Empty

Total: £0.00
items
0
Total: £0.00
My Basket
Latin Mass Society
  1. About Us
  2. Chairman's Blog

Chairman's Blog

    26/09/2017 - 10:56

    The mainstream media on the Correctio Filialis

    I agreed to be spokesman or media contact for the Correctio Filialis I didn't realise quite was I was letting myself in for. I've now lost count of the number of telephone and email mini-interviews I've done, and I don't have time to keep track on the number of reports online which have resulted from these.

    This could have been a nightmare, but it's not at all. The journalists have been polite and professional. (Associated Press was a teeny bit naughty breaking the media embargo, but it was only by an hour or two.) And all things considered, we are getting amazingly favourable coverage in Catholic and non-Catholic sources.

    The New York Times and the Daily Mail, which both picked up the AP material, took the fairly obvious (to them) line that the Pope was being nice to people and that we want to take the sweeties away from the children - or something like that. (A Guardian comment piece says the same thing.) They paid us the incomparable compliment, however, of reporting us, and indeed of doing so at some length and with a degree of prominence, and the articles are hardly hatchet-jobs. The story of the 'Pope vs. conservative critics' has become part of the media narrative about Pope Francis, so it goes down without obstruction. But critical distance between the liberal media and what we might call the 'reforming agenda' in the Church seems to have opened up nevertheless, thanks no doubt to stories such as about Professor Seifert losing his job over criticisms Amoris laetitia. The liberals in the Church are less and less recognisable as such; the conservatives are clearly now the underdogs.

    So now we have a story from CNN which is really very balanced, even favourable to us.

    In the meantime, Catholic outlets seem to be divided between those who want to report the story in an objective or favourable way, who find themselves doing multiple stories as the news develops (Catholic Herald here and here, Lifesite here, here, here, etc.), and those who wish to play it down or ignore it completely. The problem for the latter is that it is too late: the mainstream media have already picked it up.

    It's no fun ignoring something on one's own. And it doesn't have the desired effect, either.

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    25/09/2017 - 18:50

    Reactions to the Filial Correction

    Please note that academics and pastors who wish to are invited to apply to join the official list of signatories through a button on the website here (scroll down).

    Everyone can sign the petition of support here.

    I've been watching the reaction to the Filial Correction on the media - though I've certainly not read all of it - and the Catholic reaction in favour and against are both very interesting.

    The reaction in favour has been overwhelming. At the time of writing the petition in support of the document has over 4,000 names, despite being very much an afterthought and not being integrated into the publicity.

    But more important has been the tone of responses, and the range of people who have responded positively. Over the last forty years and more the 'conservative' end of the theological debate has been riven by disagreement about how bad things really are, and how strongly criticisms should be expressed. It sometimes seemed that every initiative by a conservative group would be denounced, simultaneously but by different people, as being excessively aggressive and as making too many concessions to liberalism: as being too strong and too weak. Differences of opinion on exactly how to protest about problems are inevitable, but these disagreements have at times become so violent as to cripple conservatives' ability to act at all.

    This is not happening at all with the Correctio Filialis. Not everyone thinks that the wording and the general approach is perfect - of course not - but we are not being attacked by fellow-conservatives and traditionalists. I think this is extremely significant. A consensus has formed among those serious about the Faith that things have reached a point where such action is at least reasonable, and derives from sincere love of the Church and reasonably well-informed thinking about the theological issues. For a vast number of conservative Catholics, the response has been relief: someone at last has said it.

    So who is opposing us? I think the long-established 'liberal' side of the argument on theological issues would be content to ignore us. There is no reference to the Catholic story of the day, on prominent display in the Daily Mail, the New York Times, The Times, and various other places, on the PrayTell blog at the time of writing. A journalist from The Tablet spoke to me today, but I fancy the result will simply be a short news item.

    No, it is the strange new phenomenon of hyper-ultramontanist Francis-partizans who have taken up the fight. They are helpfully gathered together in a National Catholic Reporter article. They seem very worked up, and have developed a sort of all-purpose invective, which can be applied to any topic: the people they don't like are 'hypocrites', aren't very grand and well-connected, and are few in number. As we philosophers say, an argument that can prove too much, ends up proving nothing at all.

