Latin Mass Society

Chairman's Blog

17/08/2021 - 10:00

The only expression of the Roman Rite?

IMG_9948
A Low Mass celebrated after the 2019
LMS Walking Pilgrimage to Walsingham,
in the Medieval Slipper Chapel.
I have become a contributing Editor of the blog founded by Steve Skojec, 1Peter5, and my first article for them has just published. It begins:
-------------

The practical fall-out from Traditionis Custodes will be making itself felt for some time to come. In some places it has already been devastating; in others, it appears it will be minimal. The theological fall-out, however, threatens a profound problem on a different plane. This arises from the claim made in Article 1 of the document, and repeated in the accompanying Letter to Bishops, that “the liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

The official English translation which I have quoted is actually a poor rendering of the Italian expression, “l’unica espressione”, which means the only expression. The document is claiming that the only Missal which expresses the Roman Rite’s lex orandi, its “law of prayer,” is the reformed Missal.

The Church’s law of prayer, her lex orandi, must correspond to, and indeed determine, her law of belief (lex credendi): that was the claim of Prosper of Aquitaine when he coined the phrase in the 5th century. Prosper was making the point that if you want to know what people believe, then look at how they express themselves in prayer. If they genuflect at the reference to the Incarnation in the Creed, of if they kneel to receive Holy Communion, this tells you something: Arians will refuse to do the first, and Lutherans the second. A Missal is a “law of prayer” in the sense that it sets out a way for people to pray, and we would expect Catholic Missals to give a theologically correct law of prayer and Arian and Lutheran ones to give theologically erroneous ones. What, then, can it mean to say that the Roman Rite has only one law of prayer, and that this is the one expressed in a particular Missal, and not in another, in a document which allows both to be used in the Church?

Support the Latin Mass Society
16/08/2021 - 14:01

Last Call for the LMS Walking Pilgrimage to Walsingham: deadline, 23rd August

IMG_9843

The deadline is Tuesday 23rd August. Register here.
There are discounts for your people and clergy and religious are free.
This is going to be a year to remember! Don't miss out.

IMG_9597

Support the Latin Mass Society
14/08/2021 - 20:22

LMS AGM and High Mass in Westminster Cathedral: photos

IMG_9452

Today, Saturday 14th August, the Latin Mass Society held its Annual General Meeting. Among other things I gave talk which can be heard on Soundcloud here (37 minutes): Traditiones Custodes: What difference does it make?IMG_9433

The AGM and the Mass which followed were unusually well-attended; there were about 400 people in Mass. This was celebrated by Fr Henry Whisenant, assisted by Fr Gabriel Diaz as Deacon and Fr John Scott as Subdeacon. It was accompanied by the Lay Clerks of the Cathedral, who sand Palestrina's Missa Brevis, and the motets Ave Maria by Josquin and Ave Verum by Byrd.
IMG_9438

Fr Whisenant's address to the AGM was excellent and we will be releasing a recording soon. The music was lovely, and we would like to record our thanks David Greely, who was directing.

IMG_9445

IMG_9446

IMG_9449

IMG_9453

IMG_9462

IMG_9466

IMG_9473

IMG_9475

IMG_9483

IMG_9492

IMG_9494

IMG_9503

 

 Support the Latin Mass Society
13/08/2021 - 20:06

Are Canonisations Infallible? A new book of discussions

I am a contributor to an important new book collecting essays on this topic: are Canonisations infallible?

