Bishop Conley on the New Translation

Among other things, reading this made my day (emphasis mine):

(Referring to the current translation of ICEL):

God “makes it possible for us, though we are but creatures, to sing and worship with the angels” – an awe-inspiring task for which household objects, popular music, and casual language are inappropriate. Bishop Conley indicated that many attempts to make worship feel more familiar, have instead made it less inspiring.

(Referring to the New Mass Translation):

The new Mass translation reasserts “the continuity of the Novus Ordo (Mass) with the ancient liturgy of the Church” – where the apostles and the first Christians understood themselves to be “singing the song of angels,” participating in a heavenly ceremony while on earth.

Bishop Conley cited the words of Pope Benedict XVI, who said Catholic worship “presupposes … that the heavens have been opened,” and must reflect this reality. “This is the truth we need to recover,” the bishop taught. “Christ has rent the heavens and come down to us. Again he has been lifted up and carried into heaven to take his seat at the right hand of power.”

(...)

Bishop Conley specified a number of changes intended to recapture this sense of the sacred in the new translation, including the revival of the congregation's traditional response “and with your spirit,” the restored and “more faithfully translated” prayer of the priest before the Eucharistic rite, and the more exalted language in the “Gloria” hymn.

“Our new Mass translation replaces the mundane affirmation –'Happy are those who are called to (Christ's) supper'– with a confession of faith … 'Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb'.” The bishop explained that these changes “get us closer to the theological richness and the poetry of the original Latin.”

More here: Bishop explains how new Mass translation 'reaches up to heaven'

On Receiving Holy Communion

Father Anscar Chupungco OSB in his speech entitled: Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal given 21 January 2010, Sydney Australia:

"Is receiving Holy Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue more reverent than receiving it standing and in the hand?"

Compare this:

with this:

Isn't it obvious???

[Thanks to Rorate Caeli for the video link.]

The example of St. John the Baptist

Father Michell Joe Zerrudo on his blog, Sense of the Sacred, made a relevant relation between the priest and St. John the Baptist: The priest should never keep attention to himself, he should, like St. John the Baptist, directs all attention to the Bridesgroom, the Christ..."He must increase; I must decrease!"

By following the example of St. John the Baptist, the priest truly becomes Alter Christus in the Liturgy. The priest by not allowing his personality, ad libitum, to interfere (decrease), draws and directs all attention to the Action of Christ (increase) by following faithfully the words and actions prescribed in the Liturgy. It is therefore necessary that we, the congregation, together with the priests regain consciousness that Liturgy is a sacred and precious gift we have received and not something that we create, it is an act of prayer and not of entertainment.

Year of Priests - Clergy Conference 2009

Clergy Conference: January 4 to January 8, 2010

From the website: http://www.yearforpriests-clergyconferencerome2010.org/programme.htm

The programme includes the daily celebration of Holy Mass in the great basilicas, and on some days Vespers and Benediction. Our celebrants will include: His Eminence, Antonio Cardinal Canizares, His Eminence, James Cardinal Stafford, and His Excellency Archbishop Raymond Burke. We hope to be at the Holy Father's Mass on the Solemnity of the Epiphany.

As part of the programme, on January 7 at 5pm, his Eminence, Antonio Cardinal Canizares, will celebrate a Solemn Pontifical High Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite at the Lateran.

Deo Gratias!

The Reform of the Reform has begun

Translation From Rorate-Caeli, comments and emphasis are mine:

ROME The document was delivered to the hands of Benedict XVI in the morning of last April 4 by Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is the result of a reserved vote, which took place on March 12, in the course of a "plenary" session of the dicastery responsible for the liturgy, and it represents the first concrete step towards that "reform of the reform" often desired by Pope Ratzinger. The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity (These abuses are always justified for pastoral concerns but as a priest friend said, these are not pastoral concerns but concerns of the pastor! Abuses due to the false sense and interpretation of "active participation." MANY Eucharistic celebration has become nothing more than a "worldy", secular celebration devoid of the sense of the sacred. For starters, just say the black and do the red.). They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. (The norm has NEVER been communion by the hand even in the ordinary form.) There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact. The "Liturgy Minister" of Pope Ratzinger, Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the Orient of the celebrant, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly. (Another totally forgotten norm. Priests and faithful today are confused as to what is THE center of the celebration. Many of the abuses and wild experimentation began when the priest faced the people as it created a void as to WHO should be the focus of attention. Many priests as they face the people eye to eye try to fill this void by injecting their personality in the Holy Sacrifice, becoming performers, talk show hosts rather than sacred ministers, again all in the name of "pastoral concerns" and "active participation." Who is the center? One should immediately recall the words of sacred scripture "...for whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." As we proclaim the Lord's death on the cross it is imperative that the crucifix should be the center, the focus of the celebration, to remind us that the sacred action unfolding at Mass is a SACRIFICE, the sacrifice and death of our Lord on the cross. Furthermore, the priest facing the people, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer leaves a bad impression that the priest and the faithful are praying to each other. In the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest is not conversing to the people, but it is a prayer to God, it is directed towards God, therefore it is necessary that the priest face God instead of the people to highlight this principle. In the past, liturgy and theology are solidly fused and never separated...Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.)

Those who know Cardinal Cañizares, nicknamed "the small Ratzinger" before his removal to Rome, know that he is disposed to move forward decisively with the project, beginning in fact from what was established by the Second Vatican Council in the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was, in reality, exceeded by the post-Conciliar reform which came into forceat the end of the Sixties. The porporato, interviewed by monthly 30Days in recent months, had declared regarding this: "At times change was for the mere sake of changing from a past perceived as negative and outdated. (What was sacred then is sacred now! Many in the Philippines think the same way due to the strong influence of liturgists in favor of everything that is new: creative, inculturated and a false sense of "active participation.") Sometimes the reform was regarded as a break and not as an organic development of Tradition."

For this reason, the "propositiones" voted by the Cardinals and Bishops at the March plenary foresee a return to the sense of sacredness and to adoration, but also a recovery of the celebrations in Latin in the dioceses, at least in the main solemnities, as well as the publication of bilingual Missals - a request made at his time by Paul VI - with the Latin text first.

The proposals of the Congregation, which Cañizares delivered to the Pope, obtaining his approval, are perfectly in line with the idea often expressed by Joseph Ratzinger when he was still a Cardinal, as it is made clear his unpublished words on the liturgy, revealed in advanced by Il Giornale yesterday, and which will be published in the book Davanti al Protagonista (Cantagalli [publisher]), presented beforehand at a congress at Rimini. With a significant nota bene: for the accomplishment of the "reform of the reform", many years will be necessary. The Pope is convinced that hasty steps, as well as to simply drop directives from above, serve no good, with the risk that they may later remain a dead letter. The style of Ratzinger is that of comparison and, above all, of example. As the fact that, for more than a year, whoever approaches the Pope for Communion, have had to kneel down on the kneeler especially placed by the cerimonieri.

Perhaps it is high time that the priests study and appreciate liturgy in light of how it was celebrated for centuries and the theology behind it and compare it with how it is celebrated today so that they will discover for themselves what was lost: a beautiful and dignified liturgy that ultimately leads to the SENSE OF THE SACRED. Bishops, priests and faithful shouldn't be intellectual slaves of liturgists whose only orientation is to form new rites...sometimes impromptu, who false sense of "active participation," who have no sense of beauty, who are clueless of what proper rubrics are, especially those that highlight the SENSE OF THE SACRED. Perhaps such liturgists are also confused. This confusion has to END, they should all look towards the crucifix and listen to Rome for the right direction.

An Interview with Mons. Domenico Bartolucci on the liturgical reforms and the reform of the reform.

Mons. Domenico Bartolucci, Maestro Perpetuo of the Sistine Chapel under five Popes.

Was the reform not done by people who were conscious of what they were doing and well educated in the teachings of the Roman Church?

I beg your pardon, but the reform was done by arid people, arid, arid, I repeat it. And I knew them. As for the doctrine, Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli himself, once said, I remember it well: “How come that we make liturgists who know nothing about theology?”

(....)

But how could it have come to this twisting of the liturgy?

