English Propers, 32nd Sunday
↧
↧
Some Books Still Available
An 1874 edition which has been rebound.
Price: $75.00 USD or best/highest offer
* * *
Price: $175.00 USD
Prices do not include shipping.
↧
Requiem in the Ancient Ambrosian Rite for an Apostle of the Same: Msgr. Angelo Amodeo
We have mentioned on more than one occasion the death of Msgr. Angelo Amodeo, a canon of the cathedral of Milan and one of the great advocates of the ancient Ambrosian rite.
Msgr. Angelo Amodeo was a man of passionate commitment who also exhibited a wonderful warmth and hospitality. He is sorely missed.
This past November 10th, a Solemn Requiem Mass was offered for the beloved Monsignor according to the ancient Ambrosian rite in a former Benedictine Abbey chapel north of Milan -- a chapel I have myself been to and which is quite beautiful.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Photos: Schola Sainte Cecile
![]()
![]()
Msgr. Angelo Amodeo was a man of passionate commitment who also exhibited a wonderful warmth and hospitality. He is sorely missed.
This past November 10th, a Solemn Requiem Mass was offered for the beloved Monsignor according to the ancient Ambrosian rite in a former Benedictine Abbey chapel north of Milan -- a chapel I have myself been to and which is quite beautiful.
Photos: Schola Sainte Cecile
↧
Monument to Blessed Columba Marmion by Duncan G. Stroik Unveiled in Rome
On October 25, 2012, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke solemnly blessed the Monument of Blessed Columba Marmion, O.S.B., in the Church of Saint Agatha of the Goths in Rome. Columba Marmion was ordained to the priesthood in the Church of Saint Agatha of the Goths in 1881 when it was the site of the Irish College. Blessed Columba joined the Benedictine order in 1886 and served as the Abbot of Maredsous Abbey in Belgium through the First World War. He inspired both religious and lay faithful with his spiritual writings, including Christ, the Life of the Soul and Christ in His Mysteries. Columba was beatified by Blessed Pope John Paul II in the year 2000.
Cardinal Burke, who is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, commissioned the monument placque for his titular church. The monument was designed by Duncan G. Stroik with a Giallo di Siena and Carrara marble frame, a carved latin inscription and a bust of Blessed Columba Marmion, sculpted in Statuario marble by Giuseppe Ducrot. Ducrot has been praised for his sixteen-foot sculpture of Saint Annibale Maria di Francia for a niche in the façade of the Basilica of Saint Peter, blessed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 in Vatican City. The marble for the monument placque was provided by Roberto Pagliari Stone Consulting Sas.
↧
Priest Takes Sabbatical to Promote Usus Antiquior
Here is an interesting story I picked up on from a private mailing list I on:
Read the entire article over at the Manteca Bulletin.
![]()
![]()
RIPON — After a decade of shepherding the faithful at St. Patrick’s Parish in Ripon, Father Peter Carota is moving on to the next chapter of his spiritual service to the Lord.
That next chapter is a yearlong sabbatical. His last official day as pastor of the parish is Tuesday, Nov. 13.
[...]
Father Carota is planning to pursue a dream that he has nurtured for a long time.
“I want to start a Catholic Church television station that has the Latin Mass every day. That’s my dream,” he said.
Like the early pioneers who came west in search of their dream – “we don’t know where we’re going but we’re on our way,” was their common refrain – Father Carota is on his way to fulfill his dream although, he admits, “I don’t know how that’s going to happen.”
But that’s exactly what he intends to do during his year-long sabbatical, to learn how he can put that into effect. He will be traveling to visit monasteries that offer the Latin Mass as the focal point of their spiritual life. Among the monasteries he plans to visit is the Clear Creek Abbey, a Benedictine monastery in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and another monastery in Wyoming.
[...]
Two years ago, he wanted to start an order of priests who would “go around and tell everybody all the beauty and all the sacredness of the Tridentine Mass which I just discovered five years ago,” he said. “So that’s why I asked for a sabbatical year to do this.”