Get it on Amazon: UK here; USA here.
I have mentioned the issue a couple of times on this blog: I am inclined to doubt it, for the simple reason that the kind of affirmation a canonisation implies, on the holiness and eternal fate of a particular historical personage, is not part of the deposit of Faith, and is not included among the things covered by the doctrine of infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council.
Canonisations have always involved historical research: reviewing the written works of the individual, interviewing witnesses, and so on. Such research can give us a strong reason for believing a conclusion about an historical fact, perhaps even one which goes beyond reasonable doubt, but such scholarly certainty is quite different from our attitude towards objects of Faith.
These very simple and I would have thought obvious points are resisted fiercely by some. This book sets out arguments on both sides of this important question.
From the Editor, Peter Kwasniewski:
All the arguments you’ve ever seen in favor of the infallibility of canonizations—and some you probably haven’t seen—are present here. Certain authors agree with them. Other authors argue for their inconclusiveness or incorrectness. It is a fair and full fight, which does not shy away from toppling “certainties” that have acquired weight only from parrotical repetition. Also an excellent introduction to the history of canonization, the changes made to the process, the nature and objects of papal infallibility (Gherardini’s contribution is especially impressive on this head). Those who uphold the majority view will find in this book some of the most powerful defenses of their position ever penned—while at the same time the case made against them is, to my mind, stronger still. Frankly, I don’t see how the defenders of the infallibility of canonizations have a leg left to stand on after this.

The chapters are arranged in a certain order: historical and doctrinal overviews (chapters 1–3), in-depth investigations by Thomists (4–7), a vigorous defense of the non-infallibility thesis (chapters 8–9), and specific concerns raised by more recent situations (10–15). That being said, the chapters do not have to be read in any particular order, and those who are looking for the fundamentals of the debate may wish to prioritize 2–3, 7–9, and 11.

Dr Kwasniewski writes more about it on Rorate Caeli.

Table of Contents

1 The Church Triumphant and

the Rules of Canonization Today: Jean-François Thomas, S.J. 

2 The Cult of Saints in the Catholic Church: José Antonio Ureta 

3 History and Role of the “Devil’s Advocate”: Phillip Campbell 

4 The Infallibility of Canonizations: A Revisionist History of the Arguments: William Matthew Diem 

5 Infallibility and Canonizations: A Disputation: Thomas Crean, O.P. 

6 A Reponse to Fr. Crean: William Matthew Diem 

7 Canonization and Infallibility: Msgr. Brunero Gherardini 

8 The Authority of Canonizations: John R.T. Lamont 

9 The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful: John R.T. Lamont 

10 Approaching the Subject of Canonization: with Careful Steps: Fr. John Hunwicke 

11 The Canonization Crisis: Christopher Ferrara 

12 True and False Saints in the Church: Roberto de Mattei 

13 On the Proposed Canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II: Roberto de Mattei 

14 Animadversions on the Canonization of Paul VI: Peter A. Kwasniewski 

15 Walking into a Trap: Joseph Shaw 

Get it on Amazon: UK here; USA here.

Support the Latin Mass Society
10/08/2021 - 10:11

Latin for Clergy: 80% discount from the Latin Mass Society

IMG_9424

To respond to Pope Francis’ challenge that those celebrating the ancient Latin liturgy should ‘possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts’ (Traditionis Custodes 3.4), the Latin Mass Society is pleased to announce a special online course designed to assist the clergy to improve their Latin for liturgical use.

This will be led by Matthew Spencer, who has been working with the Latin Mass Society to provide online Latin teaching for more than a year.
We are offering an 80% discount to the usual price for Catholic priests, seminarians, those accepted for seminary admission, permanent deacons, those studying for the permanent diaconate, and novices and professed religious of both sexes who come from or are based in England and Wales.
With this we have arranged independent certification from Dr Justin Stover, Senior Lecturer in Medieval Latin at Edinburgh University.
Dates: Module 1, 6 Sep - 1st Oct; Module2, 11 Oct - 5 Nov; Module 3, 15 Nov - 10 Dec
To apply email Matthew Spencer: intensivepali@gmail.com 
Support the Latin Mass Society
06/08/2021 - 12:27

'After Traditionis Custodes': Podcast

IMG_1261
Dominican Rite Mass in Holy Trinity, Hethe, 2019

Today we launch a new season of our Iota Unum podcasts, to publish weekly.

In the opening episode I give an hour-long talk on the implications of Traditionis Custodes.

