“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” ― St. Antony the Great
Thursday 28 July 2016
Who are the real dissenters?
When I was a young lad, the dissenters in the Church were all the rage. It was so bad, I eventually left. I never really lost my faith, but the Church was enough of a mess that I lost interest. I was typical of someone growing up in the 1960's.
After a rather hedonistic period of life, I returned to the Church and to the Faith as it was taught to me by my parents and the good priests of my parish. It was a long road of return, including a long period of time in the cafeteria line. I had forgotten about the traditional Mass but came back to it and then became convicted by it for what I had become.
I practice the Faith today as my parents did, and as we did together, as a family.
Today, I am a dissenter.
If I have not changed, and I am the dissenter, what does it say about them?
Tuesday 4 January 2011
What kind of mother are you?
Monday 22 March 2010
Justfying my quote--Part III
“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the Third: Gregorian chant and the chanting of the psalms is the closest thing we know to the manner in which Our LORD Himself would have heard and sung the psalms in the Temple.
It is unknown by most people that in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or Novus Ordo liturgy, Gregorian chant is the prescribed liturgical music for the Mass. The proof is in two places. First, "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (Vatican Council II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No.116); second, the issuance of the 1974 The Graduale Romanum for the Novus Ordo and new calendar; essentially a smaller version of the Liber Usualis, which is ordered for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and last published in 1961. In this Graduale as in the Liber are the five Gregorian Proper for the Mass even if it is said in English. They are in Gregorian chant melismas and are the Introit, Graduale, Alleluia or Tract, Offertory and Communion and the appropriate Sequences and other Psalms and the Ordinary the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus.
Clearly, the Church intends Gregorian chant to be sung in both forms of the Roman Rite and the Second Vatican Council and all popes since have reaffirmed this.
But why and where did this music come from?
If we read the Psalms, we often see in Holy David's own words..."To the choirmaster... ." Clearly, we know from this and Jewish liturgical history as well that the Psalms were meant to be sung. they were songs of praise or repentance or of prayer and supplication and they were chanted to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When as an infant, Mary of Nazareth was offered to God in the Temple by Anna and Joachim, they would have heard the psalms being sung. When Our Blessed Mother returned to present her own child with Joseph her husband and as she heard the words of Simeon and the Prophetess Hannah, the daughter of Phanuel, they would have heard singing. When at twelve, Jesus was teaching in the Temple, the psalms were sung. And when he was at the Temple in the last week of His life before the Crucifixion and Resurrection, he heard and sang the psalms Himself as He would have done at the synagogue in Capernaum.
But what did this singing sound like?
Those Jews which accepted Jesus as Messiah practiced their Judaic faith with the LORD's Prayer and Supper and this developed before the end of the first century to the Divine Liturgy. These early Christians sang and what they sang were the psalms they knew from the Temple. It is recorded that a vision was held by St. Ignatius of Antioch of Angels singing to the Holy Trinity in alternating hymns or antiphons from the Greek for opposite voices. St. Ambrose of Milan later formalised this method of singing and developed the first four authentic tones. The chants for the Mass was codified or organised by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century, he died in 604. Originally, the texts were chanted by memory, literally passed on orally. By the tenth century a system of writing down the chants and the music was developed and standards and uniformity became more commonplace, though to be sure, different styles were present with the different rites--Ambrosian chant for example.
It was Guido of Arezzo in 930 who developed St. Ambrose's work into a seven-note scale which eventually grew to eight. This scale of Do Re Mi, etc. named from the first letters of of the words to a hymn to St. John the Baptist, Ut Queant Laxis and where the notes fell on the system of lines and neumes developed by Arezzo. This is where our whole western music originates. The only accidental (black key) was the B flat assuming it is sung in its written pitch of a C clef which we would now call, C Major. For a more theoretical understanding, one may visit Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum.
In the east the Byzantine chant is the equivalent. Using more accidentals, sharps and flats; more in-between notes and it has a distinctly different sound and both Gregorian chant and Byzantine chant share similar characteristics in that they are both made up of eight tones which are derived from the first four. Old Roman Chant which pre-dates Gregorian which became more suited to western ears is closer to Byzantine. If one listens today to the sounds of Byzantine or Old Roman Chant from which our Gregorian Chant derives one can hear the same sounds as that sung in the Orthodox Jewish liturgy.
Let me quote here from Father Joseph Fessio, S.J. from The Mass of Vatican II online at Ignatius Insight:
"Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know." So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM." So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."
