FROM 'PAIX LITURGIQUE' :

25 YEARS BEFORE THE MOTU PROPRIO’S ACTUAL PROMULGATION, ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND CARDINAL RATIZINGER HAD ALREADY ANNOUNCED IT!

Letter 34

Print Share with a friend

Paul VI promulgated his liturgical reform in 1969. It was without 
precedent in the history of the Church in both its innovative 
content and in the room it left to the celebrant’s personal initiative. 
It immediately aroused attitudes of reticence and resistance, 
from the highest levels of the Church --Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci 
communicated their intervention to Paul VI a few weeks before the new
Missal was to become normative-- and from simple laymen. It also provoked
 a reaction on the part of many personalities in the artistic, literary, and 
scientific worlds. They were worried by the cultural step backwards 
the reform represented and they expressed their concern in the Times on
 6 July 1971; this was the origin of the so-called “Agatha Christie” indult.

In point of fact, by the time Paul VI passed away barely ten years later, it was 
already clear--even to its promoters--that this reform had not met its goals and
had even begun to empty out the churches.

And so at the beginning of the 1980s a common-sense reaction manifested itself 
more and more clearly: why not leave the older liturgical forms available to those 
who found their sacramental spiritual nourishment in them? Since everything now
seemed to be free and allowed, why not also freely allow what had been done before? 
After all, hadn’t Paul VI himself made a strong and meaningful gesture by relegating
Archbishop Bugnini, author of the reform, to Tehran? Hadn’t the Pope understood that
the Mass that was forever to bear his name and which was intended to be a brightly
shining sign of the conciliar springtime turned out to be a ferment of division
in an ever-weakening Church?

As soon has John Paul II’s papacy began, the question of freedom for
 the pre-conciliar Mass emerged. Although it took thirty years for it to 
find an answer in Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum,
it had in fact been foreshadowed at the time by the two personalities
who were to go down in history as the key figures in the solution to the
liturgical fracture, namely Joseph Ratzinger and Marcel Lefebvre--
like it or not and whatever judgment one may have regarding one or 
the other of them.


I – ARCHBP LEFEBVRE: A 1979 “PROPHECY” ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF THE MASS



On 11 May 1979, Archbp. Lefebvre made the following declaration to his seminarians
at Écône:

“If in fact the Pope gives the traditional Mass a place of honor in the Church,
 well then you know, I think we’ll be able to say that the essential part of our victory
 has been won. The day when the Mass truly becomes the Church’s Mass once again,
the Mass in parishes, the Mass in the churches--oh, there’ll still be difficulties,
there’ll still be quarrels, there’ll still be oppositions, there’ll still be all sorts of things
--but still, the Mass of all time, the Mass that is the heart of the Church, the Mass
 that is the essential thing in the Church, that Mass will take its place back,
 perhaps it won’t have enough place yet, obviously it will need to be given an even
 greater place yet, but still and all, the very fact that every priest who wants to 
will be able to say that Mass, well I think that it would have enormous consequences
 in the Church.

I believe that we would have been of service for such a time, if truly it ever came
to pass . . . . Well, for my part, I believe that the Tradition is safe. The day when
 the Mass is saved, the Church’s Tradition is safe, because along with the Mass
 there are the sacraments, along with the Mass there’s the catechism,
 along with the Mass there’s the Bible, and all the rest of it . . . . After all,
 the seminaries and the Tradition would be saved. I believe that one could then almost
 say that one saw morning dawning in the Church; we’d have made it through
 a mighty storm, we’d have been in complete darkness, beaten by every wind
 and every tornado, yet still at last there on the horizon the Mass had risen again,
 the Mass that is the Church’s sun, our life’s sun, the sun of every Christian’s life . . . .”
(source: Credidimus Caritati website)

“The very fact that every priest who wants to will be able to say that Mass,
 well I think that it would have enormous consequences in the Church”: 
is this not precisely the fundamental contribution of the 2007 Motu Proprio? 
The SSPX greatly rejoiced over this liberating text through Bishop Fellay’s statements
--which was only fair since its founder had announced it as a 
“morning dawning in the Church”!


II – CARDINAL RATZINGER: THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF THE MASS LAID DOWN IN 1982

This liturgical freedom was in the air at the beginning of John Paul II’s pontificate.
 It is now known that as soon as he had been named Prefect of the
 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and unofficially put in charge 
of the file on liturgical disputes by Pope John Paul II), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 
was organizing a meeting on 16 November 1982 at the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
 “regarding liturgical questions”(1), namely regarding both the liturgical problem
 as such and the problem of the SSPX.

1982. Exactly a quarter of a century before Summorum Pontificum, therefore.
 During this meeting, Cardinal Ratzinger had obtained that every participant
 without exception (2) state as common-sense evidence that,
 “independently from the ‘Lefebvre issue’, the Roman Missal in the form it had until
 1969 must be allowed in the whole Church for Masses celebrated in the Latin language.”
The prelates in attendance had also spoken about the question that was related to the 
liturgical question, namely the question of the SSPX, and deemed that its resolution 
ought to begin with a canonical visit (which in fact occurred five years later).