It became a kind of fashion. Everybody talked about it, everybody “was renewing”, everybody was trying to be like popes (tutti pontificavano) in the wake of sentimentalism, of eagerness to reform. And the voices that raised themselves to defend the two thousand year old Tradition of the Church, were cleverly hushed. There was the invention of a kind of “people’s liturgy” … when I heard these refrains, it came into my mind something which my professor at the Seminary used to say: “the liturgy is something given by the clerics to the people” (“la liturgia è del clero per il popolo”). It descends from God and does not come up from the bottom. I have to admit, however, that this foul-smelling appearances have made themselves a bit more rare. The young generations of priests are maybe better than those who came before them, they do not have the ideological fury of an iconoclastic ideology, they are full of good feelings, however they lack in education.

My dear Monsignor, the influence of these kind of liturgists is very strong in the Philippines. i.e. they advocate people-centric and/or inculturated liturgies, who think that the only way for people to actively participate is to celebrate the mass as reformed in 1970's in a very different way from how the church celebrated in the past 2000 years and they even hold key positions in the dioceses.

Complete Interview here at Rorate-Caeli: A bombshell of an interview. Mons. Domenico Bartolucci on the liturgical reforms and the reform of the reform.

Cardinal Arinze warns against false concepts of Inculturation and Liturgical Idiosyncracies

I was informed through email a news bit in Catholic Culture regarding Cardinal Arinze's encouragement of Eucharistic Adoration and reverence while warned the bishops against FALSE CONCEPTS ON INCULTURATION and LITURGICAL IDIOSYNCRACIES. Priests and parish and diocesan liturgists who keep on invoking inculturation to justify their "creativity" or should I say "creations" by inserting pagan and new age rituals, or by replacing the rubrics with their own, for example, SHOULD OUGHT TO LISTEN as well. The Pope is NOT inculturating Rome with the encouragement of ad orientem masses and use of traditonal vestments, what he is doing is, in fact, UNIVERSAL, CATHOLIC.

My lord bishops of the Philippines start with the regular Sunday TV masses where they have turned the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a show.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3793

August 17, 2009

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who served as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2002 to 2008, warned the bishops of Asia in an August 16 homily against liturgical “idiosyncracies” and false conceptions of inculturation. Cardinal Arinze also sounded a cautionary note against liturgical dance.

Preaching in Manila at the closing Mass of the plenary assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, Cardinal Arinze-- Pope Benedict’s special envoy to the meeting-- encouraged Asian bishops to foster Eucharistic adoration and reverence:

Adoration manifests itself in such gestures in genuflection, deep bow, kneeling, prostration and silence in the presence of the Lord. Asian cultures have a deep sense of the sacred and transcendent. Reverence in Asia to civil authorities sometimes shows itself in clasped hands, kneeling, bows, prostration and walking away while facing a dignitary. It should not be too difficult to bring and elevate this cultural value to honour our Eucharistic Jesus. The fashion in some parts of the world of not installing kneelers in churches should not be copied by the Church in Asia.

After praising Asian cultures’ sense of the sacred, Cardinal Arinze warned against false conceptions of inculturation and urged observance of liturgical norms.

The way in which Holy Communion is distributed should be clearly indicated and monitored and individual idiosyncracies should not be allowed. In the Latin Rite, only concelebrating priests take Holy Communion. Everyone else is given, be the person cleric or lay. It is not right that the priest discard any of the vestments just because the climate is hot or humid. If necessary, the Bishop can arrange the use of lighter cloth. It is altogether unacceptable that the celebrant will opt for local dress in the place of universally approved Mass vestments, or use baskets, or wine glasses to distribute the Holy Eucharist. This is inculturation wrongly understood.

“It is the tradition of the Church that during the Mass the readings are taken only from Holy Scriptures,” Cardinal Arinze continued. “Not even the writings of the Saints or Founders of Religious Orders are admitted. It is clear that the books of other religions are excluded, no matter how inspiring a particular text may be.”

Cardinal Arinze exhorted the continent’s bishops to follow the Church’s norms for liturgical inculturation, so that “the local Church will be spared questionable or downright mistaken innovations and idiosyncracies of some enthusiastic cleric whose fertile imaginations invents something on Saturday night and whose uninformed zeal forces this innovation on the innocent congregation on Sunday morning.”