In this presentation I address the question of whether the Traditional Mass has value, according to the Post-Conciliar Popes, whether it makes sense to think of it existing alongside the Novus Ordo, and how to understand the rejection of this possibility in Traditionis Custodes. And finally, where we go from here.

It can be found on various platforms, here it is on Spotify, on Podbean, and on the LMS website.
I have put down a long list of links to documents I refer to in this podcase in the shownotes, here.
Support the Latin Mass Society
04/08/2021 - 11:32

German Professor criticises Traditionis Custodes

My latest on LifeSite.

Professor Helmut Hoping, Professor of Dogmatics and Liturgical Studies at the University of Freiburg, has written a strongly critical article on Pope Francis’s Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes, in the respected German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on July 28. The article, in German, is unfortunately paywalled, but I have seen a translation.

Pope Francis claims in Traditionis Custodes that the reformed, post Vatican II Missal is the “only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Missal” (not, as the official English translation had it, merely the “unique” expression). Hoping points out that in 2015 Pope Francis promulgated the Missal of the Anglican Ordinariates, Divine Worship, which describes itself as a “legitimate adaptation” of the Roman Rite, and that only last year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a decree on the Extraordinary Form, Quo Magis, which described it as a the “other form of the Roman Rite”. Somehow, between February 2020 and July 2021, the Holy See has radically transformed its understanding of what constitutes the “Roman Rite.”

Another oddity Professor Hoping points out in Traditionis Custodes is Pope Francis giving bishops the “exclusive” right to manage the celebration of the older Mass, he then commands them to “follow all the instructions of the Apostolic See,” setting out various limitations on what they may permit.

Hoping continues:

But it may not be quite so easy to put an end to the old Mass. It is appreciated by many because it protects [worshippers] against the personal creativity with which many priests today assemble the Mass, disregarding the norms of the Missal of Paul VI and the right of the faithful to a liturgy celebrated in accordance with the applicable Roman Rite. With its evolved ritual structure, the old Mass resists attempts to de-sacralize it. This makes it attractive to believers with a sense of the holiness, beauty and objectivity of Christian worship, including, increasingly, young people. Not that the renewed liturgy could not be celebrated worthily and according to the rubrics. However, it is often difficult to perceive, in parish Masses, their character as a sacred act (actio sacra). It was the promotion of this idea which was the object of the liturgical reform, which found its first expression in the Missal of Paul VI (1970).”

Read the whole thing there.

Support the Latin Mass Society
02/08/2021 - 14:00

Ruff and Shaw on Traditionis Custodes and the Reform

Simultaneously with this post I publishing on Rorate Caeli a post consisting of nine questions, and the answers to these by Fr Anthony Ruff of the Pray Tell blog, and by me. It is also being published on the Pray Tell blog.
This was not a dialogue, but simply juxtaposes our answers to the same questions. I am grateful to Fr Ruff for the opportunity to take part in this exercise. Fr Ruff's answers, which are from a very different place from my own, are characterised by respect and charity, and give a coherent account of the reasoning of at least some of those who welcome Traditionis Custodes. This makes them interesting and useful to those who want to try to understand this position; I hope my answers will be useful to the readers of Pray Tell.
Here are some quotations from Fr Ruff which are worth pondering.
"The question of whether it’s appropriate for the Church to prohibit the previous rite is identical to the question of whether Vatican II’s statements on the liturgy are legitimate and correct – and I think they are."
"He [Pope Francis] did not say that the 1962 Missal has no lex orandi, or is opposed to the Church’s lex orandi. The 1962 Missal reflects the Roman rite’s lex orandi to the extent that it reflects the Church’s liturgy as found in the 1970 Missal."

"the primary argument of TC is not a pragmatic one about whether or not traditionalist communities are guilty of the vices Pope Francis names. Even if traditionalist communities are coexisting in perfect peace with the rest of the church, Francis’s primary argument is that their liturgical practice is not in line with the Church’s intentions."