After speaking to Professor William Mahrt, Professor of Music at Stanford University, Father Fessio questioned Professor Mart on the information he received from the Manhattan Rabbi. Professor Mahrt confirmed that "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." Father Fessio concluded that "if you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant."
To say that our LORD sang Gregorian Chant would be silly. To say that Gregorian Chant is the closest thing we know to what He heard and sang in the Temple is obvious.
FURTHER READING:
An Analysis of Sacrosanctam Concilium; Joseph Jaskierny, Kendrick School of Theology
Gregorian Chant: Back to Basics in the Roman Rite by John C. Piunno The American Organist Magazine June 2005 (Canticanova.com)
The Real Catholic Songbook by Jeffrey Tucker: Catholicity
Thursday 18 March 2010
Justfying my quote--Part II
“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the Second: The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is how the Mass was celebrated at Rome for over 1,500 years, it was only codified at the Council of Trent
How many scholars have already addressed this question and yet I find myself needing to defend my statement. Father Adrian Fortescue, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, Dom Guéranger, Reverend Dr. Alcuin Reid, Father Jonathan Robinson, layman Michael Davies all experts in the questions of liturgy. Who am I to even think of writing an essay on these matters when such great work exists from these?
But I made a statement and I shall justify it myself and then refer you to writers much more knowledgeable and scholarly than I could ever hope to be.
As discussed in Part the First, the Mass grew out of the Temple worship in Jerusalem. Following the issuance of the motu proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM many opposed to the spread of the usus antiquior and most, if not all in the media, referred to the "Latin Mass" (which is incorrect because the Ordinary Form is always able to be celebrated in Latin) as dating from the Council of Trent in 1570. If this is true, then what existed prior to Trent?
As discussed in Part the First, the Mass as we have it today is from apostolic times; though clearly the liturgy developed. The Roman Canon of the Mass (the First Eucharistic Prayer in the Ordinary Form) dates from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great d.604 and remains unchanged from the Te igitur to the Amen.
The fact is, it is not true that the so-called Tridentine Mass was written at Trent. It was codified or made the standard at the Council of Trent for the Latin Rite--the western Church except for a few minor exceptions.
It was in 1440, 130 years before Trent that Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press. Up to that time, the Holy Bible and the liturgical books of the Church were compiled by hand; laboured on for years by monks through the monasteries of Europe. There value in today's terms would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In many cases, a monk may have made additions or deletions to certain liturgical books some by accident, some by intent but not necessarily maliciously. There were different religious orders that had their own specific liturgies. In England the Mass was celebrated as it was at Salisbury Cathedral and was known as the Sarum Rite. In northern Italy, primarily around Milan, their is still to this day the Milanese or Ambrosian Rite and in southern Spain the Mozarabic Rite from the Christian Arabs there at the time of the Moors. Other rites and modifications existed throughout Europe. How long did a papal order take to get from Rome to Scandinavia or Ireland to say nothing of the New World?
One of the decrees arising from the Council of Trent was the imposition of the Mass as it was celebrated at Rome and in fact, the Curia Mass itself; hence the Roman Missal. The Tropes at the Kyrie (to return in the penitential rite in the Ordinary Form) were eliminated as were the multiplicity of Sequence options reduced to five (now three in the OF) and inconsistently used across Europe. Incorporated was the preparatory prayer said by the Priest and his Server on their way to the Altar to the beginning for all, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Other small changes occurred and this order was to be said by all priests in the Latin Rite. Mass was celebrate differently almost everywhere. Unless the Rite existed for over 200 years, as in the case of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, the Carmelite and Domincan Rites and probably the Sarum Rite had England not gone into heresy and schism by Henry VIII all had to conform to this ancient Mass as it was celebrate in Rome since at least the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great. While the Roman Mass as we have it today dates from this time, the Canon of the Mass dates at least from the fourth century and is referred to by St. Ambrose of Milan substantially the same as that of the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer in the Ordinary Form and the only Canon in the Extraordinary Form. The promulgation of a consistent and unified liturgy in what became the Roman Missal was necessary for missionary work, church unity and to rise to the challenge of the protestants. Discipline, education, consistency and holiness were necessary and the printing press together with the creation of seminaries helped bring this about.
Those who have taken the position that the Mass was composed at Trent usually tend to be Protestant or Evangelical Christians. It is something expected from Jack Chick that the Mass is nothing more than a renaissance Roman creation. Those who embraced the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" took up this same position, that the Mass dated from Trent. Why would these reformers betray the truth and scholarly evidence to unite themselves to a position taken by enemies of the Church for centuries? For Catholics to take such a position is simple ignorance at best and a betrayal at worst.