III – LEFEBVRE/RATZINGER: A SHARED VISION FOR THE SPREAD OF LITURGICAL FREEDOM

This liberation process of the unreformed liturgy--a process as incredible as 
the Bugnini reform itself--has progressed in specific steps throughout the
quarter century since Cardinal Ratzinger made his stance known.
In practice, this process turns out to be closely linked to the canonical 
settlement of questions concerning the SSPX, even though everyone
officially maintains that these are two distinct issues.

a) On 18 March 1984, Secretary of State Cardinal Casaroli, at the request
 of Cardinal Ratzinger, writes to Cardinal Casoria, Prefect of the 
Congregation for Divine Worship, to ask him to prepare the first act restoring
 the use of the traditional missal: “Absolutely forbidding the use of the above
mentioned Missal can be justified neither theologically nor juridically.” 
On 3 October 1984, Cardinal Casoria’s successor at Divine Worship, 
Bishop Mayer, therefore addressed to the presidents of episcopal conferences
 worldwide the circular letter Quattuor abhinc annos, the so-called “1984 indult”
 authorizing celebration according to the 1962 Missal “for the benefit of those
 groups that request it.”

b) On 30 October 1987, the last day of the Synod on the laity’s 
“Vocation and Mission in the Church and in the World,” 
Cardinal Ratzinger announces to the bishops that an Apostolic Visitor
 has been appointed to Marcel Lefebvre’s work: the Canadian Cardinal Édouard Gagnon,
 president of the Council for the Family. After this visit, which took place in April 
and May 1988, came the negotiations between Cardinal Ratzinger and 
Archbp. Lefebvre. These resulted in the 5 May agreement that Archbp. Lefebvre
 would eventually denounce--basically because of its lack of guarantees
 regarding the nomination and consecration date of another bishop for the Society.
 Indeed Archbp. Lefebvre then goes ahead with the consecration of four bishops 
at Écône on 30 June 1988.
Rome, in reaction to this act, publishes the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” 
on 2 July 1988. While condemning Archbp. Lefebvre, it institutes a Pontifical
 Commission for “the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests,
 seminarians, religious communities or individuals” attached to the 1962 Missal 
and to oversee the bishops’ implementation of the 1984 indult.

c) In January 2002, the failed 1988 agreement between Archbp. Lefebvre and
 Rome is made in favor of Bishop Licinio Rangel, successor to Bishop de Castro Meyer, 
the head of the traditional community of the Campos diocese. A personal ordinariate
 is created and, in June of the same year, Rome accepts for a coadjutor to be 
designated to succeed to Bishop Rangel automatically. A community numbering
 over 20,000 laymen, about twenty priests, and as many schools thereby 
returns to full communion with Rome while fully retaining its preconciliar liturgical uses.

d) On 7 July 2007, to crown this process, Pope Benedict XVI promulgates the
 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which restores to every priest the private use 
of the 1962 Missal and invites pastors to give a favorable answer to stable groups 
of the faithful who wish to benefit from it.
This text, which the superior of the SSPX hailed, is an “universal Church law”
 (Universæ Ecclesiæ instruction) and promotes contacts between Rome and Écône.
 It will also prepare the ground for January 2009, when the excommunications of the
 bishops who had been consecrated in 1988 were lifted.


IV – LITURGICAL LIBERTY / THEOLOGICAL LIBERTY: JOSEPH RATZINGER’S JULY 1988 SPEECH ON ARCHBP LEFEBVRE

In our French 4 June 2010 Letter (PL 233) on Mgr. Brunero Gherardini book, 
The Ecumenical Council Vatican II: A Much Needed Discussion 
(Casa Mariana Editrice, 2009), we mentioned a very significant speech 
that Cardinal Ratzinger had given on 13 July 1988 before the bishops of
 Chile and Colombia (3). In that allocution, the future pope examined the
 responsibilities of all and sundry in the light of the episcopal consecrations 
that had taken place at the hands of Archbp. Lefebvre at Écône on 30 June 1988.
Now this speech includes two statements that are essential for a proper understanding
 of the current pontificate:

a) “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a more modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
importance of all the rest.”
b) “It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Archbp.
Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church.”

Hence an as yet unresolved difficulty that has been weighing on the recent
 discussion between the SSPX and Rome: how “binding” on the faith can teachings
 be that were expressed “on a more modest level” than that of the Creed?
This parallel may sound shocking to some: why not apply to the Council what
 the Holy Father applied to the liturgy? In order to relativize the new Mass’s
 character as a “super liturgy”, the Pope, in the MP Summorum Pontificum, recalled
 that the older Mass had never been forbidden and he gave its free use
 (in theory at least) back to priests and the faithful.


V – THE REFLEXIONS OF PAIX LITURGIQUE

1) The declaration that Archbp. Lefebvre made on 11 May 1979 is surprising
 not only because of its early date but also because it sets the Écône prelate
 in a light different to that which is usually applied to him. Nothing is vehemently
 polemical or rigid or even ‘sectarian’ in these 1979 words. They express a hope
 concerning the Church’s concrete life. This is “pastoral Lefebvre” in the sense
 given to the term during the Council, but with a different content: that 
of an intraecclesial ecumenism with a concrete experiment of freedom for
 the traditional Mass at the parish level with a view to fostering liturgical,
 spiritual, and doctrinal renewal.