Read the entire article over at the Manteca Bulletin.
↧
↧
Book Review - True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’, Massimo Faggioli
By way of preface, NLM was very kindly sent a review copy of a new book published by the Liturgical Press, Massimo Faggioli's True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in 'Sacrosanctum Concilium'.
The book in question is an important one to draw our readers attention to because it is very much a part of the debate that is presently taking place around the sacred liturgy, the Second Vatican Council and the hermeneutic of reform in continuity. In this same regard, it is also very much tied to the considerations we have discussed here before relating to the so-called "Bologna School" which has been critically considered by the likes of Agostino Marchetto (in The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council).
Given the topic and given the importance of this discussion, I decided to asked Dom Alcuin Reid if he could review this title for NLM and he very kindly agreed to do so. Here is his review.
* * *
![]()
True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’
Massimo Faggioli
Liturgical Press, Collegeville 2012, 188 pp pb $19.95
Reviewed by Dom Alcuin Reid
In December 1963, following the promulgation the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy at the close of the second session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI consulted the Council’s Liturgical Commission on how to commence the Constitution’s implementation. He also consulted the Archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro. Lercaro asked Father Annibale Bugnini, CM, to draft a plan. The following January 3rd Bugnini was nominated Secretary of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia― a body intentionally distinct from the Sacred Congregation for Rites ― and set to work on its implementation.
What ensued is not the direct concern of this book, however what is of importance here is that Paul VI wasted no time in commencing the liturgical reform. Neither he nor those to whom he gave responsibility for the work perceived the need to wait until the conclusion of the Council (December 1965) before implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. Indeed, by then the Consilium had, as Archbishop Piero Marini relates (A Challenging Reform, Liturgical Press 2007, chapters 4 & 5), wrestled control of the reform from the Congregation for Rites and was well underway with it.
These realities are of importance when considering True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ because of Massimo Faggioli’s fundamental question: “How much of Sacrosanctum Concilium is present in Vatican II, and how much of Vatican II is present in the first constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium?” (3)
This question bears re-reading, for historically, the second part of it at least, makes little sense. Neither Paul VI, Lercaro, Bugnini nor their collaborators could have articulated this question as they set about the work of liturgical reform. What Faggioli means by “Vatican II” was not a distinguishable entity at that time as perhaps it became afterwards. And whilst contemporary theological trends and other orientations certainly influenced the persons involved, as well as the reform itself, one will search in vain amongst the papers of the Consilium to find an agenda paper calling its members to sit down to consider “How much of Vatican II is present in the proposed new liturgical rites?” Their constant reference point was the Constitution itself―or at least it should have been―as the name "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia" makes perfectly clear, not any overarching reality called “Vatican II” or associated “spirit.”
It is evident that True Reform is not a book dealing with liturgical history. Rather it is an argument for a particular hermeneutic for interpreting Vatican II. Faggioli’s other recent work Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (Paulist Press 2012), demonstrates that his stance owes much to the ‘Bologna school’ as well as to Georgetown’s John W. O’Malley, SJ’s, What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard University Press, 2008). This hermeneutic insists that something happened at Vatican II and that this “something” is greater than the texts approved by the Council. Indeed, they argue, it is nothing less than constituent for the post-conciliar Church, “the Church of Vatican II.” Vatican II is, therefore, more an event (specifically a “language event” for O’Malley), than a series of documents calling for pastoral reforms. It is the epoch-making ressourcement of the Church and the Church’s rapprochement in respect of herself and towards the world. Furthermore, this “something,” this event―this spirit―is held to be the only legitimate starting point for interpreting the Council’s constitutions and decrees, and thus furnishes a hyper-hermeneutic for assessing the probity or otherwise of developments in the life of the Church then and now.
For this school of interpretation there is a very definite ‘before’ and ‘after’ the Council. Radical change, discontinuity and rupture with the ‘pre-conciliar Church’ is not a problem―indeed it is celebrated. Concern for continuity in reform is not present. These scholars oppose the view of Pope Benedict XVI (articulated in his address of 22 December 2005), that the correct way to interpret Vatican II is through “the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us.” Through “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” the Council is “basically misunderstood,” the Holy Father argues, and “in a word, it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit.”