Read the Documents of the Second Vatican Council. Read the writings of those quoted above or the link on the Canon to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
You don't need to take my word for it.
Part III:d
Tuesday 16 March 2010
Justifying my quote--Part I
“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the First: The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God.
Polemic arguments tend to arise when one expresses the opinion that the Holy Mass as celebrated in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a fuller and more complete expression of Catholic worship for the greater glory of God and the edification of His people. If indeed this is true, then it would logically follow that the current or more modern liturgical books are somehow deficient in their expression of the fullness of the worship due to God and needed by us. How then can this be argued without descending into a polemical debate clearly out of keeping with the desires of Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM?
In paragraph 1323, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” As Catholics, we believe that the Consecration of the species through the words of the priest is the re-presentation of the blood atonement of the LORD at Calvary offered once to the Father and brought forward in time and space for us to be present there and Him, here. This is the same in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and in all of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and in the schismatic Orthodox and some other Old Catholic Masses and even a few Anglican Masses said by former Catholic priests or those ordained by the referred to Old Catholic bishops. The Eucharist is confected and therefore the Mass is “validated” by the form, matter and substance. However, the consecration can occur even if done outside of the Holy Mass. Since it is the words of the priest combined with the proper matter the Eucharist can be confected by a priest sitting in shorts at a coffee table outside of the Mass or on a hay-bale wearing blue jeans. The words of consecration make it valid and the sacrifice offered up to the Father; but it is the service of prayer and praise before and after in our Divine Worship that is for the greater glory of God and our edification and it is the lack thereof that may render it illicit, sacrilegious and even sinful. Unless it were Cardinal Nguyễn Văn Thuận in his jail cell putting a drop of wine in his hand and consecrating the Blood of Christ offered up to the Father then such a careless attempt at Mass would be truly, objectively sinful to the LORD. What we do for God cannot equal what He does for us. But whatever we do for Him, we must do all we can with the talents and energy He gives us to reach perfection in our leitourgia—our public duty to Him. This is why the great cathedrals were built over decades and centuries; why Palestrina wrote his four-hundred Masses and motets and why Michaelangelo laboured so expressively in the Sistine Chapel and why when Jedd Clampet put on a suit and tie he referred to it as his "Sunday goin a meetin' " clothes; these simply must be our best!
If it is true that the words of the priest at the Consecration confect the Eucharist then what is the point of the remainder of the Mass? Perhaps as some liturgists and antiquarians suggest, we should return to a practice of early Christians. Therefore, let us go to a Synagogue to sing the Psalms and then go to a private home, have a meal and then at the end of the meal have the Eucharist whilst we recline on cushions on the floor? Perhaps we should just recline spread around any gathering hall imitating the Last Supper of the LORD. This is a debate that raged throughout the professional liturgists over the last forty to fifty years; but their time is ending. Their work has been proven to be dross and they left no progeny to carry it on. We are now at a point of transition as the biological realities take hold.
After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and as Christianity was spreading, still in the first century, liturgy was developing. No longer did these Christians worship in the synagogue but in their own homes or where possible within separate structures—churches, as have been found recently in parts of what is now, Jordan. In Rome of course, the Christians worshipped in the catacombs. St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology wrote: “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” St. Justin was describing the Mass. Therefore, we know that whatever was being done to celebrate the Eucharist in first century Jerusalem and its surroundings, developed organically by the time of the Saint’s death in 161AD. The Early Church Fathers took the Temple worship as passed on to them by the Apostolic Fathers a Liturgy of the Word and enjoined to it what we now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The word Mass comes from ite missa est the dismissal, literally meaning “go, you are sent.” Perhaps the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox express it more clearly where it is called, The Divine Liturgy or Divine Worship.
The Mass as we have it today is from apostolic times which has developed organically as theology developed. Transubstantiation was believed from the very beginning but it was only defined in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. Surely one would not suggest that we should do away with his teachings or Thomism itself.