I think this expresses quite clearly a line of thought which explains Traditionis Custodes, and indeed the thinking of this document only makes sense in the context of this or something very like it.
First, the 'nasty trad on social media' is besides the point. I never bought the idea that this phenomenon, real as it is, has the influence that some have attributed to it. I seriously doubt anyone in Pope Francis' inner circle spends time reading sede vacantists on Twitter.
The view rather is that, in the context of Vatican II, the reformed liturgy has an exalted place in the Church's self understanding, and that what does not sit comfortably with this is for that reason theologically problematic.
My response to this would be to ask whether the Vatican II/Novus Ordo Missae marked a real change of doctrine. It would seem problematic to say so, since the Church's teachings are supposed to be unchanging. Pope John XXIII expressed the mandate of Vatican II in his opening speech, in this way:

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
If there has been no change of doctrine, then the lex orandi of the older liturgy would remain valid and useful, notwithstanding the insights brought forth by other rites, reformed or not.
I say more about the kind of view expressed by Fr Ruff in a podcast which will be released on Thursday.

Support the Latin Mass Society
29/07/2021 - 19:11

A reply to JD Flynn's attack on Cardinal Burke

PSX_20190916_234633
Cardinal Raymond Burke in London, celebrating Mass for the
Latin Mass Society in Corpus Christi, Maiden Lane 2019 (photograph by John Aron).

Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.

In the Pillar, JD Flynn criticises ‘the siren voices calling for disobedience, or casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. He has earlier quoted Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, but he leaves it to his readers to connect what he quotes them as saying with ‘calls for disobedience’ and ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. This seems on the face of it a serious injustice, and a failure to give these individuals the respect due to their office and indeed to every Catholic, who has a right to his good name: see Canon 220.

For readers such as myself to be expected to examine the quoted remarks and look for possible support of these serious allegations is ridiculous and an invitation to uncharity. Flynn does not even give us a clue which of the three is implicated in these two alleged offences. Indeed, it might even be that Flynn would, if challenged, refer us instead to the unnamed others he vaguely refers to in the course of the article. However, the insinuation remains, it is serious, and it should be withdrawn.

To illustrate, a reasonable person reading this article would conclude that ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’ is a reference to the remarks quoted from Cardinal Burke in the article:

“Can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA?” Burke asked.

The cardinal concluded in the negative, positing that the pope’s authority does not allow him “to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.”

This is then linked to an interpretation of His Excellency’s remarks by a CNA author. Flynn does not express an opinion as the truth of this interpretation, and yet feels justified to make his insinuation.

In point of fact, Cardinal Burke’s remarks are not a denial of the authority of the Papacy, but a comment about what that authority means. I would be interested to know if Flynn would regard as a rejection of the authority of the Vicar of Christ these words of the then sitting Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, one Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000)):

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. … The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

It is a commonplace among theologians that the power of the Vicar of Christ is not arbitrary or despotic, but given for a specific purpose, a purpose which conditions the matters which it governs and also the way it can be used. The Church’s own tradition of Canon law allows for the fact that some practices are simply not uprooted by legislation against them and become legitimate with the passage of time (Canon 24.2); that bishops can lift universal disciplinary obligations from those under their charge for the good of souls (Canon 87.1); and that, in the final analysis, the salvation of souls is the supreme law (Canon 1752).

The power of the Vicar of Christ must be understood within this context, and not the context of a modern, positivist conception of the law, which would make the Pope into a dictator or even a slave-master. When Cardinal Burke directs our attention to the correct context, he is doing a service to all who love and respect the Office of the Papacy.

Support the Latin Mass Society
27/07/2021 - 11:30

Latin Mass: no hysteria. A reply to David Gibson

Cross-posted on Rorate Caeli.
Update: since writing this Crisis Magazine has published a useful study on the recent growth of the Tradition Mass in the Unites States.
----------------------------------------
On a the website of Sapientia, which claims to be 'exploring Faith, Culture, and Society', a film-maker (yes) called David Gibson has written to debunk what he calls the 'hysteria' about Pope Francis' Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes.

