Another Marxist Liturgist?

There were many interesting moments from Pope Benedict's visit to Cuber ("Cuba" for those of you outside 495) this week and most have been amply commented-upon in the blogopshere.  But something jumped out at me from a Reuters dispatch covering the Papal visit.  With regard to Benedict's brief meeting with Fidel Castro, we find the following:

"They discussed serious issues such as Church liturgy and the state of the world"

The Liturgy?  What on earth could this conversation have been like?  Consider that although he was raised a Catholic and educated by Jesuits (which could explain a lot) it's a safe bet that the old boy hasn't been to Mass very often in the past fifty years or so...

More Incense, Less Nonsense!

One of the better Botafumeiro videos out there.  The Pope.  The Botafumeiro.  Filmed with a real camera, not someone's phone.  Alas it lacks the dramatic nature of the one - somewhere on youtube.com - in which the combination of an overmatched camera, some fortuitous glare, and a full load of incense make the thing look like a glowing meteor streaking across the transepts with a full tail of smoke.  (Indeed, watching Benedict's stinginess with the incense I wondered if Spain had their own version of OSHA, but of course OSHA wouldn't allow any such thing unless everyone in the workplace, er, cathedral had hardhats... at least) But this one is much clearer and there are some unique perspectives, also the sound is decent; you can actually hear the words of the Himno al Apostol Santiago...


 
Don't misunderstand me - I *know* stuff like this is pretty much inessential to eternal salvation.  But Catholic worship has always been distinctively sensuous and there's nothing wrong with doing things on an outsized scale in church - we're there to worship the God if infinite power and majesty after all.  And for the past 45 years the liturgical "experts" have been introducing an endless stream of novelties in an effort to make the liturgy more "relevant" and "interesting" while eliminating the notions of power and majesty.
 
Bah!  This is no novelty, no meaningless liturgical entertainment. They've been doing it for at least ten centuries.  They had to, to relieve the interesting odors presented by hundreds of pilgrims camping inside the Cathedral!  And for goodness sake, the thing had already been in use for a few hundred years when Catherine of Aragon - you may remember her - stopped by in 1499 on the way to England to marry the heir to the British throne.  During her visit, the Botafumeiro parted company with its rope and crashed through a window in one of the transepts.  Maybe she should have taken it as an omen and gone back home...
 
But anyway, this is an ancient tradition, beloved of Compostelians and pilgrims alike, and so what if it happens to be a little bit over-the-top?  When in doubt as to the suitability of a particular liturgical element you can almost always make a proper judgment by asking three questions:
 
1.) Was it introduced for an actual reason, or as an experiment/novelty for the sake of "change"?
 
2.) Did it precede the Council (of Trent!)?
 
3.) What would Bugnini have thought of it?
 
I rest my case.

(n.b. get your minds out of the gutter, I said "sensuous", not "sensual"!)

More from Martin Mosebach

I have been recommending Martin Mosebach's book "The Heresy of Formlessness" to all sentient Catholics, and especially priests, since I read it a couple of years ago.  I have even given a copy to one bishop as a present.  Mosebach, a novelist rather than a liturgist or theologian, has some amazingly good insights which go a long way toward helping the average Catholic understand the importance of the liturgy and, not incidentally, the relationship between the liturgical chaos of the past forty-something years and the disintegration of Catholic belief and practice in so many regions.

Mr. Mosebach recently spoke at a liturgy conference in the Archdiocese of Columbo (in Sri Lanka), whose incumbent is the redoubtable Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith.  Mosebach's talk, entitled "The Old Roman Missal: Loss and Rediscovery" is well worth reading, and may be especially interesting for those who have not yet had a chance to read his book.

By the way, for those who are not famililar with Archbishop Ranjith, he is a man to watch in the Catholic Church.  Most knowledgeable churchmen expect him to be named a cardinal very soon, and eventually to return to Rome in some high post.

Father Rutler definitely gets it...