The founder of the SSPX expresses his hope to see the traditional Mass freely become
 “the Mass in parishes, the Mass in the churches.” Of course, he grants that 
“there’ll still be difficulties, there’ll still be quarrels, there’ll still be oppositions, 
there’ll still be all sorts of things.” But he goes straight to brass tacks 
in a very concrete manner: “that Mass will take its place back, perhaps it
 won’t have enough place yet.” He thus assigns a set goal to his work,
 especially since it seems so modest: “The very fact that every priest 
who wants to will be able to say that Mass, well I think that it 
would have enormous consequences in the Church. I believe that that
 we would have been of service for such a time, if truly it ever came to pass.”
 Archbp. Lefebvre then develops the theme of the coherence between liturgy
 and doctrine: “along with the Mass there are the sacraments, along with the Mass
 there’s the catechism, along with the Mass there’s the Bible, and all the rest of it . . . .”

2) As for the process of liberation that Cardinal Ratzinger initiated in 1982, 
it is just a pastoral and concrete. One may speak of an “homogenous evolution,” 
just as in the case of dogma, except here applied to the practical liberalization of
 the Mass that is now called extraordinary:
-Quattuor Abhinc Annos circular letter, 3 October 1984: the traditional Mass
 may be authorized by the bishops, but under certain conditions and not in parish churches;
- Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta on 2 July 1988: bishops are invited to allow
 it more widely and more generously in their dioceses (in theory);
- erection of the Saint-Jean-Marie-Vianney Personal Apostolic Administration in
 Campos, January 2002: it may be the only source for a large community’s Eucharistic life;
- Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007: the decision is now up to the pastors
 for their own parishes (in theory); most importantly this Mass is declared never to
 have been abolished and its private celebration becomes a right for every 
Roman rite priest, without restriction;
- logically, a text will eventually come out acknowledging pure and simple freedom, 
a “normal” freedom as Cardinal Cañizares put it, to celebrate the extraordinary Mass
 in every church. The “Mass of all ages” would then become the “Mass of all places”
 for the Roman rite.

3) The hurdle that needs to be overcome for this last step is the fact that
 there was a move from the non-dogma of Vatican II to a “superdogma”, 
which also applies to the liturgy of Vatican II; there was a move from a 
non-infallible council that does not engage the faith to a tyrannical 
so-called “Spirit of the Council,” which seeks also to dogmatize the new
 forms of divine worship.
All in all, what needs to be defended is a healthy freedom, a true
 theological freedom, not to question Catholic dogma but to explain
 it and even to help it “progress”--i.e. to advance its proper understanding.
This freedom is closely intertwined with a healthy liturgical freedom, not a freedom 
for all sorts of abuse, but a freedom to illustrate, defend, and advance the 
faithful’s faith in Eucharistic transubstantiation, their faith in the sacrifice of 
atonement that the celebration of the Mass reproduces, their faith in 
the sacramental and hierarchical priesthood that Jesus Christ instituted.
Is it not paradoxical that these days everything is freely allowed, but that
 one single freedom is restricted: that which wishes to be exercised along
 the traditional paths, which is refused by those who still control many 
levers of power, and which is so restricted by them that it is in fact rendered null, 
all in the name of a “spirit” of a Council that sought to be, or was sought to be,
 a “liberating” council?

***

(1) “Nel 1982 neanche l’alleanza Ratzinger-Casaroli riuscì a sdoganare la Messa tridentina,”
 Il Foglio, 19 March 2006.

(2) Besides Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there were: Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops; Cardinal William W. Baum, Archbishop of Washington; Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, Secretary of State; Cardinal Silvio Oddi, Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy; Archbishop Giuseppe Casoria, then pro-Prefect of the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship.

(3) Bishop Müller, new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while bishop of Regensburg, undertook the publication of the complete works of Joseph Ratzinger in 16 volumes. In the volumes published so far, there is no hint of this 13 July 1988 speech, which could have been placed in volume 7 on the teaching of Vatican II, its formulation and its interpretation, or again in volume 11 on the theology of the liturgy. To be continued . . . .

(4) Abbé Claude Barthe, "Rome/Fraternité Saint-Pie X : où en sommes-nous ?” L’Homme nouveau, 5 January 2013.

ON PELAGIANISM AND SPIRITUAL BOUQUETS

Fr Hugh Somerville-Knapman OSB of the blog Dominus Mihi Adjutor writes about the personal liturgical, speaking and preaching style of Papa Francesco:

SATURDAY, 15 JUNE, 2013

The Pope of our Punishment strikes

It’s been a little quiet here. There are several reasons. One is busy-ness – nothing overwhelming, but enough to be distracting. Another is our neanderthal internet connection, which happily (as of yesterday) has entered the 21st century. Another is hayfever: this year it is excruciating. After a sneezing fit on Thursday afternoon I lost my voice, which has partially returned and as a deep rasp when speaking, and erratic squeaking when I try to sing. Curiously, my brethren have not lamented my reduction to relative silence. How strange…

Yet another reason is the Pope. In the immediate wake of his election I wrote that he would be the pope of our punishment. Some three months later that assessment seems ever more valid. His papacy is a punishing one for more than one reason. Since to wallow in such punishment verges on the masochistic, it has seemed better to not to do so. In general, one notes each occasion, and moves on. Given that every priest, and in fact every Catholic, should have a sincere devotion to the office of the pope, and a high regard for his person, the incentive to silence is even stronger, if only to give time to allow the shape of his pontificate and his general approach to become clearer.