It should be clear from the Pope’s words that this is no trifling academic disagreement, as the subtitle of Faggioli’s earlier book, “the Battle for Meaning,” underlines.
This has clear implications in respect of the Sacred Liturgy, particularly when recent years have heard talk of a reform of the post-conciliar reform and more lately of a “mutual enrichment” between the older and newer forms of the Roman rite, as well as witnessing the unfettering of the pre-conciliar liturgy.
Faggioli is not a liturgist and is not directly concerned with the “technical outcomes” (the ritual changes) of the liturgical reform. He is a theologian of the “event” of Vatican II, and as the subtitle of this book indicates, he is directly concerned with the ecclesiology of the Council and with the ecclesiology grounding any form of liturgy. He argues that “rejecting the theological core of the liturgical reform is nothing less than rejecting the theology of Vatican II and the chance to communicate the Gospel in an understandable way in our time and age.” (156-7) Furthermore, he asserts, “the liturgy of Vatican II is constitutionally necessary for the theological survival of Vatican II. Undoing the liturgical reform of Vatican II leads to dismantling the Church of Vatican II. This is why it is necessary to understand the deep connections between the liturgical reform and theology of Vatican II in its entirety.” (158)
Such absolute identification of the Council, its theologies (there were more than one), the liturgical reform that followed it, and the mission of the Church today, is staggering ― though it is an accurate reflection of the implications of the hyper-hermeneutic advocated. Is no other liturgical theology than that of the Paschal mystery acceptable? Are we to believe that the Mass celebrated facing the people with a Eucharistic prayer other than the Roman Canon and entirely in the vernacular―in perfect accordance with the modern liturgical books―is indispensable for communicating the Gospel today? (Nb. none of these ritual reforms were authorised by the Council itself.) Is questioning the value for the twenty-first century of pastoral reforms and theological preferences deemed apposite fifty years ago to be declared anathema?
Further still, according to Faggioli, granting indults for and liberty to the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy “is not far from renouncing Vatican II as such” and from “stopping every pastoral effort aimed at receiving the liturgical reform and Vatican II through the liturgy,” because “the basic ideas of the liturgical reform are so connected with the core values of the Council that renouncing the liturgical reform is a manifesto for the renunciation of Vatican II.” (144)
These are strong and exclusivist assertions. They make clear that, for Faggioli’s school of thought, Vatican II, indeed the “Church of Vatican II,” is simply a matter of ‘take it or take it.’ They permit of no consideration of a reform of the reform―liturgical or otherwise―based on historical or theological research or on changed conditions some five decades later. Nor do they allow any place for the older rites. They elevate the historically contingent pastoral decisions of an Ecumenical Council into quasi-dogmas, excluding the possibility that the signs of the times of the twenty-first century may demand new, even different, pastoral policies. And they ignore the fact that, ecclesiologically, “something happened” with the “event” that was Summorum Pontificum.
Historically, Faggioli’s stance is problematic. The liturgy of Vatican II―the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI―is not a straightforward ritual articulation of the ressourcement theology, Eucharistic ecclesiology and ecumenical and interreligious rapprochement espoused by the Council. Whilst Paul VI and Bugnini were obviously sympathetic to these causes, and whilst these certainly influenced the Consilium’s work, the fact is that the new liturgical books were the result of many conflicts and much compromise at the highest levels, as well as of the public disobedience of some, of opportunism, and of the private enthusiasms―theological and liturgical ― of others, as Bugnini’s memoirs demonstrate. Certainly these influences include the theology and ecclesiology espoused by Faggioli, but historically it is simply not the case that the officials, members or consulters of the Consilium used Faggioli’s theological yard-stick in effecting the reform. The “theological core” of the Council of which he speaks was articulated by some theologians (and never by the Magisterium) only well after the liturgical reform was significantly advanced. Whilst historically it may be asserted that the new rites have become iconic in respect of some theologians’ view of the Council, this is most certainly an a posteriori phenomenon.