    Search that article from end to end and you won't find a single objection to the content of the document. And here's something else. The writer of the article, Joshua J. McElwee, not only has no reaction to these spluttering accusations, in his article, from a supporter of the Correctio Filialis, but in preparing it he never took the first step in trying to get one. I know this because that step would be writing to me, at the email address included in the press release as the media contact. I have spent all of today and much of yesterday on the phone to or writing emails to journalists: the Associated Press, LifeSite, radio journalists from Poland, journalists in Rome, CNN, The Tablet, you name it. But from Joshua J. McElwee I have not heard a peep. He didn't want to hear the other side of the story. He just wanted to put together a few quotes from a tiny clique of chums. This isn't journalism, this is the Party Line.

    On the one hand, they are desperate to make little of us: they don't want to quote us, they think we are insignificant, it's just a few people, move along there, there's nothing to see. On the other hand, they can't actually bear to look away. They can't stop tweeting and writing about it. We represent a totally insignificant threat that is absolutely terrifying and must be crushed at all costs.

    To be fair to them, I think they may have an insight into the affair which the conventional liberals lack. I rather think we really are more significant than our numbers and our academic standing might suggest. So much so, in fact, that the Vatican itself has gone to the trouble of blocking access to the Correction Filialis website from Vatican computers, which appears rather symbolic, if not ludicrous.

    In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid,  
    Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade...

    (Chesterton)

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    23/09/2017 - 23:30

    With profound grief... A filial correction.
    St Catherine of Siena before Pope Gregory XI

    With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.

    We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard.

    By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. 


    By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas Aquinas notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the gloss of St Augustine’ adds that on this occasion, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (ibid.). 

    The law of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s faithful . . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church” (Code of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches 15:3).

    I am a signatory of the document which begins with these words, and also its spokesman. You can read the full text on Rorate Caeli, and (I hope) on a specially made website, http://correctiofilialis.com/ See also 1Peter5's commentary.

    The document is signed by 62 people, Catholic academics and pastors, from 20 countries. It expresses, in technical theological language, the concern that, while Amoris laetitia itself may be open to an interpretation in line with the previous teaching of the Church, various informal indications, which appear to be favoured by Pope Francis himself, point to an interpretation not in line with that teaching.

    Either the new view is wrong, or the old one is. There has in fact been no attempt to promulgate the new view magisterially - that is from the Holy Father himself, clearly, and in an authoritative format, such as a formal document - since Amoris laetitia itself. It would seem, in any case, that such an attempt could not be successful, in the sense of creating an obligation on Catholics to assent to this new view, because the old view expressed the Ordinary Magisterium, based on Scripture, and this teaching cannot be changed. In short, it seems to me that the new view which has been suggested and insinuated is incompatible with the Faith.

    That does not mean that the Pope is a heretic. There is a wide gap between appearing to favour a view which is objectively contrary to the faith, and being a heretic, one part of which is the knowledge and intentions of the person concerned, and another part of which is the judgement of that person by a competent superior. We cannot ascertain the former, and as for the latter, in the law of the Church, the Pope has no superior. Judgment of the Pope's culpability or personal state has absolutely no place in this project.

    What we can do, and are doing, is simply pointing out that the view being insinuated is not the Catholic faith, as we are able to understand it. In such a case, where the stakes are so high, it seems to us an obligation to discharge our consciences to the Holy Father himself, privately, as we did a month and more ago. And then, in the absence of a response, to manifest our concerns to the Catholic public at large.

    This does not mean that I think I am or the petitioners as a group are infallible. It just means that I feel I must manifest my view. It is for those with teaching authority to address our concerns, to make clear what is unclear, and to show us, if necessary, where we have gone wrong. Any document like this, within the Church, is designed to stimulate the exercise of the magisterium, not to undermine or replace it.

    Posted on the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, and of Walsingham.
    St Catherine of Siena, pray for us.