“Dance in particular needs to be critically examined because most dances draw attention to the performers and offer enjoyment,” he continued. “People come to Mass, not for recreation but, to adore God, to praise and thank him, to ask pardon for their sins, and to request other spiritual and temporal needs. The monasteries may be of help in how graceful body movements can become prayer.”
__._,_.___

A foreword by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith on the book "True Development of the Liturgy"

This is a must read for all Ministers of Liturgy, liturgical Master of Ceremonies, Worship Coordinators and Liturgical "Animators" and all those who are interested with liturgy. This is the foreword to the book "True Development of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli and the "Liturgical Reform from 1948 to 1970" by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro. This foreword was written by Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Originally posted in the New Liturgical Movement. Emphasis mine.

Foreword to the book "True Development of the Liturgy: Cardinal Ferdinado Antonelli and the Liturgical Reform from 1948 to 1970" by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro

by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship

To be published by Roman Catholic Books in the Autumn of 2009

"How much of the post–Conciliar liturgical reform truly reflects “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy is a question that has often been debated in ecclesial circles ever since the Concilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia finished its work. It has been debated with even greater intensity in the last couple of decades. And while some have argued that what was done by the Concilium was indeed in line with that great document, others have totally disagreed.

"In the search for an answer to this question we ought to take into account the turbulent mood of the years that immediately followed the Council. In his decision to convoke the Council, Pope John XXIII had wished the Church to be prepared for the new world that was emerging in the aftermath of the disastrous events of the Second World War. He would have prophetically foreseen the emergence of a strong current of materialism and secularism from the core orientations of the preceding era which had been marked by the spirit of the enlightenment and in which the traditional values of the old world view had already begun to be shaken. The Industrial Revolution along with its strongly anthropocentric and subjectivist philosophical trends, especially those resulting from the influences of Kant, Hume and Hegel, led to the emergence also of Marxism and Positivism. It also let to the ascendance of Biblical Criticism relativising, to a certain extent, the veracity of the Holy Scriptures, which in turn had its negative influences on theology, generating a questioning attitude vis-à-vis the objectivity of established Truth and of the usefulness of defending ecclesial traditions and Institutions. Some schools of theology were bold enough even to question basic doctrines of the Church. In fact, Modernism had earlier been seen as a source of danger for the faith. It is in this background that Pope John XXIII had felt that more convincing answers needed to be found.

"The call for aggiornamento by the Pope thus assumed the character of a search for a fortification of the faith in order to render the Mission of the Church more effective and able to respond to these challenges convincingly. It was certainly not a call to go along with the spirit of the times, a sort of drifting passively along, nor was it a call to effect a new start to the Church as much as to render the message of the Gospel even more responsive to the difficult questions mankind would face in the post-modern era. The Pope explained the ethos behind his decision when he stated, “today the Church is witnessing a crisis under way within society. While humanity is on the edge of a new era, tasks of immense gravity and amplitude await the Church, as in the most tragic periods of its history. It is a question in fact of bringing the modern world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the Gospel ………. in the face of this twofold spectacle – a world which reveals a grave state of spiritual poverty and the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality – we …. have felt immediately the urgency of the duty to call our sons together to give the Church the possibility to contribute more efficaciously to the solution of the problems of the modern age” [Apostolic Constitution Humanae Salutis of 25th Dec. 1961]. The Pope went on, “the forthcoming Council will meet therefore at a moment in which the Church finds very alive the desire to fortify its faith, and to contemplate itself in its own awe-inspiring unity. In the same way, it feels urgent the duty to give greater efficiency to its sound vitality and to promote the sanctification of its members, the diffusion of revealed truth, the consolidation of its agencies” [ibid].

Thus the Council was basically a call for a fortification of the Church from within in order to make it better prepared for its mission amidst the realities of the modern world. Underlying these words was also the sense of appreciation the Pope felt towards what the Church indeed already was. The words, “vibrant with vitality” used by the Pope to define the status of the Church at that moment, surely do not betray any sense of pessimism, as though the Pope looked down upon the past or what the Church had achieved up until then. Hence one cannot justifiably think that with the Council the Pope called for a new beginning. Neither was it a call to the Church to “de-classify” itself, changing or giving up totally its age old traditions getting itself, so to say, absorbed into the reality of the world around. In no way was change to be made for the sake of change but only in order to make the Church stronger and better prepared to face new challenges. In short, the Council was never to be an aimless adventure. It was intended to be a truly Pentecostal experience.

