Chairman's Blog
LMS Pilgrimage to Harvington
Pentecost: for Catholic Answers
 |
| The Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles: from the Rosary Walk at the Shrine at Aylesford, the destination of a traditional walking pilgrimage this weekend. |
Pentecost comes from the Greek pentekoste, which means “fiftieth.” The ancient Jewish feast of Pentecost (as it is occasionally called in the Greek Old Testament) is also called the Feast of Weeks or of First Fruits, in Hebrew, Shavuot. In the year of Jesus’ passion, this was also 50 days after the Resurrection (more or less) and was the occasion of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. The Ascension had taken place forty days after the Resurrection, and Pentecost followed a nine-day period of prayer and interior preparation for this event by the apostles, in the Upper Room, the Cenacle, in Jerusalem.
Holy Scripture and the Church’s liturgical calendar alike rejoice in numerology, the symbolism of numbers. Forty is a period of preparation: the Hebrews were forty years in the desert before they came to the Promised Land; Jesus, like Moses and Elijah before key moments of their missions, spent forty days in the desert in preparation for his public ministry; we have forty days of Lent. Fifty is associated with completion and eternity: the fifty days of Eastertide represent, in a sense, the end of the story, the “happily ever after,” as well as the period between Easter and Pentecost.
Review: Unwanted Priest, by Fr Bryan Houghton
Fr Bryan Houghton: Unwanted Priest: The Autobiography of a Latin Mass Exile
Another Traditionalist Classic from Angelico is Fr Houghton’s autobiographical Unwanted Priest. With this the publisher has secured a first, however, for although it was published in French in 1990 (as Pretre rejeté), the English version never made it into print.
This has now been put right, and Houghton’s life story is available in both languages. It is a fascinating one. The son of Protestant English parents, he had much of his education in France, and became a Catholic as a young man. He had independent financial means, and consistently used this to further the apostolates he was given as a priest. While working for Northampton Diocese, he was respected as an intellectual and also elected Dean by his brother priests. Nevertheless, he was the only priest in England and Wales to resign from his position rather than celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae, in 1969. He spent his remaining years in France, where he supported an early Latin Mass apostolate, with the tacit permission of the local bishop, in a privately owned chapel. He wrote two novels well worth reading: Mitre and Crook and Judith’s Marriage, and died in 1992.
Fr Houghton’s description and analysis of what was going on in his lifetime are sober and perceptive. He distances himself from Archbishop Lefebvre, but is merciless in his assessment of the progressive faction which led the changes to the liturgy and went on to attempt a revolution in the conception of the priesthood.
Like Tito Cassini [author of Torn Tunic], Fr Houghton was particularly sensitive to the experience of the laity, and understood the laity’s mode of engagement with the liturgy as few priests of his generation did. Unlike them, as a convert he had been an adult Catholic layman himself: seminarians of that time typically went from one enclosed Catholic institution, a school, to another, the seminary, at a very young age. The laity, Fr Houghton realised, did not participate in the Mass despite the Latin and the obscurity: rather, the sacredness evinced by the ancient Mass created a setting for them to engage in contemplative prayer.
Review: Faith of our Fathers, by Chessman
This appears in the new Mass of Ages, magazine of the Latin Mass Society.
This is available to buy from the LMS online bookshop: Faith of Our Fathers | Latin Mass Society (lms.org.uk)
Stuart Chessman: Faith of our Fathers: A Brief History of Catholic Traditionalism in the United States.
The United States is the location of a major part of what we can call the Traditional Movement, but over the decades it has not had a single, continuing organisation or institution to represent it or, for that matter, to keep records. Stuart Chessman, who bloggs at The Society of St Hugh of Cluny, has put together a number of articles about the American movement’s past and present, which will do something to prevent some important events and individuals it disappearing from public consciousness, notwithstanding the geographical bias of the book.
Chessman explains the early role of those ‘conservative’ Catholics who refused to get involved in the liturgical debate; the strengths, weaknesses, and eventual collapse of Triumph magazine; and its partial replacement by the Latin Mass Magazine. Chessman notes the eagerness of Triumph to rally round the papacy following the condemnation of artificial contraception in 1968, which led to a tension in the magazine’s position as it continued to document the institutional failures of the Church in America.
A similar rallying to the establishment cause by conservative Catholics took place in the latter years of Pope John Paul II’s reign. This was led by Opus Dei and the Legionaires of Christ, and took place despite the poor episcopal treatment of conservative institutions like Ignatius Press and EWTN. It was particularly unfortunate in blinding some conservative Catholic commentators to the grim beginnings of the clerical abuse revelations. Relations between conservative and traditionalist Catholics have, since then, been transformed for the better.