The distinction between the new liturgical books and the Conciliar Constitution itself―much was promulgated that was never envisaged by the Council―is one that Faggioli fails make. Yet it is an historical reality which gives rise to the question, “How much of Sacrosanctum Concilium is in the liturgical books of Paul VI?” Historical research has an important contribution to make here in terms of what indeed happened at Vatican II, and afterwards, as well as to any discussion of what should happen now. It also possible to do this without casting doubts on Vatican II’s “validity and legitimacy as an ecumenical council.” (168) Indeed, it is possible to be utterly faithful to the Council whilst questioning significant elements of the liturgical reform that followed it. Thus his label “the anti-Vatican II ‘new liturgical movement’” (16 et al.) is neither accurate nor appropriate.
Faggioli’s ecclesiological position is also debatable. For, in his adulation of Vatican II as “event,” and in his idolisation of the liturgy Paul VI promulgated as indistinguishable from this “event,” he displays a greater rigidity and intransigence than that which he would attribute to so-called “traditionalists.” In doing so he ignores the profound ecclesiological ressourcement of Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum Coetibus, which re-establish that communion with the Church of Christ is and always has been possible whilst enjoying diverse traditions in ecclesial life, governance and worship. He does not take into account the ecclesial and ecumenical rapprochement they seek to facilitate. Thus Faggioli reacts frequently throughout this book (as also in his other) to the ecclesiological largesse of Summorum Pontificum and to any act of pastoral solicitude shown towards sympathisers with the concerns of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
True Reform is a polemical work which would have benefited from a calm editorial eye. Whilst the bibliography is large, some assertions require more than the mere reference to a work without the relevant arguments being advanced. Some of the research may be questioned, such as the use of William Cardinal Godfrey’s interventions at the Council. It is not always clear what the author means by “ecumenical” when prefixed to “Council,” though such obfuscation may itself not be without its content. That sources such as J.A. Jungmann’s commentary on the Constitution are sometimes referenced in German and other times in English is frustrating.
Preaching on the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council, Pope Benedict spoke of “the need to return, as it were, to the ‘letter’ of the Council―that is to its texts―also to draw from them its authentic spirit.” “The true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them,” he asserted, adding that “reference to the documents saves us from extremes of anachronistic nostalgia and running too far ahead, and allows what is new to be welcomed in a context of continuity.” This is the opinion of a pope, to be sure, not a dogmatic definition, and, with the respect due to authority, may be judged on its theological and historical merits―just as may the pastoral reforms and theological preferences of any Council. The Church of Christ encompasses such liberty. Does Faggioli’s “Church of Vatican II”?
Dom Alcuin Reid is a monk of the Monastère Saint-Benoît, La Garde-Freinet, France. More about his academic work can be found here.![]()
![]()
The book in question is an important one to draw our readers attention to because it is very much a part of the debate that is presently taking place around the sacred liturgy, the Second Vatican Council and the hermeneutic of reform in continuity. In this same regard, it is also very much tied to the considerations we have discussed here before relating to the so-called "Bologna School" which has been critically considered by the likes of Agostino Marchetto (in The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council).
Given the topic and given the importance of this discussion, I decided to asked Dom Alcuin Reid if he could review this title for NLM and he very kindly agreed to do so. Here is his review.
True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’Massimo Faggioli
Liturgical Press, Collegeville 2012, 188 pp pb $19.95
Reviewed by Dom Alcuin Reid
In December 1963, following the promulgation the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy at the close of the second session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI consulted the Council’s Liturgical Commission on how to commence the Constitution’s implementation. He also consulted the Archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro. Lercaro asked Father Annibale Bugnini, CM, to draft a plan. The following January 3rd Bugnini was nominated Secretary of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia― a body intentionally distinct from the Sacred Congregation for Rites ― and set to work on its implementation.