Pope’s Francis’ pontifical style and approach have become clearer and, to be honest, they are disturbing. For all his professed commitment to humility and simplicity, it is a struggle to find humility in his repeated refusal to submit to the nature of the papal office. Of course, papal trappings should not be confused with the papal office, but where does one draw the line? Living in the Domus Sanctae Mathae, effectively an hotel in the Vatican grounds, rather than the papal apartments may have merits. It may indeed allow him to feel freer of curial bureaucracy. But the apartments have the advantage of security and allow space for a pope to have personal staff close at hand with the facilities they need. No doubt there has been some expense resulting from making the Domus similarly secure and practical. Right from the start Pope Francis eschewed the apartments, suggesting prior thought, which then suggests that his election did not come as quite the surprise to him as we have been told.

Similarly unsettling has been his style of daily Mass, in the chapel of the Domus. Daily Mass  - fantastic! Mass with Vatican staff of the less exalted ranks – wonderful! But a papal Mass served by, say, gardeners in their gardening kit – is that humble or just inappropriate? His general refusal to wear on big occasions the vestments that fill the sacristy (covering the range from simple to elaborate), and restrict himself to the same simple (fast becoming monotonous) style, the latest examples of which are being freshly produced at extra expense – is this humility or willfulness? Certainly the Pope has a right to set the tone of his papacy, but it is emerging very much a papacy the theme song of which could be Sinatra’s I did it my way. Strong – yes; humble – not so certain? Perhaps if this hermeneutic of humility were to be laid aside I would find his style not quite so disturbing.

The most disturbing aspect of this new humble style is Pope Francis’ constant speaking and preaching off the cuff. This is fine for a parish priest, and in some contexts it would be reasonable in a diocesan bishop. However, Francis is not a parish priest, and no mere diocesan bishop.  He is successor to St Peter, holds the highest teaching authority in the Church, and needs to remember that his words now have a significance they never had when he was a priest or a diocesan bishop. Humility is also served when one adapts to the demands of one’s office. It does not serve his role as supreme teacher that the Vatican is having constantly to catch up with his unscripted words and try to record them and make them available. Vatican Radio has tried giving summaries, which is not satisfactory: we need the full text and the full context. Even the Vatican website can only manage summaries.

Already we have seen more than one gaffe from his papal impromptus. There was the controversy about his words that seemed to imply that everyone is saved, atheists too.  Certainly that is what the press made of it – just Google it! Here is what Pope Francis said on 22 May that has caused so much trouble:

 The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, with everyone doing his own part; if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of meeting: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good! We shall meet there.”

Technically, and I mean technically, there is no formal problem here. We are in fact all redeemed by the blood of Christ. Absolutely. However, redemption and salvation are not synonymous, their meaning is not co-terminous. Redemption is a gift offered to all humanity; a person is saved only when s/he accepts that gift and makes it operative in his or her daily life. Redemption is universal but salvation is not. Redemption is not a magic wand that makes all of us good and saved. Which is surely why the Pope goes to such lengths to talk about doing good. He is attempting to show that redemption allows us to change our lives in the power of his grace, to grasp salvation by faith, which is expressed in and built up by the doing of the works of love – doing good, as Pope Francis puts it.

If only he had said something along those lines. Instead his words allow the easy inference that an atheist need only do good to be saved. The Pope’s context, on closer inspection, seems to be world peace and creating a “culture of meeting”. In other words, he is talking about the doing of good as something connected with changing the world and not so much with personal salvation. But that is not exactly clear. Not at all. In fact it is so theologically muddy, and has been so misinterpreted by the media, that his words had to be clarified and explained. When someone has to explain what the teacher is teaching, especially when he is trying to teach in accessible, man-in-the-street terms, there is a problem.

Part of the problem is the Pope’s emphasis on doing good works, even outside the context of faith (ie by atheists). His words lend themselves to the easy imputation of Pelagianism. Given this sad fact, another of his unfortunate impromptus takes on an added sting. In a meeting with the conference of Religious for Latin America and the Caribbean (CLAR) he made remarks that were recorded by those present (not an unreasonable thing). They have caused a storm both in the secular media and in the Catholic world. The secular media was more concerned with his admission of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican curia. This, he implies, is one of the problems that will be addressed by the commission of eight cardinals he erected to reform the Curia.