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    23/09/2017 - 19:12

    LMS Pilgrimage to Glastonbury

    IMG_0175

    This year I was able to get to the Latin Mass Society's longstanding pilgrimage to Glastonbury, one of the ancient holy places of Europe. It generally takes place on the first Saturday of September.

    IMG_0163
    A Sung Mass was celebrated by Fr Philip Thomas. By coincidence, it has been announced that another priest of Clifton who has done much for the Traditional Mass, Fr Bede Rowe, will be taking over as Parish Priest of Glastonbury.

    IMG_0150

    IMG_0164

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    20/09/2017 - 18:48

    Cardinal Sarah's proposed reform of the Traditional Mass
    In addressing the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage to Rome last weekend, with many very fine and important things to say, on the occasion of the 10th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Sarah acknowledged the response to his earlier remarks on the subject of ‘reconciling’ the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. 
    In July I spoke of a possible future reconciliation between the two forms of the Roman rite. Some have interpreted this expression of personal opinion as the announcement of a programme that would end up in the future imposition of a hybrid rite which would bring about a compromise that would leave everybody unhappy and would abolish the usus antiquior by stealth, as it were. This interpretation is absolutely not what I intended. What I do wish to do is to encourage further thought and study on these questions in peace and tranquillity and in a spirit of prayerful discernment. There are improvements which can be made to both forms of the Roman rite in use today, and both forms can contribute to this in due course.

    Cardinal Sarah clearly wants to reassure - indeed, to calm down - Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form, but he doesn't actually abandon his project. The reconciliation he desires should, however, only come about after careful study, and with due consideration for the sensitivities of Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form. 
    One is tempted to say: ‘In others words, PANIC!!’ However I don’t actually think that is necessary. Cardinal Sarah is entitled to his views and his call for a debate is welcome. The practical and political obstacles to liturgical reform are currently so overwhelming that we really can have this debate in a calm state of mind - it is for the foreseeable future purely academic. 
    In any case, I intend here to respond to His Eminence’s call for a calm and reasoned discussion, taking my start from his own example of the possible development of the Extraordinary Form:
    the older missal may well profit from the addition of ferial Masses in Advent and the expansion of its lectionary on ferias.
    This is interesting both in itself and because it may represent a development of his thinking: having seen the arguments about the possibility of using the reformed Lectionary as a whole in the EF from Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form, which naturally focused on the Sunday cycle, he wants to focus just on the Ferial cycle. So we now need to think about what to say about that. 
    The FIUV Position Paper on the Lectionary does discuss the question of ferial cycles outside Lent. One aspect of the question is the fact that prior to the 13th century Missale Romano-Seraphicum, upon which later editions of the Roman Missal have been based, there were ferial cycles outside Lent, as well as the Lenten ferial Masses which it did include. Versions of these survived even longer in non-Roman, Latin Missals. Unlike the Lenten cycle, however, they were not day-by-day sets of extra readings, but only two or three days a week, making use of parallel pericopes to the previous Sunday. 
    This makes sense, because the Orations at ferial Masses outside Lent are the same as those of the previous Sunday. So for the readings and prayers to hang together, the readings were commonly simply different versions of the same gospel miracle or parable or whatever. 
