Latin Mass Society

Chairman's Blog

20/12/2021 - 10:00

A small difficulty with the Responsa ad dubia

IMG_0133
Rorate Mass at the Oxford Oratory, England
Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.
No doubt more and better analyses will be published about yesterday's Responsa from the Congregation for Divine Worship, but working through its implications I was struck but something others may not notice, which can serve to illustrate some features of the document as a whole.

All the Church’s legislation needs to be understood in light of common sense, of previous legislation with greater authority, and of the Church’s the fundamental theological and moral principles. These principles of are of particular importance when we consider legislation which appears, on the one hand, to be hastily composed, and on the other, to have far-reaching, and perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

The Responsa provide a good illustration of this.

It appears that the Congregation for Divine Worship are not aware that, for historical reasons, that Rite of Communion for the Faithful used in the old Mass is not found in the 1962 Missale Romanum.

I noticed this when I was preparing the Latin Mass Society's Ordinary Prayers of the Traditional Mass. Up until the inter-war period Communion was not distributed at Mass, so the rite, which was used outside Mass, was and remains in the Rituale Romanum. This rite is used in Mass after the Priest's Communion. The Missal skips from that the Postcommunion Prayer.

This means that if the Rituale is forbidden for use, but the Missale is not, outside ‘personal parishes’, as the Responsa proposes, this would logically imply that the Faithful could not (outside a personal parish) receive Holy Communion at celebrations of the 1962 Missale. However, this conflicts with all three of the above-mentioned principles: common sense, previous legislation of greater authority (see Canons 213, 912, 918, 923), and the fundamental principle of the good of souls (see Canon 1752).

One thing this makes clear is the lack of understanding of the Traditional liturgy within the Congregation for Divine Worship. They don't seem to have people there with a thorough knowledge of the books and how they interact. The Fourth Section of the CDF, which used to deal with matters connected with the Old Mass, did have them, but these men have not been asked to join the CDW to assist the Prefect, Archbishop Roche, with these complicated matters.

Indeed, at one point, the Responsa actually denies the existence of a separate volume containing the 1962 Lectionary. They have never heard, evidently, of a useful little book, the Evangeliorum, often used at Solemn Masses by the Deacon for proclaiming the Gospel.

Equally, I strongly suspect that the officials at the CDF have little if any idea of the differences between the liturgical text used in the Lectionary, and what you will find in the Bible translations authorised for liturgical use in the Novus Ordo by Bishops' Conferences. The liturgical text is not always continuous; there are opening and occasionally ending formulae not found in the Scripture; and it is the Clementine Vulgate, which can differ significantly from the original texts translated by these Scripture translations.

But back to the Rituale. The fact is, the different books—the Missale, the Rituale, the Pontificale, the Breviary, and other books the CDF seems completely unaware of, such as the Ritus Servandus,the Manual of Prayers, and the Canon Pontificale,are inseparable components of the ancient liturgy which, as Pope Benedict noted, has never been abrogated. You can't just have one and not the others. It simply doesn't work like that.

These observations are not intended to prompt people to disobey the law as given. Rather, the point is to understand the law's real meaning. The meaning of a legislative text is conditioned by its wider legal and theological context, and the complexities of its subject matter. While the above illustration is a particularly clear example, this principle is applicable to the whole document, as it is to all ecclesial legislation.

Laws which have obviously ridiculous or harmful consequences, or which are confused, unclear, or impossible to implement, do not have force. I don't say: you can disobey them. I say: a proper understanding of them is that they do not have force.

Disobedience, in that case, is unnecessary. There is nothing to disobey.

Support the Latin Mass Society
14/12/2021 - 19:51

Rorate Mass at the Oxford Oratory

IMG_0133

It was celebrated by Fr Benedict Manning of the Oratory.
IMG_0135

IMG_0145

IMG_0146

IMG_0150

IMG_0128

Support the Latin Mass Society
07/12/2021 - 17:18

'Ministers of Christ' by Peter Kwasniewski

See the book on Amazon UK here; Amazon USA here

When this project was first conceived over a year ago, my initial idea was to write a critique of Paul VI’s attempted suppression of the subdiaconate and minor orders, of John Paul II’s permission of altar girls, and of Francis’s innovation of female “acolytes” and “lectors.” During its writing, however, the scope of the book considerably broadened to include a full-scale presentation and defense of the traditional sevenfold manifestation of Orders — priest, deacon, subdeacon, lector, acolyte, exorcist, and porter — together with an explanation of the distinct but mutually supporting roles of clergy and laity. In order to accomplish this, I stepped back further to look at the distinction and complementarity of the sexes in the order of creation and the order of redemption, a perspective that provides the ultimate foundation for the Church’s entire teaching on states of life, roles, and ministries. In this way the book serves as a response to the “gender madness” that has afflicted the world and has increasingly infected the Church. ...