For the Catholic media, there was the added matter of his remarks equating a spiritual bouquet with Pelagianism:

I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

There are so many problems with this passage. There is the tone, which appears patronising and condescending as he looks down on (and resists the temptation to laugh at) those who might offer a spiritual bouquet of rosaries for his ministry. Any pope before him would have been delighted. Far worse is his equation of this spiritual bouquet with Pelagianism. Spiritual bouquets are good works, which these devout people apparently spoil by counting them. But is this Pelagian? Can praying for another, not least the Pope, and using the supremely approved method of the rosary, ever be Pelagian? Pelagianism is concerned with an individual’s good works and accruing of merit for himself. The Pelagian basically says I can save myself. But these now-ridiculed faithful were praying for another, the Pope, not trying to save themselves. As Dr Shaw points out, if the counting was his problem, we might ask how else could they convey the scale of their corporate act? The number reveals that goodly number of people prayed a goodly number of roasries – for the Pope!

Moreover, how does one reconcile these remarks with his advocating atheists to do good works in the context of Christ’s blood having redeemed all humanity, even atheists? Spiritual bouquets for another are labelled as Pelagian; but advocating that atheists merely do works to be (it can be inferred) under the umbrella of Christ’s redemption – isthat not more like Pelagianism? I am sure he did not mean it to be. The Holy Spirit will protect him from formal error, but it will not necessarily protect him from indiscretion

It is all very confusing, and a pope should not be in the business of confusion. He should not need help in making his remarks susceptible of orthodox interpretation. When in the next paragraph he makes a good point about pantheist/gnostic sisters who do “not pray in the morning, but … spiritually bathe in the cosmos”, all its force is lost by the problematic words immediately preceding them.

So it is then I have been trying to keep quiet. He is the pope; I am a mere footslogging monk/priest, little more than a pimple on the world’s posterior, so who am I to take him to task. But really, Pope Francis needs to start acting like a pope, however lacking in humility it might feel. He need not wear mozettas and nice vestments (though by eschewing the symbols of office, he weakens the strength of its voice); but he does need to start preparing his speeches and homilies, having them checked by his theologians, and then sticking to the texts. Behaving like an outspoken parish priest will not do for much longer. Frankly, the Church deserves better and certainly needs better. That said, I am confident he is capable of it.

So, at the risk of Pelagianism, let us fervently pray for Pope Francis. He needs it.

CARDINAL PUJATS ON THE TABERNACLE, CONFESSION AND COMMUNION PROCESSION

FREE TRANSLATION FROM CORDIALITER BLOG

Ufortunately, i have been in a number of situations in Novus ordo parishes where one searches in vain for the tabernacle, where confessions are unheard of (and therefore no one goes) and where everyone goes en masse to holy communion pew by pew at the bidding of an usher in procession....

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013

Place the tabernacle on the main altar

[Excerpt from the speech delivered on 12-10-2005 by Cardinal Janis Pujats

 the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist]

In parish churches, a particularly suitable location of the Blessed Sacrament

 (in the sanctuary) is the high altar which houses the tabernacle. 

In this case, the high altar with its reredos is truly the throne of Christ the King 

and draws to itself the eyes of all those who are in the church.

The presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the main area of ​​the church gives 

the faithful an opportunity to worship God even outside of the Sacrifice 

of the Mass (such as the time between the divine offices). 

They are in fact in the church to pray, not for conversation. 

Before Communion, it is the task of the priests to invite the faithful to

 individual confession of sins. The best place for the confession of the faithful

 is the confessional, placed in the church and built with a fixed grille 

between the penitent and the confessor. Insofar as possible, 

the priests must promote conditions so that the faithful have access to Penance: 

if men live and die in sin, it is vain to try any other pastoral effort.

It is appropriate to have every day a time for confession, at specific times, 

especially before Holy Mass. If we are to truly to renew the spiritual life of the people,

 we are only allowed to leave the confessional after the last penitent 

has received pardon. [...] 

In general, it is necessary to eliminate the abuse of receiving holy communion

 without the Sacrament of Penance.

 In the past, there was the habit, during Mass, to go in procession 

to the Communion, but over time this practice was rightly dismissed for

 a reason pastoral. As we know, the people in the church 

have a collective behavior: all respond to the words of the priest,

 everyone sat, listening to the readings of Sacred Scripture,

 all stand for the Gospel, and all kneel at the consecration, 

(which saddens us !), all rise to participate in a procession to the Communion

 - among them also the Pharisee and the publican, not the penitent 

and the penitent. The individual faithful are afraid to refrain from 

this procession (en masse), as this makes them appear publicly as unworthy. 

This is the reason why this abuse prevails so often.  

What should we do? We must renew the practice of individualized

 access to Holy Communion to preserve the freedom of conscience. 

The Mass is a common action, but we receive communion as an individual. 

BLESSED ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH AND THE CHURCH OF OUR TIME

DO THE PROPHECIES OF BLESSED ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH CONCERN OUR OWN TIME? HERE IS A REPOST FROM "PRO TRIDENTINA (MALTA"):

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich - prophecies about Holy Mass & the Catholic Church

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich - prophecies for our times?

These prophecies were made by 1820 by Anna Catherine Emmerich, a stigmatized Augustinian nun who bore the wounds of Jesus on her body and who lived many years solely on the Holy Communion until  she died. She was given many visions of our Blessed Lord and Lady including their earthly lives, printed into books. The following prophecies were recorded in The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1870) by Rev. Carl Schmoeger, C.SS.R. 

In many cases the similarities with the post-Vatican II traumas suffered by the Church are striking.