What ensued is not the direct concern of this book, however what is of importance here is that Paul VI wasted no time in commencing the liturgical reform. Neither he nor those to whom he gave responsibility for the work perceived the need to wait until the conclusion of the Council (December 1965) before implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. Indeed, by then the Consilium had, as Archbishop Piero Marini relates (A Challenging Reform, Liturgical Press 2007, chapters 4 & 5), wrestled control of the reform from the Congregation for Rites and was well underway with it.
These realities are of importance when considering True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ because of Massimo Faggioli’s fundamental question: “How much of Sacrosanctum Concilium is present in Vatican II, and how much of Vatican II is present in the first constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium?” (3)
This question bears re-reading, for historically, the second part of it at least, makes little sense. Neither Paul VI, Lercaro, Bugnini nor their collaborators could have articulated this question as they set about the work of liturgical reform. What Faggioli means by “Vatican II” was not a distinguishable entity at that time as perhaps it became afterwards. And whilst contemporary theological trends and other orientations certainly influenced the persons involved, as well as the reform itself, one will search in vain amongst the papers of the Consilium to find an agenda paper calling its members to sit down to consider “How much of Vatican II is present in the proposed new liturgical rites?” Their constant reference point was the Constitution itself―or at least it should have been―as the name "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia" makes perfectly clear, not any overarching reality called “Vatican II” or associated “spirit.”
It is evident that True Reform is not a book dealing with liturgical history. Rather it is an argument for a particular hermeneutic for interpreting Vatican II. Faggioli’s other recent work Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (Paulist Press 2012), demonstrates that his stance owes much to the ‘Bologna school’ as well as to Georgetown’s John W. O’Malley, SJ’s, What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard University Press, 2008). This hermeneutic insists that something happened at Vatican II and that this “something” is greater than the texts approved by the Council. Indeed, they argue, it is nothing less than constituent for the post-conciliar Church, “the Church of Vatican II.” Vatican II is, therefore, more an event (specifically a “language event” for O’Malley), than a series of documents calling for pastoral reforms. It is the epoch-making ressourcement of the Church and the Church’s rapprochement in respect of herself and towards the world. Furthermore, this “something,” this event―this spirit―is held to be the only legitimate starting point for interpreting the Council’s constitutions and decrees, and thus furnishes a hyper-hermeneutic for assessing the probity or otherwise of developments in the life of the Church then and now.
For this school of interpretation there is a very definite ‘before’ and ‘after’ the Council. Radical change, discontinuity and rupture with the ‘pre-conciliar Church’ is not a problem―indeed it is celebrated. Concern for continuity in reform is not present. These scholars oppose the view of Pope Benedict XVI (articulated in his address of 22 December 2005), that the correct way to interpret Vatican II is through “the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us.” Through “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” the Council is “basically misunderstood,” the Holy Father argues, and “in a word, it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit.”
It should be clear from the Pope’s words that this is no trifling academic disagreement, as the subtitle of Faggioli’s earlier book, “the Battle for Meaning,” underlines.
This has clear implications in respect of the Sacred Liturgy, particularly when recent years have heard talk of a reform of the post-conciliar reform and more lately of a “mutual enrichment” between the older and newer forms of the Roman rite, as well as witnessing the unfettering of the pre-conciliar liturgy.
Faggioli is not a liturgist and is not directly concerned with the “technical outcomes” (the ritual changes) of the liturgical reform. He is a theologian of the “event” of Vatican II, and as the subtitle of this book indicates, he is directly concerned with the ecclesiology of the Council and with the ecclesiology grounding any form of liturgy. He argues that “rejecting the theological core of the liturgical reform is nothing less than rejecting the theology of Vatican II and the chance to communicate the Gospel in an understandable way in our time and age.” (156-7) Furthermore, he asserts, “the liturgy of Vatican II is constitutionally necessary for the theological survival of Vatican II. Undoing the liturgical reform of Vatican II leads to dismantling the Church of Vatican II. This is why it is necessary to understand the deep connections between the liturgical reform and theology of Vatican II in its entirety.” (158)
Such absolute identification of the Council, its theologies (there were more than one), the liturgical reform that followed it, and the mission of the Church today, is staggering ― though it is an accurate reflection of the implications of the hyper-hermeneutic advocated. Is no other liturgical theology than that of the Paschal mystery acceptable? Are we to believe that the Mass celebrated facing the people with a Eucharistic prayer other than the Roman Canon and entirely in the vernacular―in perfect accordance with the modern liturgical books―is indispensable for communicating the Gospel today? (Nb. none of these ritual reforms were authorised by the Council itself.) Is questioning the value for the twenty-first century of pastoral reforms and theological preferences deemed apposite fifty years ago to be declared anathema?