Ministers of Christ analyzes the problems with recent popes’ successive innovations in the area of ministry, showing how they have created a theologically and liturgically incoherent situation—a categorical rupture from a tradition firmly rooted in the most profound anthropological, Christological, and ecclesiological principles. In this regard the Church stands in desperate need of the correct (and corrective) witness of the usus antiquior.
Support the Latin Mass Society
03/12/2021 - 14:01

Pilgrimage to Lyford Grange

2362ab18-248e-49ab-8a98-53b2c0af9afd

Lyford Grange is the Recusant Catholic house where St Edmund Campion was captured in 1581. Traditional Low Mass was celebrated in a barn next to the house by Fr Richard Aladics of the Leeds Diocese. The pilgrimage was organised by Declan Jones.
ae1f336e-f702-4152-870d-9d79fe12cdd0

1749945b-d84b-4f79-a6ff-f9bc7ad9186d

 

Support the Latin Mass Society
02/12/2021 - 14:20

Annual Requiem in St Benet's Hall

IMG_0092

It is my pleasant duty to organise a Requiem each year for the deceased members, benefactors, and staff for my home institution within the University of Oxford, the Benedictine foundation, St Benet's Hall. It was particularly good to attend it this year, as it did not take place in 2020 due to the Covid epidemic.
IMG_0094

It is always said by Fr Edward van den Burgh of the London Oratory, an alumnus of the Hall, and accompanied with chant by the Schola Abelis, Oxford's Catholic chant schola, which I founded. This year we were directed by Matthew Vine.

IMG_0095

We usually manage a High Mass, as this year. The deacon was the Rev James Forde-Johnson, a permanent deacon, and the subdeacon was Dominican from just down the road in Blackfriars, Br Albert Robertson.

IMG_0099

It is a photograph of this Mass from a previous year which adorns the front cover of the Catholic Truth Society booklet which I wrote, How to Attend the Extraordinary Form.
IMG_0100

IMG_0104

IMG_0109

IMG_0114

 

Support the Latin Mass Society
01/12/2021 - 20:22

An anti-Christian cultural hegemony

IMG_0100
Mass last Saturday: annual Requiem in St Benet's Hall, Oxford.

My latest on Voice of the Family

If one is to live a Christian life, let alone evangelise in some small way, one has to recognise the unique challenges of one’s time and place. At all times and in all places there is the reality of Original Sin, one’s own sin and the sin of others. For the last century or so, we in the West have also had to live with the fact that being any kind of Christian, and perhaps particularly being Catholic, is regarded by most people as either incomprehensible or malign. In the words of Hilary Mantel, the much-lionised, best-selling author of historical fiction, which twists the narrative to demonise St Thomas More, being a Catholic is not “respectable”.

Mantel, like the author Philip Pullman, seems to have “issues”, as the modern jargon has it, with Catholic faith and culture. She has no intrinsic significance — there have always been strange people around — what is important is the use which has been made of her: she has been awarded all kinds of prizes and her repulsive novels have been adapted for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Pullman, another winner of multiple awards, has had one book made into a film and another into a play. Both writers have received the accolade of special editions of their works done for the bibliophiles of the Folio Society.

The publicity machines have nevertheless found it difficult to explain these peculiar individuals. Mantel was initially praised for the historical accuracy and realism of her work but, as real historians began to notice her material, she hastily rebranded it as a very fictional kind of historical fiction. After pocketing prizes for children’s books, Pullman decided, as his graphic descriptions of child torture began to get a bit out of hand, that this was just a misunderstanding; no, he was writing for adults.

Such U-turns would have sunk lesser folk, but the secularist establishment needs Mantel and Pullman. They possess some literary skill and their work can be used to counter-balance and even to exclude the Christian narratives given to us by writers of a previous generation: notably, Robert Bolt’s play and film, A Man for All Seasons, about St Thomas More, and the children’s books of C.S. Lewis. Literature and historical memory is being remade in the snarling image of secular modernity.

Read the whole thing there.
Support the Latin Mass Society
30/11/2021 - 17:30

Mass celebrated for Vladimir Ashkenazy

Cross-posted from the FIUV blog.

IMG_0039

As well as presenting the distinguished conductor and pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy with the De Saventhem Medal, the Federation had a Mass celebrated for the good estate of his family through the Latin Mass Society, on the feast of St Cecelia, the Patron Saint of music. (More about this here.)