 1.  "Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities ... I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father - God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired in his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he was falling asleep ...Then I saw that everything pertaining to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upperhand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction. In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars." This seems to be an allusion to the last months of the pontificate of Benedict XVI and the Vatileaks scandal.

Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis

2. "I saw also the relationship between two popes ... I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness... I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps." This could (hopefully not) refer to a future situation between popes Francis and Benedict XVI, or perhaps another era when two popes will be living at the same time. Interestingly, the prophecy does not consider any of the popes as being an anti-pope.

3. "I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church ... But God had other designs. ... I saw again the new and odd-looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it ... People were kneading  bread in the crypt below ... but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. ... I saw deplorable things: they were gambling, drinking, and talking in church; they were also courting women. All sorts of abominations were perpetrated there. Priests allowed everything and said Mass with much irreverence. I saw that few of them were still godly... All these things caused me much distress." One is inclined to think that the prophecy refers to abuses by priests on minors, ecumenism implemented erroneously and abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae.

Jesus saying Holy Mass

4. "I had a vision of the holy Emperor Henry.  I saw him at night kneeling alone at the foot of the main altar in a great and beautiful church ... and I saw the Blessed Virgin coming down all alone. She laid on the altar a red cloth covered with white linen. She placed a book inlaid with precious stones. She lit the candles and the perpetual lamp. Then came the Saviour Himself clad in priestly vestments. He was carrying the chalice and the veil. Two angels were serving Him and two more were following ... Although there was no altar bell, the cruets were there. The wine was as red as blood, and there was also some water. The Mass was short. The Gospel of St. John was not read at the end. When the Mass had ended, Mary came up to Henry, and she extended her right hand towards him, saying that it was in recognition of his purity. Then she urged him not to falter. Thereupon I saw an angel, and he touched the sinew of his hip, like Jacob. Henry was in great pain; and from that day on he walked with a limp ..." This is quite difficult to understand. But the interesting part is related to the fact that Jesus celebrated a Tridentine Mass without the last part, or else a Novus Ordo Missae in Latin - otherwise Blessed Emmerich would have mentioned the fact that it was in a vulgar tongue.

Thunder hits St. Peter's - the last day of Benedict XVI's pontificate.

5. "I saw the Church of St. Peter and an enormous number of people working to demolish it. At the same time I saw others repairing the Church. The demolishers took away large pieces; they were, above all, sectarians and apostates, in the majority. In their destructive work these people seemed to follow certain orders and a certain rule. I saw with horror, that among them were Catholic priests. I saw the Pope praying, surrounded by false friends who frequently, did the contrary of what he had ordered." Could be a reference to the current situation whereby Pope Francis will attempt to reform the Roman Curia after Vatileaks.

6. "In the centre of Hell I saw a dark and horrible-looking abyss, and into this Lucifer was cast, after being first strongly secured with chains; thick clouds of sulphurous black smoke arose from it's fearful depths and enveloped his fearful form in the dismal folds, thus effectually concealing him from every beholder. God Himself had decreed this; and I was likewise told, if I remember right, that he will be unchained for a time fifty or sixty years before the year of Christ 2000. The dates of many other events were pointed out to me which I do not now remember, but a certain number of demons are to be let loose much earlier than Lucifer, in order to tempt men, and to serve as instruments of divine vengeance." The timing here is particular, 1940 - 1950 coincides with the Second World War but, more importantly, with the following dates:  

• 1942: Pope Pius XII assigned a project for liturgical codification to Benedictine Father Pio Alfonzo, a liturgist who taught at the College of the Propaganda and advised the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Fr. Alfonzo's "General Norms," however, was not acted upon at that time.
• 1946: in an audience with Carlo Cardinal Salotti, Prefect for the Congregation of Rites, Pius XII instructed Salotti to begin a study of the general reform of the liturgy. In the same year Pius XII determined that a Commission for General Liturgical Restoration be established to consider that nature and substance of a general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals. 
• 1948: Pius XII selected the members of the Commission. Father (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, OFM, was named General Director and Fr. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini was named Secretary.

FROM VATICAN INSIDER LA STAMPA

The Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Dominique Rey and the “liturgical renewal”

 

 

THE BISHOP DOMINIQUE REY

Towards the Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on liturgy that will take place in Rome June 25-28

ALESSANDRO SPECIALEROME

Liturgy was one of the main concerns of Pope Benedict’s pontificate. But with the election of Francis the priorities have clearly changed, shifting the focus of the Church from its internal concerns to the world and especially those many who live at its “periphery.”

Yet, the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Dominique Rey, wants to reassure those Catholics who think that the moment for “liturgical renewal” – a shorthand definition for a return to a more solemn style of celebration hopefully ushered in by Benedict’s legalization of the pre-Second Vatican Council Latin Mass – is now over.

“Instead of anxiously wondering what Pope Francis personally thinks about every liturgical detail, we would do better to get on with the work we ourselves have to do,” he said in a recent interview with Vatican Insider.

Bishop Rey is the main organizer of Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on liturgy that will take place in Rome June 25-28, bringing together a wide range of renowned scholars and churchmen, including Cardinals Ranjith and Burke and monsignor Guido Marini, the papal master of ceremonies.