To disprove the protestant or evangelical Christian and anti-Catholic claim that the Mass came much later or the opinion of some liturgists in the latter half of the 20th century that true worship should be bare and stripped down as that described above is to ignore the truth as expressed by three ancient rites of the Catholic Church. When the Crusaders came through Mount Lebanon in the 10th century they were surprised to find the Divine Liturgy. While different from what they knew in Europe they recognised the Mass in the Maronite Rite, which is my own background. These Maronite monks knew of “Peter” and after were always united with Rome even though there had been no contact for centuries. Two other rites trace their history back to St. Thomas the Apostle. The Chaldeans (also the Persian Rite) in what is now northern Iraq on the Plains of Ninevah are the oldest indigenous Catholics in the world still on their land (though that is clearly becoming tenuous) and the Nasrani in India, descendants of the ancient Jewish diasporas evangelised in 52AD by this same apostle. Different from those Latin Rite Catholics in Goa and other parts of India, from whom did these learn their liturgy—their public duty if not from the Apostle himself? Yet the liturgy of these "St. Thomas Christians" in what is known as the Syro-Malabar and the Syro-Malankar Rites both bear greater resemblance to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite than the Ordinary. Can anyone deny that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in its manner of celebration in many places bears more resemblance to that of the heretical Lutherans or Cranmer’s Elizabethan Prayer Book than of our eastern Christians and our Catholic and Jewish roots?
I mention Jewish roots because that is the root of the Mass and in its Extraordinary Form, the Temple Worship is more clearly present and fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. I have spoken recently with a Hebrew Catholic who believes that in the Ordinary Form the Catholic Mass has hidden its Jewishness and this is more clearly expressed in the Extraordinary. Since it was this worship that grew organically from the ancient Temple who are we to replace it? Don’t take my word for it, consider what Pope Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy wrote: “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
The Mass is more than the Eucharistic consecration. It is a prayer of thanksgiving—a eucharistia and praise to the Triune God. The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite makes this abundantly clear throughout with the oft repeating of the “Glory be…” and the various prayers addressed specifically to the Holy Trinity. Beginning with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (added by Pope Pius V at the Council of Trent but formerly said by the Priest on his way to the Altar) the Bishop or Abbot or Priest and his assisting Ministers and by extension the people present all profess their joy at being present at the Holy of Holies but also their unworthiness. These prayers at the beginning of what we know call the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite establish to us that what we are about to do is something outside of ourselves. It establishes through our words and actions, internally and externally that we are about to do something that is out of the regular.
Throughout the EF, particularly in its sung or solemn form, this is made clear. The depth of the prayers, the invocation of the Trinity, frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin, the Communion of Saints and the Angels, specifically the Archangel Michael, (such as at the incensing), all invoke great spiritual power. The silent Canon promoting prayer and contemplation and mystery, the elimination of the personality of the priest through the posture, the frequent genuflections to the Real Presence, the reception of Holy Communion in a solemn and dignified manner whilst kneeling, on the tongue and by the consecrated hands of the priest; all of this increases the depth of the peoples prayer and thus, their faith so that they can truly at the end of the Mass, be sent. Within are also the psalms or scripture verses contained in all five Propers which are not optional and cannot be substituted by devotional hymns. They are sung or in the case of a Missa Lecta they are read aloud, but they must be said. The great psalm at the opening prayers at the Foot of the Altar and at the Lavabo together with the Prologue of St. John at the end consistently and continually reinforce the Lex orendi, lex credendi of Catholic life and praxis.
While the above is true, the historical application of liturgical understanding by people was not always apparent and catechises was not always properly provided. But let us not debate that for 1,900 years most people were simply illiterate--yet they seemed to understand more than we. The oft sited remarks of little old ladies with doilies praying their rosary during Mass was why no less than Pope St. Pius X exhorted the people to “pray the Mass.” Now at the dawn of a new century a Pope desired a greater interior attitude amongst the commonfolk. People were no longer illiterate, education was no longer the domain of the wealth or those entering clerical life. The common folk could read, could be fully catechised, the hand missal was available with the people’s tongue written side-by-side with the Latin.
The liturgical movement grew in the 20th century to foster, not change in the liturgy but change in how we approached the liturgy. This is clear in Pope Pius X’s motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini and those documents issued by Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei and De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. These documents exhorted bishops, priests and the faithful to change how we approach and participate in the Mass. It was Pope St. Pius X who coined the phrase “actuoso participationem.” Badly translated as active, actuoso has a deeper meaning to include full, actual or true, it has come to be interpreted as outward activity—externals, if you will, and on the part that we all must by doing something outwardly and forgot what it meant inwardly.
