination, and external senses, ending in the soul. People are to be fully engaged with all their faculties of body and soul, in this regard quite like a ballet dancer or a Shakespearian actor. Actuosa essentially says: Be as active as you can be in the activity of divine worship, which is first and foremost interior (after all, only intellectual beings can worship — brute animals, plants, minerals, are excluded from that noble activity) and becomes external when and as appropriate for each category of participant.[1]

Notice this wonderful truth: everyone can be doing everything in the Mass interiorly, even though external actions are notably and necessarily differentiated. For example, only the priest elevates the host, while only the laity come forward to receive communion. Externally we are differentiated, as is just and right for a hierarchical mystical body such as the Church that visibly mirrors the hierarchical order of the human body itself and of the cosmos. But interiorly we are united by the one font and apex of all that we are, all that we do, and all that we suffer. The external diversity is at the service of the interior unity, just as the difference of sexes is for the sake of the unity and fruitfulness of marriage.[2]

The great theologian whom I hope future generations of Catholics will matter-of-factly refer to as “the Doctor of the Liturgy,” Joseph Ratzinger, calls to our attention a particularly modern problem:

That which is truly great grows unnoticed, and silence at the right moment is more fruitful than the constant activity that only too easily degenerates into spiritual idleness. In the present age, we are all possessed by a strange restlessness that suspects any silence of being a waste of time and any kind of repose as being negligence. We forget the real mystery of time, the real mystery present in growth and activity. That mystery involves silence and stillness. Even in the religious sphere we tend to expect and hope for everything from our own activity. We use all kinds of exercises and involvements to evade the real mystery of interior growth before God. And yet in the religious sphere receptivity is at least as important as activity.[3]

Louis Bouyer’s definition is therefore perfectly on target: “Participation in the liturgy is the reception of sacramental grace through a living faith illumined and enflamed by the liturgy itself.” Note how this definition highlights grace, faith, receptivity, illumination, and ardor — the spiritual ingredients of holiness. As Ratzinger says:

The real “action” in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God Himself. This is what is new and distinctive about Christian liturgy: God Himself acts and does what is essential.[4]

On which Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith’s comment can fittingly serve as our conclusion:

This kind of participation in the very action of Christ, the High Priest, requires from us nothing less than an attitude of being totally absorbed in Him. … Active participation, thus, is not a giving way to any activism but an integral and total assimilation into the person of Christ who is truly the High Priest of that eternal and uninterrupted celebration of the heavenly liturgy.[5]

NOTES

[1] For those who wish to read more about the authentic meaning of participatio actuosa, I highly recommend this classic article by Msgr. Richard Schuler.

[2] This reflection helps us to see, once again, the profound disharmony introduced by extraordinary ministers of holy communion, who are laity assuming a clerical function, which introduces a clash between the external action proper to the clergy, which is to come down from the altar to give the divine food and drink to the faithful, and the action proper to the laity, which is to come forward towards the altar to receive that food and drink. The actions are contrary and complementary.

[3] Joseph Ratzinger, Dogma and Preaching, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1985), 78.

[4] Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 173.

[5] Malcolm Ranjith, “Toward an Ars Celebrandi in Liturgy,” Adoremus Online Edition, March 2009, vol. 15, n. 1, printing the transcript of his talk at the Gateway Conference in St. Louis, November 8, 2008.

The diverse names of Laetare Sunday
March 13, 2015
SSPX District of the USA (Published for its interesting content, not to show preferential support for the SSPX).

A brief examination of the several names and customs associated with the Fourth Sunday of Lent, and thus how the liturgy seeks to overflow from the altar and become absorbed into the annual customs of our lives.

We read in The Catholic Encyclopedia that this Fourth and middle Sunday of Lent actually has several popular names associated with it which we outline here.