Bishop Rey, what do you hope to achieve with this conference?

Sacra Liturgia 2013 will promote and continue the liturgical renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council, and emphasise the fundamental role of the liturgy in Christian life. I hope that it will show that the liturgy is the “source and summit” of all the Church’s activity, especially of the New Evangelisation.

I hope that the Conference will underline this and support better formation in and celebration of the liturgy in the future. That is why I have invited prominent cardinals, bishops and liturgical scholars to share their expertise with us. And of course we will celebrate the liturgy in both forms―both have riches to give us―because before we talk about the liturgy, we need to be liturgical ourselves!

Pope Francis has been criticized for his distinctly different liturgical style from Pope Benedict. Is this criticism fair? What do you respond to these critics?

Many bishops and priests have different ‘styles’ but all of us who are called to be ordained ministers of the Church promise to celebrate the Church’s liturgy as it has been handed on to us. Pope Benedict showed us this, as did Blessed John Paul II and so too today does Pope Francis. The Holy Father is a different person to his predecessor: we should not expect him to be identical to Pope Benedict. But Pope Francis celebrates the liturgy of the Church, as handed down to us, with dignity and beauty. I thought that the Mass and procession for the feast of Corpus Christi yesterday evening was very beautiful and an excellent example for us all. I have concelebrated at his morning Mass: that too was beautiful and correct.

With so many problems ailing the Church today in its relation with the world (lack of vocations, the sex abuse scandal, financial troubles, decline in the number of believers in the West...) does it make sense to focus on a very intra-Church issue such as liturgy?

All of these are very important questions and we need to address them seriously and systematically. But if I do not have the proper relationship with Christ, if that is not where I begin―just like Pope Francis begins his day with 7.00am Mass―then I do not have the correct foundation in my Christian life to deal with the issues and problems facing me and facing the Church today. The quality of my Christian life and my ability to carry out my mission in the world are based on my relationship with Christ, which is begun liturgically in Baptism and strengthened and nourished by the other sacraments and liturgical rites. We have to have good foundations if we are going to build!

Do you think the path of liturgical renewal set out by Pope Benedict can continue under Francis? How?

The Sacred Liturgy was one of the great themes of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, and he did much to teach us about the ars celebrandi and to allow the riches of the old liturgy once again to be available freely. We owe him a lot, and in some ways our conference will be a tribute to his work.

Pope Francis does not have to do Pope Benedict’s work all over again. He can put his energies into making progress in other areas.

It’s important, too, that we realize that each Pope doesn’t have to do everything himself or repeat every document of his predecessors. Liturgical renewal is our task, in the dioceses and the parishes and even in the family. Instead of anxiously wondering what Pope Francis personally thinks about every liturgical detail, we would do better to get on with the work we ourselves have to do.

With the Ordinariates, Summorum Pontificum, a renewed role for Oriental Churches etc. the fact that the Roman rite is only a part of the Church's liturgical diversity is more and more evident. What do you think of this evolution?

We’ve had liturgical plurality throughout the Church’s history. Perhaps we have been a bit too fixed on vernacular modern liturgy in recent decades and need to remember that our unity in faith in Jesus Christ allows for different forms of liturgical expression. The riches of these traditions are real and valuable to us today, just as modern developments such as the wider use of the vernacular are.

We don’t need to have “liturgy wars”. What we need is to be properly formed and able to encounter Christ in the Church’s liturgy correctly celebrated so that we can witness to Jesus Christ and his truth in the Church and world of the twenty-first century. I hope that Sacra Liturgia 2013 will contribute to that.

CATHOLICS VS MODERNISTS

FROM CORDIALITER ITALIAN BLOG A FREE TRANSLATION OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A CATHOLIC AND A MODERNIST...

Faithful in their own way

Some people call themselves Catholic, go to Mass, receive Holy Communion 

...however, in relation dogmatic and moral teaching they prefer to do their own thing, 

rather than conform to Catholic doctrine. To show in a more engaging way their

 way of thinking, I composed a short dialogue between two fictional characters:

 Palmiro (inconsistent) and Thomas (consistent).

- Hello Thomas.

- Hello.

- What are you reading?

- A book by Cardinal Giuseppe Siri.

- Are you Catholic?

- Of course!

- Although I am Catholic, I am not bigoted about certain subjects 

... I prefer to think with my head and not with that of the Pope.

- Look at what being bigoted means reducing one's religion only to external practices,

 rather than following the church's teachings!

- Do not tell me you're against abortion, divorce, marriage between homosexuals 

and other civil rights ...

- These are not civil rights! Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, divorce,

 in addition to separating what God has joined together, and favors legalizing adultery.

 Unions of "husband and wife" (ie as spouses) between homosexuals are against nature. 

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their inhabitants practiced impure sins 

against nature.

- Thomas wake up, we are in the third millennium! Now in many advanced countries these

are considered civil rights.You need to be more rational. Forget what the Pope says, 

you have to think with your head.

- Palmiro you must try to be consistent. If you say you have to believe that the 

Catholic Pope in his Pontifical Magisterium is assisted by the Holy Spirit.