...and expresses himself with his usual erudition and panache. Read it and be edified!

The Liturgical Experts' Long Tassels

A happy anniversary - Deo Gratias!

Three years ago today Pope Benedict's apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, acknowledging the right of priests to use the 1962 Missal ad libitum privately and under most circumstances publicly.  Summorum Pontificum also established guidelines under which the faithful could request the T.L.M. directly from their pastors rather than seeking recourse to their bishop.  As I've opined before, this was not only a gift to Catholics inclined toward traditional modes of liturgy and spitituality, it was a great gift from Pope Benedict XVI to the entire Church.  Outside of the realm, admittedly small, of those who attend or celebrate the traditional Mass; Summorum Pontificum has had immense repercussions in the Church's relationship with the Orthodox Churches and with the large number of Anglicans disaffected by the increasing lunacy within their communions.

But since its stated intentions were to make the T.L.M. available to all who desired it and also to remove one of the stumbling blocks to a regularization of the S.S.P.X. it seems opportune to assess its success in those areas after three years (well, almost - S.P. came into effect on 14 September 2007).

I do not have the requisite statistical information on the growth of the traditional Mass in the past three years to make an informed pronouncement on the global situation, but I think it's definitely worth noting that in 2007 there were a total of ten every-Sunday T.L.M.'s in all of New England.  There were two whole states without a single (approved) Mass in the Usus Antiquor (not even one in a cemetery chapel at 4 a.m. on the fifth Tuesday of February!)  In the three years of Summorum Pontificum the number of every-Sunday Masses has more than doubled (to at least twenty-two), every diocese has at least one Sunday Mass, and there are lots of regularly scheduled weekday Masses, e.g. First Fridays.  One parish, Mary Immaculate of Lourdes in Newton Upper Falls (MA) has a daily T.L.M. while Holy Name of Jesus in Providence (RI) has two traditional Masses every Sunday.  It's hard to recall that back in late June and Early July of 2007 the Archbishop of Braintree was telling everyone how he'd set the Pope straight on the question of the T.L.M. in America, i.e. that there was virtually no demand for it!  Do you suppose he'll have anything to say for today's occasion?

Oh, by the way, despite the best efforts of many within the Church and their allies in the "progressive" media there has been a notable improvement in relations with the S.S.P.X.  The combination of Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications of their four bishops have facilitated a new stage which has begun with doctrinal talks which are now ongoing.

Thank you, Pope Benedict!

I don't have writer's block...

...it's just that I have been so darned busy at work and at home for the past few weeks that I have had little time for leisure (which this blog most assuredly is!)

I've been trying to find time to write part 2 of the post I started two weeks ago, but it takes a little bit of time and no little thought to write so personally and about such conseqential matters. I have this odd idea that someone might find my thoughts in the realm of personal faith useful or at least interesting, so that they ought to be correctly expressed.

Meanwhile, I commend for your attention a most interesting interview with Martin Mosebach, the author of one of the most important Catholic books of the 21st century: The Heresy of Formlessness.  (If you haven't read it, you should!)

Martin Mosebach Interview - Part I

Martin Mosebach Interview - Part II

h/t to Rorate Caeli
 
Enjoy!

On Various Matters..