Dominica de Rosa: The golden rose represents Christ in the shining splendor of His majesty, the “flower sprung from the root of Jesse.” Originally it was natural rose, then a single golden rose of natural size, but since the fifteenth century it has consisted of a cluster or branch of roses wrought of pure gold in brilliant workmanship by famous artists. The popes bless one every year, and often confer it upon churches, shrines, cities, or distinguished persons as a token of esteem and paternal affection.
Rose Sunday: It has a counterpart in Advent: Gaudete Sunday, the Third Sunday of Advent, when purple vestments are exchanged for rose ones. The point of both days is to provide us encouragement as we progress toward the end of each respective penitential season.
Refreshment Sunday, or the Sunday of the Five Loaves: This name stems from the miracle recorded in the Gospel of John 6:1-15, on the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes—symbols of the Eucharist to come in 18 days (on Maundy Thursday of Holy Week).
Mid-Lent, mi-careme, or mediana: These terms (in English, French and Spanish) obviously have their root because this Sunday marks the middle of Lent.
Mothering Sunday: This is an allusion to the Epistle, which indicates our right to be called the sons of God as the source of all our joy, and also because formerly the faithful used to make their offerings in the cathedral or mother-church on this day. This latter name is still kept up in some remote parts of England, though the reason for it has ceased to exist.
Laetare Sunday: This is by far the most popular name. Laetare means “rejoice” in Latin, and the Introit (entrance antiphon) is Isaiah 66:10-11, which begins “Laetare, Jerusalem” (“Rejoice, O Jerusalem”).

The spirit of Laetare Sunday

Because the midpoint of Lent is the Thursday of the third week of Lent, Laetare Sunday has traditionally been viewed as a day of celebration, on which the austerity of Lent is briefly lessened. The passage from Isaiah continues, “rejoice with joy, you that have been in sorrow,” and on Laetare Sunday, the purple vestments and altar cloths of Lent are set aside, and rose ones are used instead. Flowers, which are normally forbidden during Lent, may be placed on the altar. Traditionally, the organ was never played during Lent, except on Laetare Sunday.

Laetare Jerusalem : et conventum facite omnes qui diligitis eam: gaudete cum laetitia, qui in tristitia fuistis: ut exsultetis, et satiemini ab uberibus consolationis vestrae. (Psalm) Laetatus sum in his, quae dicta sunt mihi: in domum Domini ibimus. Gloria Patri.

Rejoice, O Jerusalem: and come together all you that love her: rejoice with joy, you that have been in sorrow: that you may exult, and be filled from the breasts of your consolation. (Psalm) I rejoiced at the things that were said to me: we shall go into the house of the Lord. Glory be to the Father.

How to remember the difference between Gaudate and Laetare Sunday

You can remember to differentiate between Advent’s Gaudete Sunday and Lent’s Laetare Sunday—the two “rose vestments” Sundays—by remembering that Laetare Sunday comes in Lent, both of which begin with the letter “L.”
Recalling Moses and fasting

He is the sixth and last of the patriarchs, introduced in the liturgy. He is one of the greatest men of all times. Friend of God, lawgiver, and leader of the Jews through forty years wandering in the desert, he is a type of Christ. The older breviary (prior to 1960) had the following homely on fasting written by St. Basil:

We know that Moses ascended the mountain (Sinai) fasting. For, had he not been fortified by fasting, he would never have dared to approach its smoking summit. Because he had fasted, he received the tables of the law written by the finger of God. Fasting, therefore, made possible the creation of the Old Law upon the mountain; but gluttony on the plain below seduced the people to the worship of idols.

The labor and persevering effort of forty days, during which the servant of God fasted and prayed, was rendered void by a single act of immoderation on the part of the people. How easy it is to see, if the two are compared that fasting leads to God and gluttony to the loss of salvation.

Fasting produces men of God, it strengthens and invigorates the strong. Fasting confers wisdom upon the lawgiver; it is excellent protection for the soul. It banishes temptations, arms the pious, supports the temperate. By fasting soldiers become brave, and peacemakers gain their ends. It perfects the priest, for he is forbidden to approach the altar except when fasting.