"Yet, however much the Popes who guided this event insisted upon the need for a true spirit of reform, faithful to the essential nature of the Church, and even if the Council itself had produced such beautiful theological and pastoral reflections as Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Gaudium et Spes and Sacrosanctum Concilium, what happened outside the Council − especially both within the society at large and within the circle of its philosophical and cultural leadership − began to influence it negatively, creating tendencies that were harmful to its life and mission. These tendencies, which at times were even more virulently represented by certain circles within the Church, were not necessarily connected to the orientations or recommendations of the documents of Vatican II. Yet they were able to shake the foundations of ecclesial teaching and faith to a surprising extent. Society’s fascination with an exaggerated sense of individual freedom and its penchant for the rejection of anything permanent, absolute or other worldly had its influence on the Church and often was justified in the name of the Council. This view also relativised Tradition, veracity of evolved doctrine, and tended to idolize anything new. It contained within itself strong tendencies favourable to relativism and religious syncretism. For them the Council had to be a sort of a new beginning for the Church. The past had overrun its course. Basic concepts and themes like Sacrifice and Redemption, Mission, Proclamation and Conversion, Adoration as an integral element of Communion, and the need of the Church for salvation -- all were sidelined, while Dialogue, Inculturation, Ecumenism, Eucharist − as − Banquet, Evangelisation − as − Witness, etc., became more important. Absolute values were disdained.

"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had this to say on this ever increasing spirit of relativism – for him, the true Council “already during its sessions and then increasingly in the subsequent period, was opposed by a self-styled ‘Spirit of the Council’, which in reality is a true ‘anti-spirit’ of the Council. According to this pernicious anti-spirit [Konzils–Ungeist in German], everything that is ‘new’ ……. is always and in every case better than what has been or what is. It is the anti-spirit according to which the history of the Church would first begin with Vatican II, viewed as a kind of point zero” [The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1985 pp. 34 - 35]. The Cardinal discounted this view as untrue for “Vatican II surely did not want ‘to change’ the faith but to represent it in a more effective way” [ibid]. Actually, the Cardinal affirmed that in fact “the Council did not take the turn that John XXIII had expected”. He further stated “It must also be admitted that, in respect to the whole Church, the prayer of Pope John that the Council signify a new leap forward for the Church, to renewed life and unity, has not – at least not yet – been granted” [ibid. p 42]. These are hard words indeed yet I would say very true, for, that spirit of exaggerated theological freedom indeed hijacked, so to say, the very Council itself away from its declared goals.

"The Concilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia too was not exempt from being influenced by this overwhelming tidal wave of a so called desire for “change” and ”openness”. Possibly some of the above mentioned relativising tendencies influenced the Liturgy too, undermining the centrality, the sacredness, sense of mystery as well as the value of what the continuous action of the Holy Spirit in the bi-millennial history of the Church had helped ecclesial liturgical life to grow into. An exaggerated sense of antiquarianism, anthropologism, confusion of roles between the ordained and the non-ordained, a limitless provision of space for experimentation − and, indeed, the tendency to look down upon some aspects of the development of the Liturgy in the second millennium − were increasingly visible among certain liturgical schools. Liturgists had also tended to pick and choose sections of Sacrosanctum Concilium which seemed to be more accommodating to change or novelty while ignoring others. Besides, there was a great sense of hurry to effect and legalize changes. Much space tended to be provided for a rather horizontalist way of looking at the Liturgy. Norms of the Council that tended to restrict such creativity or were favourable to ‘the traditional way’ seemed to be ignored. Worse still, some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass “versus populum”, Holy Communion on the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favour of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of “active participation” (actuosa participatio).

"All of that had its effect on the work of the Concilium. Those who guided the process of change both within the Concilium and later in the Sacred Congregation of Rites were certainly being influenced by all these novel tendencies. Not everything they introduced was negative. Much of the work done was praiseworthy. But much room was also left for experimentation and arbitrary interpretation. These ”freedoms” were exploited to their fullest extent by some liturgical ”experts” leading to too much confusion. Cardinal Ratzinger explains how “one shudders at the lackluster face of the post-conciliar liturgy as it has become, or one is bored with its banality and its lack of artistic standards ….” [The Feast of Faith, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1986, p. 100]. This is not to lay the responsibility for what happened solely on the members of the Concilium. But some of their approaches were ‘weak’. There indeed was a general spirit of uncritical ‘giving in’ on certain matters to the rabble rousing spirit of the era, even within the Church, most visibly in some sectors and geographic regions. Some of those in authority at the level of the Sacred Congregation of Rites too did show signs of weakness in this matter. Too many indults had been given on certain requirements of the norms.