• We were blessed to be able to attend two-thirds of the Triduum in the traditional rite this year, Holy Thursday in the basement, er, "lower church" of the Cathedral in Boston; and Good Friday at Holy Name in Providence.  Good Friday was especially moving and evocative, the three Deacons of the Passion did a magnificent job: one, a Trappist priest who's now in the Diocese of Fall River, the second a priest who serves on the tribunal in Providence who came to us from Nigeria by way of Italy, and the third a Dominican who teaches at P.C.  And Father Santos of Holy Name is a Rhode Island native who spent nearly two decades in the Archdiocese of Braga in Portugal.  Talk about the Universal Church!  And the schola - all amateur, all volunteer, was utterly magnificent.  They sang Tomás Luis de Victoria's setting of the Improperia which literally brought tears to my eyes.
• On baseball, it was very odd - disconcerting, even - to have the Sox opening at night - a Sunday night - Easter Sunday - all for the sake of the ESPN contract.  They lucked out with the weather, part of me was hoping that the last torrential downpours of the last three weeks would return at gametime just because of the incongruity of it all.  Monday we were treated to the spectacle of the President throwing out the first pitch for the home opener in D.C.  No matter what you think of his politics (you probably know my opinion) you have to admit it's embarrassing to have a president who throws like a girl! (excuse the expression - actually I've known girls who threw better!)
• For years I was forced to endure* ham for Easter.  I'm really not sure where that "tradition" originated.  Perhaps it was a way to differentiate ourselves from our elder brothers in the Faith, whose paschal meal was a lamb; or even a bit of epicurian triumphialism at their expense: "nyah, nyah, we can eat ham!"  No matter the cause, as long as the Archlady and I have hosted Easter dinner we've had lamb.  And to me there's nothing better than a leg of lamb cooked properly, with some spring vegetables, and a good red wine.  We did the Easter lamb with garlic and rosemary, and it was perfect with the superb claret which one of our guests brought.  And last night we had some leftovers, equally tasty with a $5.99 petite syrah from Trader Joe's.
• The MSM has taken curiously little note of it, but Pope Benedict has appointed a coadjutor Archbishop of Los Angeles, Archbishop Jose Gomez, most recently of San Antonio, Texas.  Unlike an auxiliary, a coadjutor has the right of succession, which means that Abp. Gomez will become the Archbishop of Los Angeles when Cardinal Mahony (finally!) reaches the age of 75 next year.  To the extent that the media has covered it they've focused on it as the appointment of a Hispanic archbishop in Los Angeles, which is incidentally the most populous archdiocese in the U.S.  Some stories have noted that Abp. Gomez belongs to Opus Dei and as such ought to be considered "conservative", but the real story here is that this huge archdiocese is getting an solid, orthodox archbishop whose thinking in inline with the pope's.  Sadly, that has not been able to be said during Cardinal Mahony's archepiscopacy, which had endured for nearly 25 years.  One might see it as a pointed repudiation of Mahony, but I prefer to see it as another gift from Pope Benedict, not only to the long-suffering Catholics of Los Angeles, not only to Americans of Hispanic extraction, but to the Church in the entire United States...

*Not that I dislike ham per se, but I say "why would you eat ham when you can eat lamb?"  Did I mention that I love lamb?

Pope Benedict's Gifts to the Church

Back in April of 2005, when Cardinal Medina Estevez appeared on the balcony to announce the name of the new pope, my heart nearly stopped when he got to "Josephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem..."  RATZINGER!  Who'd have believed it?  I got a chuckle at the thought of the gang at America or the National un-Catholic Distorter standing glumly around a monitor and then shuffling back to their desks in silence.  The scene at the Archlaic's Residence was a bit different, champagne corks were popped (as I recall it was just past Easter) and a stogie worthy of Churchill perfumed the air (to the dismay of Her Magnitude).

Of course one of my first thoughts was that he'd end the "limbo" that the traditional Mass had been in for 30+ years, and sure enough he did, two years later, with Summorum Pontificum.  Of course this was seen - not incorrectly - as a gift to the long-neglected Catholics who prefer the traditional liturgy, and also as a step toward a potential reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.  However, many commentators hailed it aa a gift to the entire Church and I believe that they were correct.  For one thing it is Pope Benedict's intention that as priests learn (or re-learn) to celebrate the traditional form of the Mass it will have a positive influence on the way they celebrate the newer form.  As such it is an especial gift to priests, whose very life and purpose is to offer Mass daily.

I opined at the time Summorum Pontificum was promulgated that one of its fruits would be an increase in vocations to the priesthood, and that such would become apparent within five years of S.P.. i.e. by 2012.  I am not aware of any recent statistics in this regard, but anecdotally I do perceive activity along these lines.