    It is worth pausing to ask why the Franciscans who created the Missale Romano-Seraphicum, based on the liturgy of Papal court but adapted to their own needs, did not include the non-Lenten ferial cycles of readings. They haven’t left an explanation, but it is not difficult to imagine them deciding that the significant extra size of Missal and therefore the expense involved was not worth it, because these ferial readings were not going to be used very much. This was so because the weekdays not used up by the abundant sanctoral cycle of the Roman Rite were so often used for Votive Masses, including the Mass for the Dead. These considerations are no less applicable today than they were in the 13th century. 
    Now making the case for the restoration of ancient ferial cycles is a very different matter from making the case for the use, in the EF, of the reformed Lectionary. I assume Cardinal Sarah has the latter in mind. Indeed, referring to ‘ferial Masses’ in Advent suggests that it is not just the readings, but the orations also which he has in view: we are talking, then, about whole Mass ‘formularies’: introit, collect, epistle, gradual (no alleluia in Advent on ferial days), gospel, offertory, secret, communion antiphon and postcommunion prayer. (The EF has such ferial Masses for Lent.) This proposal raises a number of additional issues.
    The first question is where all these texts are going to come from. If you open the 1970 Missal with a view to pulling out the relevant texts for use in the EF you will find that they are not all there, and the closest equivalents does not necessarily have the same function. The OF doesn’t have a secret prayer, for example. The 1970 Missal doesn’t include graduals, although you can find them in the 1974 Graduale Romanum, as options if there is to be something sung between the Epistle and Gospel: they would never appear in a non-sung OF Mass. These, and the Scripture passages for the lections, have been chosen and spread through the liturgical year in a way completely different from the way it is done in the EF, and since the proposal is to use this method of selection only for Advent, it could have some odd consequences in terms of repetitions of texts and things being left out.
    In short, the creation of a set of Advent ferial Masses for the EF using resources from the OF would be a lot more complicated and messy than one might at first imagine. Not only would the Ordinary Prayers of the Mass be in tension with the Proper Prayers and readings, but insofar as the Propers included ancient texts from the Graduale Romanum and other sources, the propers would be in tension with each other. 
    The tensions would arise in part from differences of theme, but the most serious problem is the  consistent difference of attitude or tone between the EF and the OF, which is reflected in the propers as well as in the Ordinary. Anyone in any doubt about this needs to read the research on the subject, notably that of Lauren Pristas. This difference will be particularly acute in Advent because it is - at least in the EF - a penitential season. References to penance, the mortification of the flesh, and repentance, are abundant in the propers of the EF Sundays of Advent, but are scarcely to be found in the OF anywhere. Archbishop Bugnini thought that they were too ‘negative’. He also removed almost every reference to grace. Yoking OF propers to the Ordinary Prayers of the EF would produce a liturgy with a split personality. 
    Cardinal Sarah is talking about reconciliation and mutual enrichment. This proposal seems a way not of lessening the differences between the EF and the OF, however, but forcing them into battle with each other within a single liturgical celebration. As I noted before, the way to establish liturgical harmony is to let each thing be what it is, not to force changes on them contrary to their own inner logic.
    I will of course leave the assessment of Cardinal Sarah’s proposals to change the OF to others. 
    I have, in this post, referred to ‘Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form’, since it is necessary to pick them out as a group within the Church with a particular interest in these matters, and to an extent with common characteristics, notably in their preferences and needs. I think it is obvious that if we are going to talk about them at all - and it would clearly be unjust to pretend that they do not exist and have no rights or interests - we need a way of doing so in less than six words or 14 syllables. Pace Cardinal Sarah, I think referring to ‘Traditional Catholics’ serves the job without implying anything about them being in a ghetto. Those who think that Traditional Catholics are, or should be, in a ghetto, should just stop thinking that.