Moses is the object of several responsories (elements of the breviary) during this week. He was called by God to be the savior, leader, provider and teacher of the chosen people. After many rebuffs from Pharaoh, he led his people out of bondage on the night of the Passover. Under his direction, they slaughtered and ate the paschal lamb. With them he passed dry-shod through the Red Sea. In the desert he provided manna, obtained the law and the commandments upon Sinai, spoke most intimately with God, and mediated for his people. He bore their shortcomings with incomparable patience. On all these points, he is the prefiguration of Christ.

Indeed, Christ was sent by the Father into the world, wrestled with hell’s pharaoh, led His people out of the land of slavery on Passover night, and offered Himself as the paschal lamb to be immolated and consumed by all. He guides His people through the Red Sea of baptism after He Himself opened the way through the Red Sea of suffering. And now he accompanies us through life’s desert, feeds us with manna, and gives us the fountain of the Eucharist from which to drink. And with ineffable patience He leads us to the Promised Land of heaven.
Laetare Sunday customs
Mothering Day

Laetare Sunday is also known as “Mothering Sunday” because of the Epistle reading that speaks of how not the Jews, but those who come to Christ, regardless of their ancestry, are the inheritors of Abraham’s promise.

The old practice of visiting the cathedral, or “mother church” of the diocese on this day is another reason for the name. In England, natural mothers are honored today, too, in a manner rather like the American “Mother’s Day.” Spring bulb flowers (daffodils, for example) are given to mothers, and simnel cake is made to celebrate the occasion (this cake has also become an Easter Cake of late, however). The word “simnel” comes from the Latin “simila,” a wheat flour of the finest grade.
Rose Sunday—the Papal Golden Rose

The rose vestments on Laetare Sunday is a custom originating in the fact that, as a symbol of joy and hope in the middle of this somber season, popes used to carry a golden rose in their right hand when returning from the celebration of Mass on this day (way back in 1051, Pope Leo IX called this custom an “ancient institution..)

Originally it was natural rose, then a single golden rose of natural size, but since the 15th century it has consisted of a cluster or branch of roses wrought of pure gold in brilliant workmanship by famous artists. The popes bless one every year, and often confer it upon churches, shrines, cities, or distinguished persons as a token of esteem and paternal affection.

The Golden Rose represents Christ in the shining splendor of His majesty, the “flower sprung from the root of Jesse,” and it is blessed with these words:

O God! by Whose word and power all things have been created, by Whose will all things are directed, we humbly beseech Thy Majesty, Who art the joy and gladness of all the faithful, that Thou wouldst deign in Thy fatherly love to bless and sanctify this rose, most delightful in odor and appearance, which we this day carry in sign of spiritual joy, in order that the people consecrated by Thee and delivered from the yoke of Babylonian slavery through the favor of Thine only-begotten Son, Who is the glory and exultation of the people of Israel and of that Jerusalem which is our Heavenly mother, may with sincere hearts show forth their joy.

Wherefore, O Lord, on this day, when the Church exults in Thy name and manifests her joy by this sign, confer upon us through her true and perfect joy and accepting her devotion of today; do Thou remit sin, strengthen faith, increase piety, protect her in Thy mercy, drive away all things adverse to her and make her ways safe and prosperous, so that Thy Church, as the fruit of good works, may unite in giving forth the perfume of the ointment of that flower sprung from the root of Jesse and which is the mystical flower of the field and lily of the valleys, and remain happy without end in eternal glory together with all the saints.

First Friday, March 6, A.D. 2015, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be offered by Fr. Harold B. Mc Kale, Parochial Vicar of Nativity of The Blessed Virgin Mary 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 Friday of the Second Week in Lent, with a Commemoration of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas, Martyrs, offered in Reparation to The Sacred Heart of Jesus. Violet vestments.

First Saturday, March 7, A.D. 2015 Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will also be offered by Fr. Mc Kale, 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 the Mass of Saturday of the Second Week in Lent, with a Commemoration of St. Thomas Aquinas, Confessor and Doctor of The Church, offered in Reparation to The Immaculate Heart of Mary. Violet vestments.

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

Mark Matthews