The lack of implementation of the true liturgical movement allowed a false liturgical movement, what became the “spirit of Vatican II” to prevail. That “spirit” invaded Dominicans in North America and Europe whose influence was felt worldwide. Those in the Concilium who put before the Holy Father for promulgation a new liturgy that was something less than what existed before were the greatest purveyors of the false spirit. I have previously made the argument that the post Vatican II liturgical reforms, except for the new Lectionary, were complete by 1965. The Missa Normative of 1970 simply went beyond anything articulated in Sacrosanctam Concilium. However, let me make it clear, this is not an argument that the modern liturgy is invalid; it simply and objectively is less than what it was and must be drawn closer to its historic root. Let me also make it clear that while I attempt to attend Mass as frequently as possible during the week, it is most often in its newer Ordinary Form. What is described above existed for over 1500 years grew organically from the first century. It was and remains the highest form of Catholic worship to God. Therefore, it would follow that removing that from it which made it so makes its replacement somewhat lower in its worship. It does not make it invalid, nor does it discredit, but it simply must follow that if you remove prayers and penances, psalms and the pleading assistance of Saints and Angels then you have lowered its degree of worship. If you turn a ritual that is focused totally on God to one that is more focused on ourselves as is often the case, you cannot help but lower its meaning and its efficaciousness.
This is not to say that all people who attended the former before or now are holier or that those people who do not are less than so. This is not the Pharisee versus the Tax Collector. But, externals are important. The lex orendi, lex credendi, the manner of how our prayer of prayer becomes or influences how we believe is a fact of our sensual nature. If coming in to Mass I am struck with a deep sense of adoration and prayer and worship then I too can be lead to that same sense of deep contemplation and mystery with the meta-physical and the Triune God. If we offer to God and to the people less than that because of our laziness then what are we truly able to gain from it?
Setting aside the currently used banality of the ICEL translation, even the Latin original of the Second Eucharistic Prayer neglects to even mention sacrifice. Before the Holy Mass is a banquet it is a sacrifice. We eat the Eucharist, truly it is a meal, but before that it is an offering—a sacrifice which is made most clear in the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer. The Mass is first and foremost the re-presentation to the Atonement of Christ the Lamb, sacrificed for us and pre-figured by Abraham (the father) and Isaac carrying the sticks for the sacrifice as Christ carried His Cross. The heavenly Father then provided a substitute sacrifice for Isaac again prefiguring Christ crucified. The blood of the lambs on the doorposts and lintels in Egypt prefigured the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. The blood of the lambs—pesach, covered the people and saved them from death—just as the blood atonement of Jesus on Calvary covered the sins of the people. All of these sacrifices, those which pre-figured Christ and the one, true and everlasting one of Jesus are made clear in the usus antiquior consistently everywhere. This sacrificial dimension is less clear in the more modern liturgical expression of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is there and it can be made clear but it takes more attention on the part of the Priest and Levitical Ministers—liturgists, lectors, cantors. If one sings the Gregorian Propers in English but more particularly in the Latin from the 1972 Graduale Romanum (for the Novus Ordo), one uses the I confess as the Penitential Rite, the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer and as well if the priest and people face the same direction for the Liturgy of the Eucharist together with the use of incense then the lines are not as blurred. One can also conclude that the number of options and the substitution of the Propers with hymns many of which are not theologically sound combined with the invasion of secular forms of music, contributes profoundly to this deficiency.
To justify the statement that the “The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” must be carefully addressed so as not to alienate. The rancour over “which Mass is better” must be avoided. It follows though that if one takes the position that one Form is higher than another then one who prefers another Form could take a position that the former is an elitist or dismissive of other forms of Catholic worship or indeed is becoming pharisaical. But this is not the case. In the EF, we are familiar with the terms High Mass and Low Mass to describe the difference between a Missa Solemnis or Missa Cantata and Missa Lecta. Therefore, we have always acknowledged that there is something “higher.”
Make no mistake. The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the normal manner of worship in the Catholic Church. It is edifying and can be celebrated with great beauty and solemnity. This has been proven in Minneapolis at St. Agnes, in Chicago at St. John Cantius in Toronto at The Oratory and in little churches and big cathedrals throughout the world. However, it contains within its basic structure rubrical deficiencies, casualness, variety and a false interpretation that has lead to abuses and as Pope Benedict XVI has himself called, "deformities." Going forward, we simply cannot continue with the same practice undertaken since 1970 or the shenanigans and experimentation with the 1965 Missal. Nor is this to say that there were no abuses prior to the reforms. Any priest that celebrated the Mass in 18 minutes or slurring the words was unfaithful to the liturgy, the need for Mass on the hood of an army jeep, notwithstanding. The fact that Mass is now said in the vernacular and facing the people has exposed Father Experimenter for what he is.
In conclusion, the Holy Father has said that the two Missals, that of 1962 and that of 1970/2002 (which we hope to see by 2012) are two Forms of the one Latin Rite. Legally speaking, both are equal, there is no difference. Objectively speaking, that is simply not possible and the future of the Ordinary is one where it will be shaped by the Extraordinary to bring it fully to the intent of the Fathers of the Council—The Reform of the Reform.