Here is a brief response to his main points, which he lists as three 'misconceptions': 

First, the pope has not prohibited priests from saying Mass in Latin

Unlike under the other points, Gibson is unable to illustrate this with any quotations or links to people saying what he alleges supporters of the Traditional Mass are saying. Perhaps someone should point out to him that these Catholics are actually acutely aware of the difference between 'banning the Traditional Mass' and 'banning the Latin Novus Ordo': rather more sensitive than he is, in fact.

His debunking of what no-one is saying is backed up by an unintentionally amusing quotation:
“If you like the Latin Mass, you can keep the Latin Mass, because the Missal of Paul VI is the Latin Mass,” Adam Rasmussen, an adjunct professor of theology, wrote at the blog Where Peter Is
And how would these Masses be celebrated, Mr Rasmussen, now that the Vatican has stopped printing the Paul VI Missal in Latin? And how much support could such celebrations claim from Pope Francis, who has called this kind of thing, the celebration of the new Mass to bring out its similarities with the old, a form of 'rigidity' and 'clericalism' which is a 'mistake'?
The second misconception, which can be deduced from the brief history above, is that Francis’s decision was the precipitous and peremptory action of a strongman “Peronist” pope,

This is aimed at John Allen in Crux, which is interesting given Allen's stature as a non-ideological journalist and the balanced nature of his article. If Allen thinks Peronism is a useful category, Gibson needs to do more than just quote Michael Sean Winters and, heaven help us, Robert Mickens, in reply.

Winters and Mickens think that Pope Francis is being quite reasonable. But then they would, wouldn't they? If you are going to claim, as Gibson does, that Catholics attached to the old Mass 'brought strife to parishes and dioceses almost everywhere they went', then you need at least one example, I would have thought. 'Almost everywhere'? Really? Is this claim compatible with the 'esteem' accorded this movement, not by its most committed supporters, but by the French Bishops' Conference responding to Traditionis Custodes?
It is the mainstream, the middle ground, which Gibson is trying to debunk here, not some lunatic fringe.

And this is the third and perhaps biggest misconception – that Pope Francis is throttling some burgeoning traditionalist revival


Here Gibson does a better job of illustrating the view he is opposing, quoting Bishop Schneider, Matthew Schmitz, The Economist, and The New York Times. They have all referred to the growing number of Traditional Masses their growing congregations. 
Indeed, I have been asked so often by journalists to back up this claim with statistics that I have a handy set which I update from time to time. All you need to do is ask! Gibson, alas, has no relevant data at all. All he can do is point the absolute level of the number celebrations, which obviously cannot tell us anything about the trend. Well, you want a trend? Here it is: from England and Wales, where the Latin Mass Society has been keeping records of Public Traditional Masses for decades.

Interestingly, after Summorum Pontificum there was a big surge, and this was followed by a bit of consolidation. But in the last three years the speed of growth has picked up again. Quoting a 2016 article by Mgr Charles Pope, as Gibson does, is not exactly up to the minute news, is it?

As for the question of whether it is attended by young people, which Gibson also questions, this won't be visible in Masses celebrated in a retirement village, but the anecdotal evidence in favour is crushing. I have put together information from the FIUV's world-wide survey in an article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
Gibson is correct that this growth is from a low base, and that the total numbers are still small compared with the number of Novus Ordo celebrations, but it would have to be, wouldn't it? Before 2007 it was extremely difficult to get permission for Masses in most places.
If you want to look at a leading indicator, however, look at the number of ordinations. There is the ever-increasing number of priests being ordained into the Traditional Institutes, organisations with few older priests. And there is the number of priests ordained for dioceses and religious orders who want to celebrate the Old Mass: between a third and half, in many English dioceses. Between them, these processes will ensure that the number of priests wanting to put on celebrations is going to increase enormously as a percentage of the total, since they are replacing priests who have much less interest, and the total number of priests is in rapid decline.
I don't see much evidence of hysteria, Mr Gibson, but plenty of evidence of a strong trend which has attracted the attention of the mainstream press. If you are going to change the conversation, you need facts, not just tweets from Christopher Lamb, to back you up.
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