"Naturally the ‘spirit of freedom’ which some of these powerful sectors within the Church unleashed in the name of the Council, even leading the important decision makers to vacillate, led to much disorder and confusion, something which the Council never intended, nor did the Popes who guided it. The sad comment made by Pope Paul VI during the troubled seventies that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church,” [Homily on 29th June 1972, Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul] or his comment on the excuses made by some to impede evangelization “on the basis of such and such a teaching of the Council” [Evangelii Nuntiandi 80], show how this anti-spirit of the Council render his labours most painful.

"In the light of all of this and of some of their troublesome consequences for the Church today, it is necessary to find out how the post-Conciliar liturgical reform did emerge and which figures or attitudes caused the present situation. It is a need which, in the name of truth, we cannot abandon. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger analyzed the situation thus: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy …. when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the Liturgy, where else, then is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless” [Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1998 pp. 148 - 149]. As we saw above, certain weaknesses of those responsible and the stormy atmosphere of theological relativism, coupled with that sense of fascination with novelty, change, man-centeredness, accent on subjectivity and moral relativism, as well as on individual freedom which characterized the society at large, undermined the fixed values of the faith and caused this slide into liturgical anarchy about which the Cardinal spoke above.

"The penned notes of Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli take on new significance. One of the most eminent and closely involved members of the Concilium which supervised the reform process, Cardinal Antonelli can help us to understand the inner polarizations that influenced the different decisions of the Reform and help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy. Actually, Father Antonelli was already a member of the Pontifical Commission for Liturgical Reform appointed by Pope Pius XII on 28th May 1948. It was this commission that worked on the reform of the Liturgy of Holy Week and of the Easter Vigil, which reforms were handled with much care by the same. That very commission was then re-constituted by Pope John XXIII in May 1960 and, later on, Father Antonelli was also part of the inner group that worked on the redaction of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Conciliar Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Thus he indeed was very closely involved in the work of the reform from its very inception.

"Yet, his role in the reform movement seems to have been largely unknown until the author of this book, “Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli and the developments of the Liturgical reform from 1948 to 1970”, Mgr Nicola Giampietro, had come across his personal agenda notes and decided to present them in a study. This study, which was also the doctoral dissertation of Mgr Giampietro at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of St. Anselm in Rome, helps us to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to and immediately following the Council. Cardinal Antonelli’s notes reveal a great man of faith and of the Church struggling to come to terms with some of the inner currents which influenced the work involving the Concilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. What he wrote in these diaries reveal quite candidly his feelings of joy as well as of sorrow and at times of fear at the way things were being made to move along, the attitudes of some of the key players and the sense of adventurism which had characterized some of the changes that had been introduced. The book is well done. Indeed, it has also been quoted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself in an article he wrote in the well-known liturgical review “La Maison-Dieu”, entitled “Réponse du Cardinal Ratzinger au Père Gy” (La Maison-Dieu, 230, 2002/2, p. 116). Above all it is a timely study which would help us to see another side of the otherwise over euphoric presentations of the Conciliar Reform by other contemporary authors.

"The publication in English language of this interesting study would, I am sure contribute greatly to the ongoing debate on the post-Conciliar liturgical reforms. What is most clear to any reader of this study is that as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated, “the true time of Vatican II has not yet come” [The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1985 p. 40]. The reform has to go on. The immediate need seems to be that of a reform of the reformed Missal of 1969, for, quite a number of changes originating within the Post-Conciliar reform seem to have been introduced somewhat hastily and unreflectively, as Cardinal Antonelli himself repeatedly stated. One needs to correct the direction so that changes are indeed made to fall in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium itself and it must indeed go even further, keeping along with the spirit of our own times. And what urges such changes is not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be. For, indeed, as Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “the question of liturgy is not peripheral: the Council itself reminded us that we are dealing here with the very core of Christian faith” [ibid. p. 120]. What we need today is to not only engage ourselves in an honest appraisal of what happened but also to take bold and courageous decisions in moving the process along. We need to identify and correct the erroneous orientations and decisions made, appreciate the liturgical tradition of the past courageously, and ensure that the Church is made to re-discover the true roots of its spiritual wealth and grandeur even if that means reforming the reform itself, thereby ensuring that Liturgy truly becomes the “sublime expression of God’s glory and, in a certain sense, a glimpse of heaven on Earth” [Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22nd February 2007, 35]."