Part II
FURTHER READING:
The Ottaviani Intervention
The Day the Mass Changed Part 1 & 2--Adoremus Society
The Case for the Latin Mass--Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand
A Short History of the Roman Mass--Michael Davies
Thursday 11 March 2010
The long Lent
On a global Catholic level, the depravity of homosexualist infiltration into the spotless Bride of Christ continues. The media in Europe and America and Canada is rejoicing. Father Gabriel Amorth has explained it all quite well. Satan is in the Vatican and there are "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon." The enemies of the Church are real and the worst ones are inside Her. Those who agree with Father Amorth or believe that Bella Dodd actually did what she said she did (and no less than Dr. Dietrich von Hilderbrand believed this to be true) are often ridiculed or called conspiracy theorists. Folks, the Catholic Church is under fierce attack by the world and the media and their master, Satan; because She is the Bride of Christ. It is all true friends. Everything. All of it. The Real Presence of the LORD in the Holy Eucharist, Mary, The Vicar of Christ, The Communion of Saints, the Four Last Things, the Antichrist. It is all true and that is why they hate Her and seek to destroy Her and us along with Her!
Friends, put on the "helmet of salvation...the armour of God...gird your loins...run the course and finish the race; keep the faith" Do you think that there is a better way? Not Ganesh, nor is it Buddha nor Mohomat. It is not Hitchens, nor Freemasonry, nor Luther, nor Zwingli not Calvin either; they are lies and from the Prince of Darkness and remember the psalmist admonition to "Put not your trust in princes."
This is going to get worse and you must be ready.
Go to Confession.
Go to Holy Communion.
Go to Mass. Often. More than Sunday.
If you did not go last Sunday then go to Confession for it and whatever else you need to confess on Saturday and repent and fix yourself. Go then to Mass on Sunday and receive Him and do not bring "condemnation upon yourself."
If you do not, then you will not see the truth. The battle is heating up. The battle to destroy our Mother, the Church and to take you straight to Hell.
They hate the Church, they despoiled Her liturgy and they put up roadblocks in every way from stifling Pope Benedict XVI in his work from the Holy Spirit to restore Her and the liturgy both Ordinary to bring it "Just as the hermeneutic of continuity is revealing itself to be ever more important for an adequate understanding of the texts of Vatican Council II" and in the Extraordinary for those who desire it and to provide the example and benchmark to strive for.
On a personal level, amongst many of my friends and the people who have worked so hard over the last 17 months in the Schola Tridentina, and to serve at the Altar of God and who assisted in the pews, this is a long Lent of penance. The departure stings still. The liturgical setback is profound for the spiritual life of the all and I speak here of the choir too, myself included as Cantor and Schola Master, particularly with the Holy Days to come. The departure feels like a betrayal and an abandonment. It matters not the reason or the circumstance. The fact is that whatever the reasons the decision was made or came about to be made, for what was provided or promised or not provided; for vacancies elsewhere or a desire to give up the fight for something more immediate and deemed more important and for a place deemed more worthy; in all of this, for whatever reason, the impact of these decisions by those in authority on the little people seems hardly considered. Had it been considered, there would have been a different outcome. The spiritual needs of the little people were never considered. Just as "the heavens proclaim the greatness of the LORD" so do their actions show what their words cannot. The sense of betrayal and abandonment is real and profound.
Here is something to ponder.
A 73 year old woman using a cane travelled over two hours each way by TTC to attend the only Mass on Wednesday in the whole Archdiocese of Toronto in the manner she preferred to worship; that is four hours on transit for the liturgy she prefers as is her right.
Does this matter to you; to anyone?
The people are hurting yet they are also hoping.
They are waiting and they are longing.
This is their long Lent.
This is our long Lent.
This is my long Lent.
We are in Gethsemane and soon we will be on Calvary.
We know there will come the resurrection.
We hope it will be soon because we have not put our trust in princes, we have put them in the LORD!
Saturday 3 October 2009
The mess in the Church in Canada - pederasts, clericalists and haters of blogs
Raymond Lahey, Bishop of Antigonish in Nova Scotira |
Now, he is only charged and not convicted, and our secular system presumes him innocent, but according to one report he raised suspicion at the Ottawa Airport that caused a further investigation.
Another report indicates that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary may have known that he possessed child pornography over twenty years ago while a priest in Newfoundland. All of this will come out in court.
How did this happen?
Did he not just lead a committee that made a multi-million dollar settlement with victims of pederasty and paedophilia in that diocese?