One useful feature of the book is its inclusion of some historical documents. Bishop Donohoe of Fresno threatening excommunication to traditionalists in 1976; a letter from Archbishop Weakland which had to be presented by those attending a permitted Traditional Mass in 1985; a questionnaire designed to ascertain the theological soundness of would-be Old Mass-goers from the Archdiocese of New York from the same year; and so on. It is well to be reminded of some of the sillier aspects of the persecution of Catholics who, as Pope Benedict was later to describe them, were ‘totally rooted in the faith of the Church’, and wished only to worship in continuity with their predecessors in the Faith.
Review: The Great Betrayal by Hugh Ross Williamson
This is available to buy from the LMS online bookshop.
Hugh Ross Williamson, a founding figure of the Latin Mass Society, composed two important pamphlets in the early days of the movement: The Modern Mass: A Reversion to the Reforms of Cranmer (1969) and The Great Betrayal: Some Thoughts on the Invalidity of the New Mass (1970). These have been republished by Arouca Press, with Preface by his daughter, Julia Ashendon, and a Foreword by me.
The central concern of both pamphlets is the replacement of liturgical texts with clear theological implications, notably on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, with ambiguity and silence. This happened above all in the new Eucharistic Prayers and the Offertory.
The same thing happened to clear language about the necessity of penance, the intercession of the Saints, sinfulness and punishment, and our need of God’s grace. This has been documented in Lauren Pristas’ The Collects of the Roman Missals and in Matthew Hazell’s Index Lectionum, and elsewhere.
Ross Williamson was correct in surmising ecumenism as at least part of the motive, as we know from the words of the architect of the reform, Annibale Bugnini. Again, he was right to worry about the effect this silence and ambiguity on the beliefs of ordinary Catholics. I quote Pope John Paul II in my Foreword (Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) 10): “At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet.” This would hardly have be possible if every Mass being celebrated included the traditional Offertory and the Roman Canon.
Hugh Ross Williamson worried that this theological ambiguity impinged on the objective intention of the rites as a whole, and could make them sacramentally invalid. To be fair to him, he proposes this as something to be investigated, not as something proven. My quick answer to this argument is that (apparently at the personal insistence of Pope Paul VI) the Roman Canon was retained, almost without change, in the reformed Missal, and this makes it impossible to say that this Missal as a whole is lacks a clear presentation of the theology of sacrifice. It must be admitted, nevertheless, that it is hardly an ideal situation that one must burrow into little-used options to find a clear expression of such an important aspect of the Church’s Eucharistic Faith.
Available to buy from the LMS online bookshop.
Mass of the Ages video trilogy: Part 2 released
Summer Mass of Ages! Get your copy now.
To have it delivered each quarter, join the LMS!
If your local church doesn't get it, you can order a copy - it is free so you only pay the postage.
You can read it online on ISSUU.
In this issue: • Joseph Shaw reviews the Raphael exhibition at the National Gallery until 31 July • Charles A. Coulombe remembers Dr Halliday Sutherland, a remarkable and wise Catholic convert • Alan Frost explains how devotion to the Rosary was revived in the late 15th century by a Dominican Friar • Joseph Shaw reviews six short but important books
Our regular columnists:
• The Chairman’s Message: On what we should all be promoting
• Family Matters: James Preece on how our love of God should not remain purely theoretical
• Art and Devotion, Caroline Farey on a late 15th century Netherlandish picture by Juan de Flandes
• Rome Report, Diane Montagna talks to Abbé Brice Meissonnier, parish priest of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini
• Architecture: At a time when Ukraine is very much in the news, Paul Waddington takes a look at the London cathedral of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• Mary O’Regan suggests we pray for our detractors
• Wine: Sebastian Morello on the ales of The Chiltern Brewery
• World News: Paul Waddington reports from around the Globe
We promote the walking pilgrimage from Canterbury to Ramsgate, organised by the Marian Franciscans and The St Benedict Academy in Preston, who are looking to appoint tutors for the coming academic year.
LMS Walsingham Pilgrimage 2022
Review of Kwasnieski 'True Obedience'
 |
| Obedient unto death: shrine of the Chideock Martyrs in England. Bishop O'Toole on the occasion of a pilgrimage Mass celebrated for the Latin Mass Society by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. |
There has long been a strange asymmetry between conservatives and progressives in the Catholic Church. Theological conservatives—priests and bishops as well as lay people—have prided themselves on their obedience, and progressives have flaunted their disobedience. To give the most extreme examples, progressive bishops would make their chums laugh by talking about how they had tossed the latest Instruction from Rome—on liturgical abuses, for example—into the bin. Conservatives would obey rules and superiors’ orders even if it broke their hearts to do so, for example the rule forbidding the celebration of the older form of the Mass from Rome, or a demand by their own bishop to wreck their church’s sanctuary.