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith
Secretary,
CCDDS
8th December 2008
Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary

"Turning towards the Lord" on Palm Sunday

On March 16, 2008, Palm Sunday, Father Michell Joe Zerrudo, pastor of the Parish of the Lord of the Divine Mercy and his parishioners turned towards the Lord and celebrated Palm Sunday facing the liturgical east together using the Missal of Pope Paul VI in the vernacular. Father Zerrudo, in beautiful traditional vestments, himself an exorcist and liturgist, teaches his parishioners through example the essence, the beauty and spirituality of catholic ad orientem worship.

"On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer...." - Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy

"In the early Church there was a custom whereby the Bishop or the priest, after the homily, would cry out to the faithful: "Conversi ad Dominum" – turn now towards the Lord. This meant in the first place that they would turn towards the East, towards the rising sun, the sign of Christ returning, whom we go to meet when we celebrate the Eucharist. Where this was not possible, for some reason, they would at least turn towards [the liturgical East] the image of Christ in the apse, or towards the Cross, so as to orient themselves inwardly towards the Lord. " - Pope Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil 2008 Sermon

Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Chasuble

Pope Benedict XVI continues to educate us with regards to the Liturgy. Yesterday, marked return of the roman chasuble (Borromeo style) in the papal liturgy, worn by the Vicar of Christ himself with the cardinal deacons. This is the continuation of the reform of the reform as envisioned by our Holy Father. All the liturgists of the Roman Rite (TIP: the Philippine Church belongs to the Roman Rite) should study, learn and appreciate the education Pope Benedict XVI is giving us with regards to the liturgy.


References:
The New Liturgical Movement
What Does the Prayer Really Say
Rorate Caeli

Fr. Abraham Arganiosa's Ad Orientem Mass

In relation to the posts: Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS prepares for Tridentine Mass and Somascan Priests in Bicol to be Armed with the 1962 Missal, I'd like to share a photograph of Fr. Abe offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to Missal of Paul VI (Novus Ordo), that is ad orientem with Latin and using Eucharistic Prayer 1, during a private Mass last December 2007. Fr. Abe offered the Mass with dignity, reverence and solemnity it deserves making best out of the altar items and vestments available for our use.

Mirroring Rome: Following the Lead of the Vicar of Christ

Rome, January 13, 2008

Metro Manila, Philippines, January 23, 2008

Doing the Ordinary Form Extraordinarily Well

[Updated]
Today, in honor of the Sto Nino, a solemn Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI or the ordinary form or novus ordo to many, was celebrated in the PNB main hall asissted by approximately a hundred believers.

Priest-celebrant was Fr. Michell Joe Zerrudo who processed down the center aisle wearing his complete roman vestments while the choir sung the entrance hymn in Latin. The propers, including the readings, were chanted in English while some ordinary parts (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) were chanted in Latin and the Pater Noster was sung in Filipino. Just like Pope Benedict XVI, Fr. Zerrudo "turned towards the Lord" during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. He used the Eucharistic Prayer I or the Roman Canon of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, a very rarely used Eucharistic prayer in the Philippines. Most of those assisting must have heard it for the very first time.

The altar servers who were present were inpired and they, together with the whole congregation, now know how a priest should celebrate and offer the sacrifice of our Lord, that is with dignity, reverence and a great sense of the sacred.




This is the Mass of Pope Paul VI seen through the lens of hermeneutic of continuity. Deo Gratias! Viva Santo Nino!

Solemn Mass for the Sto Niño

A solemn Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI (ordinary form) ad orientem with Latin and Gregorian Chants (Missa de Angelis) will be offered at 7:00 pm today, the 23 January 2008 at the PNB Main Building in Macapagal Ave, Pasay City in honor of the Sto Niño.

This seeks to answer the then Cardinal Ratzinger's, now Pope Benedict XVI's call to follow the true mind of Vatican II, a mind that seeks to restore and continue from the past the greater sense of reverence, mystery, beauty and the sacred in the celebration of the liturgy, specially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In other words, it is a mind of continuity and not of rapture.