Further still, according to Faggioli, granting indults for and liberty to the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy “is not far from renouncing Vatican II as such” and from “stopping every pastoral effort aimed at receiving the liturgical reform and Vatican II through the liturgy,” because “the basic ideas of the liturgical reform are so connected with the core values of the Council that renouncing the liturgical reform is a manifesto for the renunciation of Vatican II.” (144)
These are strong and exclusivist assertions. They make clear that, for Faggioli’s school of thought, Vatican II, indeed the “Church of Vatican II,” is simply a matter of ‘take it or take it.’ They permit of no consideration of a reform of the reform―liturgical or otherwise―based on historical or theological research or on changed conditions some five decades later. Nor do they allow any place for the older rites. They elevate the historically contingent pastoral decisions of an Ecumenical Council into quasi-dogmas, excluding the possibility that the signs of the times of the twenty-first century may demand new, even different, pastoral policies. And they ignore the fact that, ecclesiologically, “something happened” with the “event” that was Summorum Pontificum.
Historically, Faggioli’s stance is problematic. The liturgy of Vatican II―the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI―is not a straightforward ritual articulation of the ressourcement theology, Eucharistic ecclesiology and ecumenical and interreligious rapprochement espoused by the Council. Whilst Paul VI and Bugnini were obviously sympathetic to these causes, and whilst these certainly influenced the Consilium’s work, the fact is that the new liturgical books were the result of many conflicts and much compromise at the highest levels, as well as of the public disobedience of some, of opportunism, and of the private enthusiasms―theological and liturgical ― of others, as Bugnini’s memoirs demonstrate. Certainly these influences include the theology and ecclesiology espoused by Faggioli, but historically it is simply not the case that the officials, members or consulters of the Consilium used Faggioli’s theological yard-stick in effecting the reform. The “theological core” of the Council of which he speaks was articulated by some theologians (and never by the Magisterium) only well after the liturgical reform was significantly advanced. Whilst historically it may be asserted that the new rites have become iconic in respect of some theologians’ view of the Council, this is most certainly an a posteriori phenomenon.
The distinction between the new liturgical books and the Conciliar Constitution itself―much was promulgated that was never envisaged by the Council―is one that Faggioli fails make. Yet it is an historical reality which gives rise to the question, “How much of Sacrosanctum Concilium is in the liturgical books of Paul VI?” Historical research has an important contribution to make here in terms of what indeed happened at Vatican II, and afterwards, as well as to any discussion of what should happen now. It also possible to do this without casting doubts on Vatican II’s “validity and legitimacy as an ecumenical council.” (168) Indeed, it is possible to be utterly faithful to the Council whilst questioning significant elements of the liturgical reform that followed it. Thus his label “the anti-Vatican II ‘new liturgical movement’” (16 et al.) is neither accurate nor appropriate.
