On the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, we had a flying visit from one Fr Mark Withoos. Fr Mark convinced Fr Jordan, as well as the choir to have a sung Mass. A well sung Mass, with an homily as well as confessions heard through the Mass, was an unexpected delight, so soon after the Feast of the Holy cross. Father's Latin now, noticeably has an Italian Twang, as well as his preference for Roman vestments and use of the biretta certainly means Fr Mark has become a Roman.

Misconceptions on the Sacred Liturgy

Last night I had a very good discussion with a friend of mine and former fellow server which started out as a discussion on the relationship between the liturgy of the Synagogue with the liturgy of the Christian church. Of course with that discussion we came up on the issue of orientation pretty quickly. Although my friend was aware of the orientation of the Synagogue facing Jerusalem he wasnt aware of the use or meaning of the orientation of the Christian church facing east as a symbol of the resurrection. All he was aware of was what his mum told him about the priest celebrated "with his back to the people". This was also mentioned in the context of other "bad" practices in Malaysia such as "boys and girls worshipping separately in different parts of the church" (another ancient practice that we have lost in the Latin Church).

We had a good discussion on what might take priority and whether congregations would accept the concept of the the priest facing away from them. Again it is an issue of education and awareness. Some have cited pastoral reasons for having the celebrant face the people and these are valid. However, as Pope Benedict says there is the danger of the liturgy losing its cosmic dimension and becoming a closed circle of mutual admiration. In many parishes this has become complete, and modern liturgical thought now says that the focus is on the people of God, although this is an extreme "horizontalism" that has crept into the liturgy (more about that another time).

The reality is that although in many parishes at this stage would not accept a return to "ad orientem" celebration we can put it into our vocabulary so that people understand why the priest celebrates facing the same direction as the congregation. This would then provide fertile ground for the concept if parishes wanted to adopt it in the future, particularly as the Vatican II fundamentalists die off.

The other issue discussed, was the use of Latin in the liturgy. The key thing is that the latin liturgy takes more preparation than the English liturgy. You cannot just rock up to church in the Latin liturgy and be totally conversant unless your Latin is really good. Personally, when I go to an Extraordinary Form Mass, I take time out to read and reflect upon the readings and propers, before the Mass, so I can get most out of it and give it my "full conscious and active participation". If you are introducing someone to the Extraordinary Form for the first time, this is the best approach to do and you can help pilot them through something that is at first unfamiliar.

One thing is that younger people, having not come across the Extradordinary Form at all, are reasonably open to it. The older generation are more of the attitude "this is going backwards to the days when we had nasty nuns and we had to do this and that and I hated it - so therefore I hate it now". The evangleisation of the older form of Mass practically cannot be done in the 50-70 year old age group because of that particular baggage and cultural conditioning.

On a final note it is appropriate to quote again the brilliant words of Pope Benedict in his press confernce given on the plane on 12 September en route to France:

There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II and this liturgy. Every day, the council Fathers celebrated the Mass following the old rite and at the same time they conceived a natural development for the liturgy throughout this century, since the liturgy is a living reality, which develops and keeps its identity within its development. So there is certainly a difference of emphasis, but a single fundamental identity that excludes any contradiction or antagonism between a renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy.

I believe there is a possibility for both types to be enriched. On the one hand, the friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. But on the other hand, the new liturgy emphasizes the common participation, but it is not just the assembly of a particular community, but rather it is always an act of the universal Church, in communion with all the believers of all time, an act of adoration. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time.

If there is any big problem in the Church today, it is that people close off the option to be mutually enriched, and that goes for followers of either form.

As for Benedict himself, he is enriching the Ordinary Form in three ways:

1. returning the crucifix to the centre of the Altar (even while generally keeping a versus populum arrangement similar to some of Pius XII's liturgies)
2. Holy Communion received kneeling and on the tongue
3. appropriate use of the chants from the Roman Graduale

How many communities do we see locally are following this example?

Holy Cross

The feast of the Holy Cross was celebrated with much splendor and rejoicing. The one year anniversary of the effect of the Motu Proprio allowing the Latin Mass , was celebrated by a high Mass.

A Newly ordained Priest acted as Deacon.



After the Mass, the priest gave us his first blessing and allowed us to venerate his now sacred hands with a kiss.

Pius XII

With the 50th anniversary of Pope Pius XII coming up there should be a few good docos on his life. Here is a four part series on Pius from RAI-Tre which gives a very good view of his life and times. I have ordered the clips in theri proper order.


















Enjoy. For the liturgists out there I note that I saw Cardinal Pacelli celebrating versus populum in Dortmund in Germany.

Fr Gordon and Our Lady

Fr Bernard Gordon is a priest of the diocese of Wollongong and is the director of the first years at Good Shepard Seminary.

Frist Friday vigil

Here's a few new shots from this months first Friday vigil.
The Benedictine Altar arrangement, not as powerful as having six candles, but it still works.
Torches at consecration
The servers in apparalled amice and MC in Gothic surplice. A perfect start to the reform of the reform, good vestments, the benedictine altar arrangement and the Sanctissimum in full view.