- Your mind is dull! You're worse than a priest! I know even some theologians 

who have a more open mind and state publicly that "hell is not eternal," 

"purgatory is a medieval invention", "original sin is a fairy tale," 

and other doctrines contrary to those "officially taught" ...

- In the centuries-old history of the Church not infrequently it has happened

 that several clergymen incited religious heresies, just think of Loisy, Luther, Arius

 and Pelagius, just to name a few. So never mind what certain heretical theologians.

- You sound like a fanatic fundamentalist!

- I strive only to be consistent with Catholic doctrine. That's all. 

- I am a true Christian because I fight against hunger in the world, 

the insecurity in employment and against racism!

- These are battles that you mentioned which I agree, but remember that the main battle 

is against sin, the only thing that can bring us to eternal damnation.

- Do not you understand that with this mentality alot of people will dislike you?

- The only thing I really fear is offending God by sin and losing my soul.

- The Middle Ages is long gone! you need to get with the times!

- The dogmas of faith are immutable. It is a mistake to say that the modernist 

dogmas evolve over the centuries.
- Talking to you is a waste of time, I salute you ... - Take care!

CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION ARUNDEL CATHEDRAL

Here are some beautiful images from the Corpus Christi procession at the Cathedral in Arundel, England:

Crowds flock to Arundel for Corpus Christi

HUNDREDS of Catholics from across England gathered in Arundel, West Sussex, last week for a special celebration of Corpus Christi in the Year in the Eucharist.

The event began with an early evening High Mass in the Cathedral Church of Our Lady and St Philip Howard, celebrated by the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. In his homily, Bishop Kieran Conry explained that the Eucharist brought Catholics in Britain into communion with the world’s poor.

After the final blessing, the bishop, bearing the monstrance, led the procession over the Carpet of Flowers. The carpet, which was prepared by 40 people over 60 hours, was this year laid out with Eucharistic motifs and words celebrating the 40th anniversary of the diocese.

The bishop was followed in procession by priests, members of the papal orders in full regalia, and hundreds of lay people, many carrying embroidered banners.

Some visitors were dismayed by the absence of a canopy over the Blessed Sacrament. The tradition was apparently abandoned on health and safety grounds.

The procession snaked slowly down the road to Arundel Castle in the strong early summer evening sunlight. It stopped inside the castle quadrangle, where the bishop placed the monstrance on an outdoor altar. Pilgrims knelt as the bishop presided over Bene diction. The procession then returned to the cathedral for another, final, Benediction.

The Corpus Christi procession in Arundel dates back to the Middle Ages. It was suppressed during the Reformation but revived by Henry, the 15th Duke of Norfolk, in 1883, who had been inspired by the colour ful celebration of the feast in continental cathedrals.

This year has seen a marked increase in Corpus Christi processions across Britain, in response to the late Pope John Paul II’s appeal in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia for greater reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

ARUNDEL CATHEDRAL CORPUS CHRISTI

CORPUS CHRISTI – Pope Francis Eucharistic Miracle

EUCHARISTIC MIRACLE IN BUENOS AIRES POSTING VIA "FRIENDS OF THE SUFFERING SOULS NEWSLETTER"

CORPUS CHRISTI – Pope Francis Eucharistic Miracle
On August 18, 1996, Fr. Pezet was saying Mass at a Catholic church in Buenos Aires. A woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded Host at the back of the church. Fr. Pezet placed the Host in a container of water and put it in the tabernacle. On August 26, upon opening the tabernacle, he saw to his amazement that the Host had turned into a bloody substance. He informed Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis 1) who gave instructions that the Host be professionally photographed.

The photos clearly show that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloodied flesh, had grown significantly in size. For several years the Host remained in the tabernacle, the whole affair being kept a strict secret. Since the Host suffered no visible decomposition, Cardinal Bergoglio decided to have it scientifically analyzed. On October 5, 1999, Dr. Castanon took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis. He purposely did not inform the team of scientists of its history. One of these scientists was Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist. He determined that the analyzed substance was real flesh and blood containing human DNA. Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”
Two Australians, journalist Mike Willesee and lawyer Ron Tesoriero, witnessed these tests. Knowing where the sample had come from, they were dumbfounded by Dr. Zugiba’s testimony. Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water.“They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes”, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact. There was no way of explaining it scientifically, he stated. Only then did Mike Willesee inform Dr. Zugiba that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host (white, unleavened bread) that had mysteriously turned into bloody human flesh. Amazed by this information, Dr. Zugiba replied, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence”.
Doctor Ricardo Castanon Gomez arranged to have the lab reports from the Buenos Aires miracle compared to the lab reports from the Lanciano miracle, again without revealing the origin of the test samples. The experts making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region.
Only faith in the extraordinary action of a God provides the reasonable answer—faith in a God, who wants to make us aware that He is truly present in the Eucharist.He reminds us that His presence is real, and not symbolic. Only with the eyes of faith do we see Him under appearance of the consecrated bread and wine. We do not see Him with our bodily eyes, since He is present in His glorified humanity. In the Eucharist Jesus sees and loves us, unites us to Himself, and desires to save us.

VIDEO PRESENTATION ON THE MIRACLE
Dr Zugiba tells the story (English sub titles) - HERE (10 minutes)