Faggioli’s ecclesiological position is also debatable. For, in his adulation of Vatican II as “event,” and in his idolisation of the liturgy Paul VI promulgated as indistinguishable from this “event,” he displays a greater rigidity and intransigence than that which he would attribute to so-called “traditionalists.” In doing so he ignores the profound ecclesiological ressourcement of Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum Coetibus, which re-establish that communion with the Church of Christ is and always has been possible whilst enjoying diverse traditions in ecclesial life, governance and worship. He does not take into account the ecclesial and ecumenical rapprochement they seek to facilitate. Thus Faggioli reacts frequently throughout this book (as also in his other) to the ecclesiological largesse of Summorum Pontificum and to any act of pastoral solicitude shown towards sympathisers with the concerns of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
True Reform is a polemical work which would have benefited from a calm editorial eye. Whilst the bibliography is large, some assertions require more than the mere reference to a work without the relevant arguments being advanced. Some of the research may be questioned, such as the use of William Cardinal Godfrey’s interventions at the Council. It is not always clear what the author means by “ecumenical” when prefixed to “Council,” though such obfuscation may itself not be without its content. That sources such as J.A. Jungmann’s commentary on the Constitution are sometimes referenced in German and other times in English is frustrating.
Preaching on the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council, Pope Benedict spoke of “the need to return, as it were, to the ‘letter’ of the Council―that is to its texts―also to draw from them its authentic spirit.” “The true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them,” he asserted, adding that “reference to the documents saves us from extremes of anachronistic nostalgia and running too far ahead, and allows what is new to be welcomed in a context of continuity.” This is the opinion of a pope, to be sure, not a dogmatic definition, and, with the respect due to authority, may be judged on its theological and historical merits―just as may the pastoral reforms and theological preferences of any Council. The Church of Christ encompasses such liberty. Does Faggioli’s “Church of Vatican II”?
Dom Alcuin Reid is a monk of the Monastère Saint-Benoît, La Garde-Freinet, France. More about his academic work can be found here.
↧
St. Theresa of Avila, West Roxbury, Massachusetts
↧
Requiem in Florence
All Souls Day is almost a half a month behind us now, but I couldn't resist sharing the following photos which I found posted on Acción Litúrgica which show Mgr. Luciano Giovanetti, the bishop emeritus of Fiésole, celebrating a Solemn Pontifical Requiem Mass in Florence with the priests and seminarians of the ICRSS.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Pope Benedict on the Importance of Sacred Music
↧
↧
Two New Printings - Missale Romanum, Rituale Romanum
A couple of liturgical book notices came NLM's way yesterday.
The first is a newly typeset edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum (which will soon be available for order from fraternitypublications.com):
![]()
![]()
The second is a new printing of the Rituale Romanum:
With these links you can view some photos of both the interior and binding.![]()
![]()
The first is a newly typeset edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum (which will soon be available for order from fraternitypublications.com):
The second is a new printing of the Rituale Romanum:
This is the first edition of the Rituale Romanum since 1957. It is based upon the last Editio typica of 1952, supplemented by all the benedictions approved by the Holy See until 1957. This new edition complies with canon law and regulations and was granted the Imprimatur according to can. 826 II CIC by His Excellency Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke OSB.
In contrast to the editions of 1952 and 1957 the new edition contains the traditional Vulgate psalms. Text layout and indeed the beauty of the volume show that we have observed the high quality standards of the great liturgical publishing houses of the past.
We cordially invite you to have a look at the following pages for further information about the new edition of the Rituale Romanum.
With these links you can view some photos of both the interior and binding.
↧
Requiem, St. Gregory's, Cheltenham
The Young Catholic Adults association in England (a movement of young adults attached to the usus antiquior, etc.) report that Fr. Alexander Redman offered a Requiem Mass in the usus antiquior for them on November 7th at St. Gregory’s, Cheltenham.
During the Mass, it is reported that Fr. Redman provided catechesis on purgatory and the souls in purgatory, and further provided some catechesis around Mass for the Dead.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
During the Mass, it is reported that Fr. Redman provided catechesis on purgatory and the souls in purgatory, and further provided some catechesis around Mass for the Dead.
↧
News from the U.K. Ordinariate
One of our Ordinariate readers sends in the following bit of news:
Here are some photos. First, from Soho Square.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
(And here are a bit of video from the same:)
And here are a few from Portsmouth.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Photos copyright the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham![]()
![]()
Last week the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, Monsignor Keith Newton, celebrated Mass according to the Book of Divine Worship at the end of a conference on mission and evangelisation at the church of St Patrick's, Soho Square, and at the former Anglican church of St Agatha's, Portsmouth. During the latter, a peal of bells was blessed.