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    18/09/2017 - 10:10

    New Council elected by Una Voce International

    I attended the 'closed' or business meeting of Una Voce International - the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, FIUV - which takes place every two years and elects (or re-elects) the organisation's officers and Council.

    Like most voluntary organisations, the FIUV is never overwhelmed by people wanting to take on positions of responsibility. We are very grateful to Felipe Alanis Suarez (from Mexico) for agreeing to do another term as President, and to Monika Rheinsmitt for carrying on as Treasurer. I agreed to be Secretary, a post I have not undertaken before. (I was Treasurer 2013-'15.)

    Apart from the usual and, often in their most interesting aspects, confidential contact with the Curia, and the development of the organisation (such as the admission of new members), the big news of this year's General Assembly is the publication of the history of the FIUV by Leo Darroch, from the beginning (1965) up to the resignation of Michael Davies as President in 2002. It is a substantial work and I'll be writing reviews of it in various formats soon: buy it from the LMS bookshop here.

    Here is the full list of Officers an pd Council members of the FIUVl

    President: Felipe Alanís Suárez  (Una Voce México)

    President d'Honneur: Jacques Dhaussy (Una Voce France)

    Vice Presidents: Patrick Banken (Una Voce France)

    Jack Oostveen (Ecclesia Dei Delft, The Netherlands)

    Secretary: Joseph Shaw (Latin Mass Society, England and Wales)

    Treasurer: Monika Rheinschmitt (Pro Missa Tridentina, Germany)

    Councillors:
    Oleg-Michael Martynov (Una Voce Russia)
    Jarosław Syrkiewicz (Una Voce Polonia)
    Derik Castillo (Una Voce México)
    Andris Amolins (Una Voce Latvija)

    Eduardo Colón (Una Voce Puerto Rico)
    Fabio Marino (Una Voce Italia)
    Egons Morales Piña (Una Voce Casablanca, Chile)
    -->
    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    12/09/2017 - 10:00

    Photos from Walsingham, Part 3

    After Mass in the Reconciliation Chapel, we walked in procession down the Holy Mile, the last mile to the site of the Medieval shrine, destroyed at the Reformation.

    DSC_8811

    DSC_8860

    DSC_8926

    DSC_8954

    DSC_8964

    DSC_8995

    The remains of Walsingham Priory

    DSC_9029

    DSC_9035

    Venerating the processional statue

    DSC_9054

    DSC_9071

    DSC_9077

    On Monday morning, some of us returned to the Catholic Shrine for a Sung Mass in the tiny Slipper Chapel.

    DSC_9138

    DSC_9166

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    11/09/2017 - 10:00

    Photos from Walsingham, Part 2

    On Saturday, we stop at the ruins of Castle Acre Priory, and say the De Profundis.

    DSC_8098

    DSC_8152

    On Saturday evening, at our evening stop of Great Massingham, we were visited by Bishop Alan Hopes, who is of course the lcoal Ordinary: Bishop of East Anglia.

    DSC_8172

    DSC_8200

    Off again, for the last day's walk: Sunday. Now with a processional statue of Our Lady of Walsingham.

    DSC_8253

    DSC_8407

    DSC_8563

    Mass in the Reconciliation Chapel at the Catholic Shrine: High Mass, a Votive of Our Lady with the Asperges.
    DSC_8655

    Fr Rowe was assisted by Fr Henry Wisenant (deacon; a priest of the diocese) and Br Ambrose (subdeacon, of the Cardiff Oratory).
    DSC_8723

    DSC_8776

    DSC_8782

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    10/09/2017 - 18:00

    Photos from Walsingham: Part 1

    Most of these photos are by John Aron, our brilliant photographer; a couple are by me.

    The pilgrimage was brilliant, and the numbers were our highest ever. I'm going to let the photos do the talking.

    Gathering on Thursday evening: dinner.

    IMG_0293

    Mass early on Friday morning, celebrated by Fr Michael Rowe

    DSC_7487

    IMG_0318

    Fr Michael Rowe our Chaplain gives the Blessing of Pilgrims

    DSC_7568

    DSC_7593

    Visit to Ely Cathedral

      DSC_7617

    DSC_7655

    Walking out of Ely

    DSC_7695

    Early start on Saturday, to get to Oxburgh for Mass

    DSC_7786

    DSC_7853

    Oxburgh Hall, a recusant Catholic house

    IMG_0341

    Mass in Oxburgh Chapel DSC_8015

    DSC_8065

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
    10/09/2017 - 14:22

    A new liturgy war? Magnum principium
    Pope Francis has promulgated a Motu Proprio,  Magnum principium, giving Bishops’ Conferences somewhat more authority over the translations used in their areas. Conferences always had a lot to do with translations, and Rome still has the final say, so I have to defer to others who understand these things exactly what, if any, difference this is going to make. 
    I don't expect the English speaking bishops to start making big changes, as everyone sensible is thoroughly exhausted by the revision of 2011. The amount of time, money, and energy required for this things is gigantic. However, I suppose we can expect liturgical progressive to initiate a renewed debate about ‘inclusive language’, ‘pro multis’, and the word ‘ineffable’, because they will always do that given half a chance. 