Differing conceptions of the virtue of obedience is only part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The other side was political realism. Both sides knew that when push came to shove most bishops, bishops’ conferences, the Catholic media, and often the Holy See as well, would enforce rules and back up superiors when they pushed the progressive agenda, but not when they sought to preserve things which conservatives held dear. Although in theory no priest is obliged to have females serving the Altar, in practice endless problems nearly always await priests who do not. Although in theory denying the teaching of the Church on contraception or the Resurrection should get a priest into very serious trouble, up to and including suspension as a priest and excommunication, in practice this almost never happens.
Reply to Gavin Ashenden: the evangelising power of the Traditional Mass
 |
| Evangelising by doing something recognisably sacred: Walsingham Pilagrimage |
Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.
I have an article in the current issue of Inside the Vatican, and by coincidence it is preceded by one by Dr Gavin Ashenden, the former Anglican cleric received into the Catholic Church just before Christmas. Ashenden has become an important commentator on Catholic affairs, so I was dismayed to read his treatment of the movement for the Traditional Mass, which is the subject of his article. I think, however, that Dr Ashenden’s analysis may appeal to many, in trying to put together the kinds of things Pope Francis has said along with a perhaps superficial knowledge of the movement itself. For this reason, as well as because of the respect I have for him as an intellectual, I would like to make a response.
His article is not freely available online but it is possible to buy access to just this issue of Inside the Vatican, May-June 2022, through the ISSUU platform, for a small sum, if anyone thinks I am misrepresenting him.
The first thing with which I would like to take issue is the background Ashenden proposes for the debate about the liturgy. He writes:
The civil war that dominates our day has narrowed down to a fight over liturgy. But only because liturgy has become emblematic of two ways of looking at the world; two perspectives, two competing theologies.
This seems to me a very odd, and potentially a very distorting, way of looking at the current situation of conflict in the Church. Perhaps supporters of the Traditional Mass should be flattered, because it makes them seem very important, but the fact is that opposition to Pope Francis’ real or imagined agenda, which is what the ‘civil war in the Church’ is presumably about, does not have traditional Catholics as major protagonists or the traditional liturgy as a major issue.
It may be objected that traditionalists punch above their weight in Catholic journalism, and so the liturgical issue is endlessly discussed. This is true, but this is not where the fight is centred. Traddies have scarcely any presence among bishops and cardinals—they have been systematically excluded from these roles for fifty years, after all—and it is among bishops and cardinals that the war is raging. The wealthy, powerful, and numerous German bishops persist with their ‘Synodal Pathway’ towards same-sex unions, holy communion for the divorced and remarried, and women’s ordination; in March this was publicly criticisedby the Episcopal Conference covering Scandinavia, and in April, it was attacked by 70 bishops from the USA and other countries. These criticisms make public in an extraordinary way a conflict which is theologically profound and global in scale.
No doubt there is a correlation between friendliness towards Latin Mass communities and opposition to the German agenda of blessing same-sex unions and ordaining women, but it would be easy to give examples on both sides which buck the trend. The Traditional Mass is far more welcome in Germany than it is in Tanzania, and yet fourteen Tanzanian bishops felt moved to sign the petition criticising the Synodal Pathway. I don’t think any of the relevant documents on either side even mention the old Mass.
There is, of course, a fight about the liturgy going on, and within this rather niche area in the life of the Church the ancient Mass has a bit more significance. Ashenden describes it in this way:
Tradition presents the fruit of a long steady development of depth under the hand of the Holy Spirit; the contemporary quest claims to re-connect with the earliest sources, and at the same time attempts to build a bridge between the Church and secular proprieties in a society experiencing rapid change.
There is virtue in both a liturgy that prioritizes transcendence and virtue in one that prioritizes immanence. One prioritizes profundity over easy access, and the other facilitates evangelism in a culture that finds the Faith increasingly strange and unfamiliar.
This is the second area in which I would like to object. Here Ashenden does no more than summarise a few conventional views on the old vs. new debate, so perhaps it is not him I am criticising here so much as those widespread assumptions which he has summarised for us.
First, I have, frankly, no idea what work the ‘immanent’ vs. ‘transcendent’ contrast is supposed to be doing here. It would be interesting to hear how the reformed Mass creates a sense of the immanent presence of God, but I’ve never seen an attempt to make this case. What I have heard is that the reformed Mass simply has a tendency not to create a sense of God’s presence at all. Indeed, this is implied by the words of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, who all noted the ‘sacrality’ of the ancient Mass, and also of the Eastern Rites, and contrasted this with the reformed Mass as all too often celebrated.
People may be surprised to hear that all three Popes can be quoted to this effect, but I am thinking of Pope John Paul II’s 2001 addressto the Congregation for Divine Worship, Pope Benedict’s 2007 Letterto Bishops, and an interviewof Pope Francis in July 2013.
I have a similar problem with the idea that the reformed Missal ‘facilitates evangelism in a culture that finds the Faith increasingly strange and unfamiliar’. Certainly, the reform implemented strategies to this effect, but so does the older Missal.