Another gift, whose true value may also take some time to become apparent, is Anglicanorum coetibus; which provides for the establishments of "ordinariates" for groups of Anglicans wishing to become Catholic. These ordinariates are roughly analogous to personal dioceses, but do not correspond to or replace existing territorial dioceses; rather they are envisaged to "overlay" them much in the manner that the Military Ordinariate or various Eastern Catholic diocese and eparchies do.   The same aging liberal naysayers who condemned Summorum Pontificum predictably panned Anglicanorum coetibus, but it appears that it is likewise starting to bear fruit.  A group of traditionally-minded Anglicans in Australia has sought to avail themselves of the new provisions and the process of establishing a personal ordinariate is underway.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal gives some hint of the way that the Anglicans-cum-Catholics will be integrated into the life of the Church while retaining certain of their own liturgical traditions

Because of these acts, and the ecumenical overtures he has made toward various Eastern Orthodox churches, Benedict XVI has been called "The Pope of Christian Unity".  This is certainly apt, but inasmuch as these concrete provisions in favor of true unity have been centered around liturgical worship it might be equally appropriate to call him "The Liturgical Pope".  Certainly this has been an area of concern for him both previous to and during his papacy, and it is an area in which he has some expertise.  As we look forward to the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict's election to the Chair of Peter it can certainly be said that he has had some significant accomplishments.  For a man who wished to retire, and who predicted a short papacy for himself, it has thus far been a consequential one.

Identity Theft - Part II

The reign of the experts came upon us in the wake of the Council and it has lasted for over forty years. Their influence has waned considerably, and indeed it's taken a big hit since the election of Pope Benedict; but there are still far too many of them left in positions of authority or influence, and they're still trying to re-invent Catholicism and force us into a new way of " being church".

So even today, we have various "experts" telling us that our traditions are merely simplistic and superficial piety which limit us to mindlessly "doing church" rather than "being church". But then, in the very next breath they tell us, "active participation" demands that we be doing something at Mass rather than just being there. Why? To what end? It's very strange to me that they've been striving for years to get us to "join in" but at the same time they've been Hell-bent on destroying all of the signs of our Catholic identity they can get their hands on. Again, one could rightly ask: exactly what, then, is it they want us to be a part of?

There are two* passages in the New Testament which are rather illustrative. If I may make bold to say so, Our Lord doesn't seem to have been a big fan of the sort of "active participation" so beloved of the liturgists:

1. Luke 10, 38-42: Now it came to pass as they went, that he entered into a certain town: and a certain woman named Martha, received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sitting also at the Lord's feet, heard his word. But Martha was busy about much serving. Who stood and said: Lord, hast thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? speak to her therefore, that she help me. And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
2. John 13, 6-9: He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.

In the first we see Jesus endorsing passive adoration over active busywork. In the second He corrects Peter who seems to resist passivity in his encounter with the Most Holy. (Martin Mosebach does a far better job of explaining this in "The Heresy of Formlessness" than I could ever do.) And of course St. John Marie Vianney's admonition is that we stand at the foot of the Altar as the Blessed Mother stood at the Foot of the Cross. I certainly don't remember anything about her running around and getting "involved". She - and St. John - remained quietly, adoring and praying.

Traditionally the Church has seen the Mass first as an unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary and secondly as a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Even though post-Conciliar theology has attempted to reverse these two emphases, the foregoing should aptly demonstrate that - either way - the ethos of true Christian worship does not require or even favor congregational activity over silent prayer and adoration. The perpetrators of the liturgical revolution - and its latter-day adherents - have turned their back on nineteen centuries of tradition in favor of trendiness.