We are all sinners and we all know that sexual sins are the most common. We are bombarded with sexual imagery daily. For those of us who are single, divorced, annulled it is even harder--it is even our cross. We know it most clearly, most intimately, most directly. We have a remedy when we fall (and God forgives us easier than we forgive ourselves). It called the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But did Leahy use this remedy? Did he go to confession over these matters? While his "confessor" could not report on what happened inside the confessional his confessor could and should have certainly ensured that Leahy undertook his duty to God, the Church and the law of the land through a penitential command which must be obeyed.
If true, Leahy's actions are repugnant, vile and destructive to the children involved directly and indirectly; his actions have damaged the Church--the Bride of Christ! Once more we see and hear more scandal brought about by our own clergy and we hang our heads in shame. Read the "comments" on-line in any of the papers about this event and note the anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred that is out there. Leahy has caused this wound in the Holy Catholic Church and aided the Church's enemies, but so have others. Where is the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on this matter? Where is his outrage that a fellow bishop would bring such harm to a child and such ill repute and scandal on the Church?
My advice for Leahy and anyone who has any contact with him? If you're guilty, then plead guilty! Do it now! And then commit your life to one of prayer and penance to save your own soul and that of the rest of us. Do it at a Cistercian monastery and give your generous pension to those whom you have corrupted.
Senator Edward Kennedy, we can all hope, is at least at the bottom-rung of purgatory and no lower. God is just and merciful. "Senator Kennedy killed that girl (Mary Jo Kopechne) the same as if he put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger" in the view of lead investigator and State Police Detective, Lieutenant George Killen. Kennedy's marriage matters are well-known, but even more well known are the public policy initiatives that he undertook. From open access to the murder of unborn children, to embryonic stem-cell research to human cloning to support for so-called "same-sex marriage" he has been at odds with the truth of the Catholic Church and its teachings.
Kennedy gave a whole new generation of Catholic politicians such as Pelosi, Biden and Sibelius an excuse to forsake the truth as they swore to uphold it and the most perfect constitutional republic in human history on the holy book holding these truths. Senator Kennedy may have received the sacraments and have been reconciled on his death bed. If that happened he was due a Catholic funeral. But, Sean Cardinal O'Malley was wrong; the funeral should not have been a public affair or a de facto canonisation of Kennedy or his work and that is what it was. The least the Cardinal Archbishop should have done and had the power to do was to prevent the televising or any electronic communication of the Funeral Mass. He could have gone as far as say that no print reporters are permitted to take notes during the Mass. That was his duty and obligation to prevent scandal. He chose not to do the right thing and on this matter, the Cardinal failed.
Father Tom Rosica has been very outspoken lately since this funeral and very critical. I really wish he would stop and that he would simply run the network and either kill his blog or keep it oriented towards programming or faith and not this divisiveness.
Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB |
Produce more documentaries on the Dominican Sisters and comment less in the media.
On Leahy, Rosica wrote that Leahy was a "kind and gentle pastor, particularly sensitive to the needs of those who have suffered the scourge of sexual abuse"
It would have been more helpful if Father Rosica were to have written that this crime against the children and the Church must stop and must that we must call for a literal cleansing of the Church in Canada from these vile, despicable, repugnant cretins.
Enough of the chest-stroking liberal tolerance, what do we think has caused all of this? What is it exactly that you are all afraid of?
Winnipeg Archbishop James Weisgerber |
In the October Plenary to be held in Cornwall, he has placed on the agenda, bloggers. His Grace, has no authority over me in this matter or this blog or any other. Media such as LifeSiteNews and even little blogs such as this have a purpose. Tell me Your Grace, may I address the plenary? Father Rosica is. Gaillardetz is. What about the rest of us? Don't we have a right to have a say in important matters affecting the Church and culture? Or should we just shut-up and let y'all run it.
If bloggers were around forty years ago, we would have watched the Second Vatican Council and read the documents and fought for the truth.
Tell us Archbishop Weisgerber, what will you do at Cornwall to ensure that any homosexualist, pornography viewing, sexual molesting bishop or priest in this country are found and removed from their position?
Saturday 4 August 2007
Catholic church important part of Canada's history
A few decades later, St. Jean de Brebeuf and his companions who would later become known as the the North American Martyrs Isaac Jogues, Antoine Daniel, Gabriel Lalemant, Charles Garnier, Noel Chabanel (priests), and Rene Goupil and Jean Lalande (lay missionaries); along with their Huron (Wendat) family were savagely murdered by the barbaric Iroquois.