    I see some people on the internet are focusing their concerns on liturgical unity between countries, and indeed this new document flags this up as an issue. Regular readers won’t be surprised that I don’t share that particular worry. It is especially strange in this case as we already have complete disunity between different languages. You don’t have to cross the channel to experience the Novus Ordo Missae in a different language, either: it’s happening in your friendly local Polish chaplaincy. In fact Masses are celebrated in the U.K. in a lot of languages, only one of which is Welsh. If linguistic differences are problematic for ‘unity’, this disunity within a country, and indeed within parishes, is far more problematic than differences between countries of episcopal conferences. 
    In past centuries there were considerable liturgical differences, not just between countries, but between regions and even dioceses. England had distinct Missals in dioceses under the influence of Salisbury (‘Sarum’), London, York, and Hereford. France and Germany had an analogous situation. Italy and Spain mainly used the Roman Rite, but each had a massive exception, an ancient and really very different Missal: the Ambrosian Rite and the Rite of Braga, respectively. All over Europe Franciscans celebrated the Roman Rite, and the Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites, and Norbertines, their own Rites. 
    Chaos? Confusion? Anarchy? Not at all. Medieval people were proud of their local usages, but appreciative also of other things which they encountered on Pilgrimage, crusade, or on business. Impressive ceremonies and new feast days were eagerly - if usually slowly - copied from one place to another. Pilgrims wrote of the wonderful liturgies they encountered in the Holy Land. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to travellers like Margery Kempe to complain about the liturgy of Rome, of the Teutonic Knights, of France, of Jerusalem, of London, or of Lynn. She participated with devotion in them all. If some places had ‘Fecit’ instead of ‘Amen’ in some contexts, for example, why would anyone mind?
    But the argument today is only pretending to be about unity. It is about principles of translation, which themselves are functioning as proxies for issues of theology, just as the debate about principles of constitutional interpretation in the USA are proxies for political issues. 
    What I mean is this. Theological conservatives want a literal and hieratic translation of the liturgy, and liberals want ‘dynamic equivalence’ and words of one syllable. Except that they don’t, really: what they really care about is the theological colouring which is given to the liturgy by their favoured approaches. Literal and hieratic language favours a liturgical theology emphasising contemplative engagement and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, because that is what is in the Latin. ‘Dynamic equivalence’ and monosyllables favour a conversational style of participation,  and makes room for whatever faddish theological content translators wish to shoehorn in.
    It is true that Bugnini and his collaborators removed lots of texts, like the ancient Offertory Prayers, which spoke clearly of sacrifice, but they did not manage to remove every single reference to sacrifice, and in particular they failed in their plan to remove the Roman Canon. So to finish the job, his ideological heirs need a free hand in translating the Latin. 
    This, of course, overturns the balance between continuity and change which was actually promulgated in 1969. When liberals attack the 2011 translation, they are attacking Pope Paul VI and the reform, especially insofar as it held things over from the previous tradition. 
    For this reason I’ve added my voice over the years to the argument in favour of translating ‘pro multis’ in the words of consecration as ‘for many’ not ‘for all’, and ‘praeclarem calicem’ as ‘precious chalice’ instead of ‘cup’. It is a matter of theological substance, something delivered to us by a tradition handed on from Pope Gelasius (or some pope around his time) right up to Pope Paul VI. What the liberals are saying in these cases is really that the Latin is wrong. 
    I wrote the other day that Pope Francis’ criticism of the Reform of the Reform was about not opening up a new era of liturgical conflict. It seems I was wrong. At any rate, we can now look forward to a lot more liturgical conflict. Magnum principium insists that the existing guidelines of liturgical translation, notably Liturgiam authenticum, remains binding guides for translations: liberals hate Litugiam authenticum for calling for literal and hieratic language. Magnum principium underlines the point by saying that the vernaculars used must become truly ‘liturgical languages’, i.e. they should be hieratic. This may, or may not, make a difference to how the new powers of bishops’ conferences are used. Michale Davies’ own great principle remains true: look at a document from Rome and ask ‘what does it allow which was previously forbidden, and what does it forbid which was previously allowed?’ Everything else is just padding. 
    Out of the noise and smoke of the renewed liturgical battle, as out of the heart-breaking liturgical abuses of the past, readers are heartily welcomed to the Traditional Mass.

    Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

    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]