In some ways the reformed Missal signally fails to ‘build a bridge’ with culture. Thus, the world celebrates St Valentine’s Day on 14th February and the Church, as far as the reformed liturgy goes, fails to do so. In this case, far from building a bridge with culture, the reform seems to burn down a bridge which previously existed. Annibale Bugnini expressed his frustration that he was unable to break the similar connection between Ash Wednesday and Mardi Gras (The Reform of the Liturgy, p307, n7). The reformers’ problem with these bridges to popular culture is that they felt the Church had become too culturally weak to cope with the distorted popular meanings of these events. The thing to do in response is to withdraw: to pull up the drawbridge, to retreat into our shell.
Nevertheless, there is a strategy for engaging the world implicit in the liturgical reform. This is the theory that if people experience the Mass as something less alien, more everyday—fresh modern language, pottery chalices, a plain table for an altar, the priest in ordinary clothes—then the message of the Mass will carry over more easily into their everyday lives. Whether this works, of course, is an empirical question.
One problem with this approach, hinted at in my examples, is that the Church has never done this wholeheartedly. The stilted English of the 1974 ‘old ICEL’ has now given way to a deliberately elevated liturgical register in the 2011 ‘new ICEL’ translation. Pottery chalices are actually forbidden. Priests are obliged to wear vestments. And so on.
Leaving that problem aside, one can accept that there was a sincere and heartfelt attempt to evangelise the world in this way, and still notice that the ancient Mass alsoattempts to evangelise culture, also builds bridges, in a very differentway. This is the strategy of a maximally clear differentiation between the sacred and profane, to create a really palpable sense of the sacred, which can stay with the worshipper from Sunday to Sunday.
Ashenden has slipped into characterising the contrast between the two liturgical forms in terms of the self-understanding of just one of them. Because the reform aimed to make the liturgy more effective for evangelisation, he assumes that this effectiveness now marks the difference between the two liturgical forms. Is there, however, any reason to think that the reform actually worked in this respect? This is, let us say, far from clear. The recent researchpresented by the sociologist of religion, Prof. Stephen Bullivant, suggests that the strategy of contrast, of contrasting the sacred with the profane, of building walls around the community, and of encouraging visible testimonies to the truth of the Faith—all-night vigils, long walking pilgrimages, demanding fasts—is actually more effective in maintaining and spreading the Faith than trying to erase the boundaries.
Related to this is Ashenden’s unqualified acceptance of what Pope Francis says about ‘rigidity’.
Pope Francis is using the word rigid as a criticism. He perceives opportunity. The rigid are those who cannot see opportunity or be sufficiently flexible to make anything of it.
Pope Francis is no doubt sincere in saying this kind of thing, but he is not necessarily correct. The idea here, ultimately derived from Freud via Adorno, is that ‘rigid’ people are attached to traditional forms, due to the childhood repression of sexuality, and are cursed with a lack of creativity and morbid risk aversion. For all the influence this theory has had, it was never very well supported by the empirical data, and intellectual fashions have long since moved on. The ideas of the 1940s and ’50s don’t necessarily provide the best lens for understanding the 2020s.
As Ashenden must have noticed, evangelising creativity and effectiveness today is often associated with the more conservative and demanding forms of the major world religions, and Catholicism is no exception. Indeed he has noticed the ‘the growth of the young traditionalists’. Where does he think they came from?
A final point I would like to raise in this already over-long response to this article relates to this very puzzling sentence:
[Ashenden wants to ask] why those supporters of the Tridentine mass, like the head of SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, repudiate the validity of the Novus Ordo that mediates immanence?
First, it is strange to make Fr Pagliarani a kind of representative or spokesman for the movement in dialogue with Pope Francis over Traditionis Custodes. Because it is canonically irregular, the SSPX is not effected by Traditionis Custodes or by anything else Pope Francis might decree. If it were the views of the SSPX that brought forth this document, it would be unjust to the point of weirdness. Why punish non-SSPX traditional Catholics for the views of the SSPX?
Second, I think Fr Pagliarani would be pretty surprised, and not very pleased, to hear it suggested that he ‘repudiates the validity of the Novus Ordo.’ I really wish Ashenden, and others, would be careful in what he says on this subject, as it is a matter of considerable sensitivity. It has never been the official view of the SSPX that the Novus Ordo Mass, if celebrated according to its own rules, is sacramentally invalid. Such a view is extremely marginal in the traditional Catholic world, and unsurprisingly so as its implications are mind-boggling. If you start saying that the reformed sacramental rites are invalid—and if the Mass is invalid, where do you stop?—then by today the Church would have essentially ceased to exist outside a few beleaguered enclaves.
This is nonsense, and Dr Ashenden really should not give it credibility.