Eventually, of course, the British came; and following the War of Independence in the United States even more who proudly became known as the United Empire Loyalists came north. General James Wolfe's British army defeated General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm at Quebec City on the Plains of Abraham and history changed forever. But the British were fair. They did not subjugate the French of Quebec or what they called Lower Canada (Ontario was Upper Canada) but allowed the retention of their language, culture and system of law.
In the 1860's, conferences were held culminating at Government House in Charlottetown, where on July 1, 1867 Canada became a nation of the four colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Articles of Confederation included something that is now again under pressure in Ontario and an anomaly to my American and other readers--the public funding of Catholic schools.
While it does seem to be an anomaly, it is our history. Lower Canada would only come in to "confederation" if its rights of religion, language, culture and law were safeguarded. George Etienne Cartier and others knew that in one nation they would always be a minority. Thus, their rights were guaranteed by Confederation and minority rights were enshrined. These minority rights also included the English Protestants in Quebec. Any public school system in Quebec would naturally be French and Catholic and the teachers nuns and priests. This was a fact of demographics. The English Protestants in Quebec were granted the right to "Separate Schools" that were "protestant." Of course, the quid pro quo of this extended throughout Canada and still remains in Ontario with the "separate" system being "Catholic." Therefore, today in Ontario we have four publicly-funded district school systems, Public (secular), French (secular), Catholic and French-language Catholic.
So where is this brief history session going?
Well, in October we have an election in Ontario. John Tory, the "leader" of the Progressive Conservatives (how's that for an oxymoron) in a blatant vote grab is proposing public-funding for "other" religions. (They would probably come administratively under the "public" boards, would use existing empty schools and must abide by provincial curriculum and certified teachers as the Catholic boards have always done.) On the surface this seems fair--certainly if Canada which is decidedly secular today it would not have a "Catholic" system--as it would acknowledge the changes in demographics and immigration since mainly 1970 and Pierre Elliot Trudeau's new Canada and "Just Society".
Yes, fair.
Except that what was not an issue now becomes an issue and gives the usual round of anti-Catholic bigots the opportunity to once again, bash the Catholic Church and publicly-funded Catholic education--as if Catholics don't pay taxes!
A cheap ploy on the part of John Tory, no doubt.
And a provocation to all the bigots--thanks, John!
Well yesterday, I was almost apoplectic when I found in my local community newspaper on my stoop, the following editorial. Now, I know it's only the Etobicoke Guardian--but it would be a great thing if its parent the Toronto Daily Star picked it up and ran it!
Catholic church important part of Canada's history
August 3, 2007 08:56 AMThis is what happens when a country fails to teach and remind its citizens of its history.Canada, for those who don't know, was founded on two distinct cultural and religious divides: The Protestant, English-speaking and the Catholic, French speaking - each as an equal partner in the formation of a new nation.
From this unique history it shouldn't be surprising that one of the two - or both - of this exclusive club would at one time or another get some special treatment.
Catholic high schools in Ontario have been provincially funded since 1984, and the debate about the funding, although silent for a number of years, has been revisited after Conservative John Tory stepped up to say he would fund all religious schools if elected.
Since his announcement, opposition voices across the province have surfaced and had their prejudicial views printed regularly in various publications. Instead of attacking the actual funding of the Catholic schools, they attack the church's doctrine for what they perceive as discriminatory against women and gays - their attacks are out of ignorance.
A book was written four years ago: The New Anti Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins and its premise is so true when applied to the GTA. Just imagine if any of the other religions in the province were to take the narrow-minded abuse absorbed by the Catholic Church.
There's a malicious faction out there that fails to recognize, either wilfully or through ignorance, the Catholic Church's significant historical presence in Canada and too many have difficulty accepting that it is the largest religion in Ontario and makes up 43 per cent of the nation's faith base.
This same group gives the impression to whoever will listen to them that public money goes flowing from provincial coffers into Catholic schools. Did they ever once think that Catholics also pay taxes? And since they are the majority, it's a pretty safe bet they're paying a substantial amount. In essence, Catholics are footing their own bill for education.
Here are some interesting numbers from the last census:
- Ontario's population: More than 12,000,000
- Catholic: Close to 4,000,000
- Protestant: Close to 4,000,000
- Muslim: 352,530
- Hindu: 217,555
- Jewish: 190,795
- Buddhist: 128,320
- Sikh: 104,785
The media in this province go out of their way to avoid offending all religions and races, but consistently forget about the Catholic Church. Whereas offences against Jews and Muslim are considered hate crimes, any knock against the church of Rome is considered fair game.
In this respect, the debate on funding religious schools should be kept to the balance sheet. The bigotry that overshadows it should be eliminated.