It was a Missa Canata, celebrated by Fr Gabriel Diaz Patri, and accompanied by polyphony sung by the Southwell Consort led by Dominic Bevan.

IMG_0043

IMG_0057

IMG_0060

IMG_0066

IMG_0069

IMG_0080

IMG_0090

IMG_0077

Support the Latin Mass Society

27/11/2021 - 10:00

Response to Fr Ruff on Liturgical Polarisation

IMG_0070
Mass for Vladimir Ashkenazy and family at Maiden Lane last week.
Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.
Fr Anthony Ruff at the Pray, Tell blog tells us that the basic picture, in the debate about liturgy, is that

either one supports Vatican II and the reformed liturgy to the exclusion of the preconciliar liturgy, or one shows greater or lesser openness to the preconciliar liturgy, which seems to be equated with opposition to Vatican II.

He does not pause to explain what "opposition to Vatican II" might mean, but admits that not everyone falls into these two strictly opposed camps:

people who don’t fit neatly in either camp... [who] don’t see the preconciliar liturgy as particularly bad or harmful and don’t mind attending it at times.

Fr Ruff would like such people to realise

that the preconciliar liturgy is incompatible with the large advances made by the Second Vatican Council in ecclesiology and liturgical theology and inculturation and all the rest.

He gives the impression that he would like to see the Church become two armed camps snarling at each other from their trenches, with barbed wire, if not clouds of poison gas, marking out no-man’s land. But as for what these Vatican II "advances" might be, Fr Ruff does not say.


Fr Ruff blames Pope Benedict for “pushing people into two opposing liturgical camps”, but seems eager to do exactly this himself. In fact Pope Benedict favoured the unpolarised position, of “not seeing the preconciliar liturgy as being particularly bad or harmful”, and under his influence this position has become the normal one in many places: a liturgical live-and-let-live.

What exactly is wrong with this? Fr Ruff is coy about what features of the ancient liturgy are incompatible with what teachings of the Church, or are harmful in what way. I am speculating here but am willing to hazard a couple of suggestions as to why that might be. 

One reason he might prefer not to descend into detail may be that, if he did, we would all be able to quote a great many defences of these features from the Church’s magisterium: one thinks of Trent, the condemnation of Pistoia, Pius XII's criticisms of the Liturgical Movement, and many passages of Vatican II itself. In other words, it would open up a debate about the teaching of the Church on the liturgy which he could not win.
Another reason may well be that many of the features of the older liturgy he would like to criticise are equally, or to even greater extent, present in the rites of the Eastern Churches. Communion on the tongue? Celebration facing East? A sacred liturgical language? Traditional, sacred styles of liturgical music? Ceremonies obscured behind bodies or screens? Not only did the Second Vatican Council feel no need to reject any of these things, actually demanding the preservation of some of them in the West (notably Latin and Gregorian Chant), but  the Council's Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum actually calls for the restoration of these kinds of things, Article 6 insisting that the Eastern Churches "should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions". Was it insisting on things "bad or harmful", Fr Ruff?

Perhaps Fr Ruff and his allies fear that if they were a little more open, if the veil were lifted a little on their thinking, it would emerge that they think that the whole Church, East and West, for the whole of its recorded liturgical history, has been promoting “bad and harmful” liturgical practice. Is this what liturgical progressives say to each other when they've had a couple of drinks? It would after all only be a mild extension of the attitude of the reform-minded scholar of the 1940s, Josef Jungmann, who said that a "fog" descended to obscure the liturgy from the people in the 8th century because they could not longer understand Latin. Why stop there? The Canon of the Mass was being said silently for at least two centuries before that: an even more effective barrier to comprehension, presumably.

It was precisely this patronising attitude, that the poor benighted people got nothing out of the Mass unless and until progressive clergy could fix it for them, which is condemned by Pius XII: "Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits?" (Mediator Dei 108).
If this is what Fr Ruff and the other think, it would put the misgivings about Vatican II on the part of some of those who like the old Mass into the shade. Do they think the Church’s 21st Ecumenical Council could have been more clearly expressed? Well, here are a bunch of people who effectively reject the other 20 -- along with all the bits of Vatican II they don't happen to like.

If Fr Ruff and his allies have some terribly clever theological position which resolves all these difficulties, it would be a service to the Church for them to share it with the rest of us. I mean this in all seriousness. Liturgical traditionalists have been asking to see these arguments for fifty years. Stop gesturing vaguely towards "inculturation" and "all the rest": tell us what exactly is so bad about the Old Mass, and why? What possible argument could be made against it which would not up-end the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, or, more simply, the credibility of the Church as an authority in the spiritual life?