When an identity thief assumes the persona of another, he is not simply engaging in a harmless masquerade; he's seeking to use the victim's good name and reputation to advance his own ends. Consider, for a moment, what would have happened if the "experts" who gained control of the post-Conciliar reforms had not been able to proceed under the auspices of the Pope and the bishops? What if they had started their own sect, let's call it the "Reformed Catholic Church", and sailed forth to peddle their theoretical theology and lackluster liturgy under this flag? Would their ideas have gained currency, or their sect gained converts? I doubt it! For my money it's a toss-up whether they'd have been clapped into mental institutions or simply ignored!

Does the name "Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter" mean anything to you? If not, perhaps it will refresh your memory if I reveal his alias: "Clark Rockefeller"! Now do you remember him? By presenting himself as something he was not - a member of the famous and wealthy Rockefeller family - Gerhartsreiter was able to gain the trust of numerous unsuspecting individuals and perpetrate a hoax that unraveled only when he began to believe his own fabrications.  A penniless unknown would never have been able to become a member of the Algonquin Club - let alone a member of it's Board of Directors - or marry a high-earning female exective, but the "Clark Rockefeller" identity gave him credibility.

By the way, his attorneys used an insanity defense. Do you suppose that sort of thing will fly when the thieves who tried to steal our Church and our Catholic Identity finally appear before the Seat of Judgment?

 * And there's lots of good stuff in the Old Testament about the importance of following the rubrics too!

I coudn't have said it better myself...

Fr. Z. had a link to a good article over on Inside Catholic which does a wonderful job of explaining why traddies are... traddies.

A sample: The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: "It's a machine built by geniuses so it can be operated safely by idiots."

Coming up - Crazy Season in the Church

Those of us who attend the traditional Mass don't have to worry about this for the most part, nor do those fortunate few who attend a parish with a sane, Catholic, priest and without an entrenched cadre of amateur liturgists. My guess is that, combined, these two groups are less than 10% of the Catholic population of the U.S. From what I hear it's even less in Canada.

What it is about Lent and Holy Week that brings out the worst in the lefty litniks? Growing up in the 1960's and '70's I was exposed to my fair share of unauthorized innovations and novelties, but the weirdest were always saved for Lent and Holy Week, especially the Triduum. From what I can tell, the madness hasn't abated. So, were I to venture out from my querencia to attend the "Ordinary Form" in a random parish starting on Ash Wednesday, here is a sample of what I'd expect to find:

• That dreadful song "Ashes"
• Ashes imposed by a layperson (OK, this is permitted but it just feels terribly wrong)
• Holy Water stoups filled with sand (or emptied for the duration of Lent)
• "Communal" Penance services with general absolution
• "Crucifixion" of "sins of the community" by hanging placards with things written on them (usually p.c. stuff like "sexism") on a large cross
• Writing one sin on a piece of paper, then bringing it forward to be burned (Can't remember if this was on Ash Wednesday or at one of those Penance services)
• Interactive/"Experiental" Stations of the Cross
• Statues remaining in place and unveiled during Passion Week and Holy Week
• Washing the feet of women and young children in the Holy Thursday Mandatum
• Allowing someone other than the priest to wash feet
• Passing out "Wash-n-Dri" packets and instructing the congregation to wash each other's hands
• ANYTHING which unnecessarily deviates from the rubrics on Good Friday
• "Wade in the Water" during Baptisms at the Easter Vigil
• Happy, clappy music at Easter Mass. For one Sunday a year, stick to the real thing!

This list is hardly inclusive, it only represents the liturgical gimcrackery I can recall experiencing in years past.

I've always wondered, "why?" Why do these liturgical pirates feel compelled to concoct something new, something avant garde, anything other than what's in the Missal?

A couple of years ago Cardinal Virgilio Noè, Pope Paul VI's Master of Ceremonies and certainly no traditionalist, asserted that Paul's famous statement about "the smoke of Satan" referred specifically to liturgical innovation and abuses: "He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony"

A heartfelt plea to all of those well-meaning folks who think they can do it better than the Church: "Do the Red, Say the Black", as Fr. Z. always says! This year, lets "do liturgy" as Holy Mother Church gives it to us - now that's an innovation!