The Master of Ceremonies

The MC is a very interesting role. Not officially part of the liturgy, but he still plays a vital role. We all know the usefulness of an MC to organize and direct the ceremony, but apart from that what exactly does he do? Well I see three different methods, that can interchange and even fuse together.

The Current Papal Master of Ceremonies demonstrates the first method. In a nutshell, think Deacon of honor, with out the dalmatic, basically an assistant in choir dress, who flanks the celebrant for the whole liturgy. Duties including sitting next to him, handing things to him, etc. Basically a personal assistant. My main criticism of this method, is that it turns the MC in to a quasi deacon of honor.
The second Method is the floater. It is found in the old ceremonial. The MC has no fixed roll, hiding in the shadows, making sure things are done, giving orders and directing things. When required he takes the deacons place, such as in the Missa Cantata.

The final method is modeled on the old assistant priest. The highest ranking member of the bishop's house hold. A priest, basically vested in surplice, amice and cope. The Mc emulates him, he follows the celebrant, but not as his side, he stands rather then sits near the celebrant, he incenses him when required (the deacon not being there), he assists with the boat (again in the absence of the deacon) and assists with the missal.



In short we have three diffrent roles and or styles of MCing, the floater, the assistant deacon and the assitant priest. Depending on the level of Mass, the MC takes one or up to all three of these roles. I as an MC find myself constantly switching between the three, depending on the situtation. With the removal of deacons of honour and the assitant priest in the pontifical form of the ordinary form, the MC frequently finds himself assuming their roles not only in the solemn and sung form of the Mass, but even the pontifical form (I found myself doing that on more then one occasion). I wonder what the 8th century MC, found himself doing?

Mediator Dei

I think that probably the greatest writings on the sacred Liturgy in the 20th century was the encyclical Mediator Dei promulgated by Pope Pius XII a little over 60 years ago on 20 november 1947. I strongly recommend our readers to read it from cover to cover as it comments upon the developments in the 20th century liturgical movement. I have pulled out some excerpts which are even more relevant 60 years later, and bolded the really pertinent bits.

7-8 Observations on the Liturgical Movement but problems with Liturgical education

7. But while We derive no little satisfaction from the wholesome results of the movement just described, duty obliges Us to give serious attention to this "revival" as it is advocated in some quarters, and to take proper steps to preserve it at the outset from excess or outright perversion.

8. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, (mmm very close to home in Brisbane) We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.

23-25 The relationship of inerior and exterior worship and the dangers of mere rubricism.

23. The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior. It is exterior because the nature of man as a composite of body and soul requires it to be so. Likewise, because divine Providence has disposed that "while we recognize God visibly, we may be drawn by Him to love of things unseen."[26] Every impulse of the human heart, besides, expresses itself naturally through the senses; and the worship of God, being the concern not merely of individuals but of the whole community of mankind, must therefore be social as well. This obviously it cannot be unless religious activity is also organized and manifested outwardly. Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: "for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their won right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion. They provide instruction for simple folk, decoration for divine worship, continuity of religious practice. They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts."[27]

24. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, "to give interior effect to our outward observance."[28] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content. You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and wellturned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29] It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds - like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem - to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

25. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

57-60 Only the Sovereign Pontiff has the right to change the Liturgy

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy. (this function is now carried out by the Congregation for Divine Worshop and the Sacraments).

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation. (What he says here is that there is limited scope to go back to what the early Christians did because the church has simply moved on and dogma has evolved).

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission (which it did later under Paul VI). It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. (Pius says - if you want to use English - ask first).

83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent. (Here Pius hits upon the predominant error in the modern church, an error which seems to propogate like some weed currently around the Brisbane Archdiocese).

93 The Participation of the Congregation

93. Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.

114 On Holy Communion
114. They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration. (Note to Elizabeth Harrington et al)

115. Now it cannot be over-emphasized that the eucharistic sacrifice of its very nature is the unbloody immolation of the divine Victim, which is made manifest in a mystical manner by the separation of the sacred species and by their oblation to the eternal Father. Holy communion pertains to the integrity of the Mass and to the partaking of the august sacrament; but while it is obligatory for the priest who says the Mass, it is only something earnestly recommended to the faithful. (This is a bit different to the modern practice of everyone must have Holy Communion because its a sign of unity).


______________________________________________

There is a lot more treasure in Mediator Dei that is too voluminous to describe here, and its dangerous to pick bits out of documents. So READ IT all. Other interesting things to note are:

• Pius points to the amendments to liturgical books that have resulted from better study of the liturgy
• the faithful participate fully in the Mass not as silent spectators but through singing the responses and the ordinary
• Holy Communion should be from hosts consecrated at that Mass.

When I mentioned Mediator Dei to a local seminarian some time ago, he had no idea what I was talking about. I might as well be talking about some obscure passage in the Hindu Vedas. Sacrosanctum Concilium was the next great liturgical document, but takes almost all of its context from Mediator Dei.