Ordinary Form Ad Orientem Mass

Here is a video of a solemn ad orientem Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI or ordinary form or what is commonly called Novus Ordo. Notice the priest and the people faced towards one direction, East in liturgical terms or ad orientem. The priest wore roman vestments and kept his canonical fingers together as a sign of reverence after the consecration.

Part 1


Part 2

Filipino Bloggers on the significance of the Pope's Mass

Filipino bloggers took notice and wrote about the significance of the Holy Mass celebrated by his holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Joseph Madrinan's Coeur Mondial posted Catholic Thought: The Mass at it should be: the Pope sitting on his throne; people intent in prayer, ad orientem and reverence to our Lord.

Dr. Herbert in Filipino Traditional Catholic writes "A Remarkable Turn Around."

The significance of Pope Benedict XVI's Ad Orientem Mass

Today we witnessed the reorientation of the Mass in the pontificate of Benedict XVI. The Vicar of Christ, during the most sacred part of the Holy Mass, and the entire congregation, "turned towards the Lord," and faced not each other.

It is the most significant step in reorienting the ordinary liturgy, that by this reorientation, our minds, our hearts and our souls will be reoriented back to Christ as we, His faithful together with the priest celebrant, fix our gaze upon Him who suffered and died for us.

Pope Benedict's signal to all Catholics (cardinals, bishops, priests, canon lawyers, liturgists, and the laity) is clear: Celebrating the Mass ad orientem or versus Deum per Iesum Christum (using the Missal of Pope Paul VI and in this case, facing the "liturgical east" or the symbolic east of the liturgy) was never abolished and the Holy Mass can be celebrated as such even with a congregation (men, women, and yes even children!), and that it was perfectly normal for catholics of the Roman Rite of the Church to worship and celebrate Mass oriented in such a way that it had celebrated Mass for centuries (at least before Vatican II for most catholics and even now through the extraordinary form). The language being in Italian also has a significant meaning: it means that celebrating the Mass in such manner, facing the liturgical east, can be done in local churches of the Roman Rite, the church in the Philippines included!

As the Pope, the Supreme Pontiff, mended and created a bridge between the old and the new through his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum given motu proprio we are to see more development in the ordinary liturgy: organic reorientation of the ordinary form. The ordinary form of the Roman Rite will soon be absorbed by the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, reform of the reform fully achieved, spearheaded by no less than the current Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI.

Above photos from Hallowed Ground

Above photo from NLM

Older Post:
Summorum Pontificum and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

Summorum Pontificum and Hermeneutic of Continuity

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do i have credentials to make a scholarly opinion, I just would like to share my views.

The Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum given motu proprio generated mixed reactions from the faithful, some welcomed the motu proprio with great joy while others dismissed it as something unimportant or irrelevant. I see that the opposition to the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII will be in existence for many years in much the same way as those who are opposed to the Missal of Pope Paul VI no matter how it is celebrated, may it be in line with tradition or not.

In present Vatican celebrations (with the new Master of Ceremonies, Fr. Guido Marini), we can see a glimpse of what is to come, little by little, slowly but surely...the normative liturgy being celebrated in much the same way as the extraordinary liturgy is celebrated. Those things that makes the extraordinary liturgy beautiful and spiritually edifying carried over to the normative liturgy. After all, this is the dream and vision of the current Vicar of Christ: hermeneutic of continuity.

I see that (again just from my own point of view) the position of the Supreme Pontiff is mainly focused on the deformations of the normative liturgy as it is currently celebrated and he wishes us, all Roman Catholics, to learn and grow through the extraordinary form since he said that liturgy should not be frozen in time but should be allowed to grow. I believe that this is one of the many reasons why the extraordinary form should be generously celebrated all over the world. It is just logical: how can we learn from it if we do not practice or experience it.

In this way we will see the normative liturgy sprouting forth from the extraordinary liturgy. The normative will no longer be described as fabricated but truly a continuity of the extraordinary.

Within the context of the Mass, Catholics with traditional views will see it as the new edition of the Roman Missal of Pope St. Pius V, while ordinary Catholics will see it as a new edition of the Mass of Pope Paul VI celebrated with traditional elements.