Neither Vatican II nor the post-Concilar Popes, including Pope Francis, claim that the older liturgy was “harmful”. The idea is ludicrous. Paul VI, John Paul II, and Pope Francis have all praised it, not just Pope Benedict: Pope Francis waxed quite lyrical about how "we in the West" have "lost the sense of adoration" due to the liturgical reform, in an interview in 2013. I give all the quotations in my contribution to Peter Kwasnieski's  From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’ War.

These Popes also contradict Fr Ruff’s astonishing claim that the problem of liturgical abuses has gone away since the 1970s. Fr Ruff clearly lives a sheltered life. Out here in the real world you could play bingo with all the things condemned by Redemptionis Sacramentum in the typical parish. There goes the celebrant leaving the sanctuary to give the sign of peace! (RS 72) I've got routine use of Eucharistic Ministers! (RS 88) Ooh let's see if they have self-intinction! (RS 104) The fact is, abuses are now so embedded that we all know it is pointless to complain about them. All the same, Pope Francis still protests, making his own the statement of Pope Benedict, in the Letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes:
In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.”
Does Fr Ruff think Pope Francis is being insincere here? Now that would be an interesting claim.
Fr Ruff’s article takes its start from one by Prof Massimo Faggioli, which criticises the book I just mentioned, From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’ War. The only conclusion on can draw from these articles is that this book’s title is apt. It was not adherents of the “antecedent liturgy” who shattered the peace brought about by Pope Benedict’s relaxed attitude—a peace attested to by many bishops when asked for their views by the Holy See last year. Still less was it the people in the middle, who couldn’t see what was wrong with the older form. No: it was a group of liturgical extremists from the “progressive” side. They felt they were losing the peace, so they wanted to start a war. In light of the paucity of their arguments, they may not win that either.

Support the Latin Mass Society
21/11/2021 - 10:00

Guild of St Clare: Sewing Retreat photos

unnamed (1)

Last weekend was the Autumn Retreat of the Guild of St Clare. These are 'sewing retreats': with daily Mass and other devotions, and spiritual conferences from the retreat-giver each day, the participants mend vestments. This retreat took place in Douai Abbey.

IMG_9995

The number of man-hours which goes into some of these vestments is immense. In addition to two annual Sewing Retreats (Friday to Sunday), the Guild has a 'Vestment Mending Day' in London every two months, and occasionally one in Oxford. With all these opportunities to make progress on various sets of vestments, mostly belonging to the Latin Mass Society, worn places are patched, linings replaced, embroidery repaired, braid stitched back down, and missing items are replaced. The Latin Mass Society has been given a great many sets missing a maniple, stole, chalice veil, or burse, or (usually) some combination of these.

IMG_9990

The Guild accepts help from people of all levels of skill: there are always tasks to match what you can do. These occasions are also opportunities to learn new things, and the Guild also arranges training sessions with professionals and is sponsoring two students through the Royal School of Needlework Certificate Course. Both of these took part in the Retreat.

IMG_0001

After the repeated cancellations of the Covid epidemic it was good to be back in a face-to-face event. The next sewing retreat, which is already almost fully booked, will be 4th-6th February, in a new venue: Park Place Pastoral Centre in Hampshire: full details and booking on the LMS website. The one after that will take place 4th-6th November in the same place: booking is now open.

IMG_0007

Support the Latin Mass Society
20/11/2021 - 10:00

LMS Bedford Pilgrimage in Reparation for Abortion

E14E7818

This took place last Saturday. We were able to have this Mass last year, but without a congregation! It was good this year to have Mass with the faithful.
E14E7840
The Church of St Joseph, Bedford, is home to a special image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which has been touched to the original in Mexico. It seems an appropriate place to have an annual Mass of Reparation for Abortion. The first of these took place in response to the Irish referendum on abortion in 2018. The Mass is a Votive Mass of Our Lady of Guadalupe: the propers can be found in Missal supplements for the USA.
E14E7876

The Mass this year was offered by Mgr Gordon Read, the Latin Mass Society's National Chaplain, with the assistence of Fr Gabriel Diaz as deacon and Fr Michael Cullinan as subdeacon. It was accompanied by Matthew Schellhorn and the Southwell Consort, who were excellent as always. They sang: 

Mass setting: Tomas Luis de Victoria - Missa Trahe Me Post Te
Offertory motet: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina - Ave Maria a 5
Communion motet: Juan Gutierrez de Padilla - Stabat Mater

E14E7795
Support the Latin Mass Society

Charity web design by Turtlereality

© LMS 2016 | Registered Charity Number: 248388 | Terms & Conditions

Latin Mass Society, 9 Mallow Street, London EC1Y 8RQ | 020 7404 7284 | [email protected]

randomdiss