At Soho Square, well-known Anglican hymns replaced the Proper of the Mass, and the setting by John Merbecke was used for the Ordinary of the Mass. In Portsmouth hymns were sung, and English plainchant propers were led by the schola. The Ordinary of the Mass was Missa de Angelis set using the traditional language English texts as published by the Plainsong and Medieval Music Society. As is proper to the Anglican tradition, Holy Communion was distributed under both kinds, kneeling at a Communion Rail. Following the example of the Holy Father, a paten (Communion Plate) was used.
Each celebration represented examples of liturgical traditions within High Church Anglicanism, one which looks towards distinctive English ceremony and vesture, the other toward the Roman liturgical tradition as embodied by the likes of the Society of SS Peter and Paul, and the artist Martin Travers.
Here are some photos. First, from Soho Square.
(And here are a bit of video from the same:)
Introit - 9 Nov 2012 from UKOrdinariate on Vimeo.
And here are a few from Portsmouth.
Photos copyright the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
↧
Fr. Aidan Nichols on the Ordinariate and the New Evangelization
Continuing on with our consideration of the Ordinariate today, I wanted to draw your attention to an address given by Fr. Aidan Nichols, entitled, Visionary Gleamings: The Ordinariate and the New Evangelization.
In his address, Fr. Nichols gives consideration to some of the potentialities and opportunities he sees for the Ordinariate. You can read the entire address there, but here is an excerpt I think many of our readers will find of interest:
![]()
![]()
![]()
In his address, Fr. Nichols gives consideration to some of the potentialities and opportunities he sees for the Ordinariate. You can read the entire address there, but here is an excerpt I think many of our readers will find of interest:
↧
↧
Christus Rex Pilgrimage, Australia
From a reader in Australia:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Photos by Tien Nguyen
![]()
![]()
The Christus Rex Pilgrimage is an annual pilgrimage where pilgrims walk between two provincial shrines in Victoria, Australia, through the countryside. Celebrating it’s 22nd year, it is in honour of the solemn feast of Christ the King starting from St Patrick’s Cathedral, Ballarat on Friday, 26th October, and ending after three days of walking at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Bendigo on the Sunday feast, on the 28th of October 2012.
Inspired by the Paris to Chatres Pilgrimage, it draws together over 300 pilgrims from all around Australia and even overseas, to walk, pray, and sing hymns to give glory to Christ the King.
The traditional Mass is celebrated daily at local churches, except for Saturday, where an outdoor Mass is held. This year saw the commission of the new Eucharistic Tent designed by architect, Sidney Rofe, for the Archdiocese of Sydney. This tent was custom made for the archdiocesian Corpus Christi procession and was kindly loaned by Bishop Julian Porteous, auxillary bishop of Sydney.
Testimony to it’s enrichment to the lives of Catholics around Australia, 12 priests devoted their weekend for the spiritual benefit of the pilgrims, through the wet, cold and then sweltering heat of Victoria. Pilgrims were also met at the Cathedral by Bishop Les Tomlinson, the bishop of Sandhurst, who also sat in choir during the Solemn Mass.
Photos by Tien Nguyen
↧
US Bishops Approve Revisions to Liturgy of the Hours
Baltimore, Md., Nov 15, 2012 / 04:09 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has approved a plan to draft an amended edition of the English-language Liturgy of the Hours for use in the United States.
The conference’s Committee on Divine Worship, headed by Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond of New Orleans, had recommended the action in light of new liturgical texts, including the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, the revised Grail Psalms and biblical canticles, and revision work begun by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy.
[...]
The preliminary vote means the Committee on Divine Worship will begin translation and editing. It will present a full draft to the conference when its work is completed. If approved, the draft would be submitted to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for approval.
[...]
The new edition will include changes in light of the new edition of the Roman Missal. Hymns will use English translations of Latin hymns provided by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, which will also be consulted on translations of several regularly used prayers.
The new edition’s psalms will come from the Revised Grail Psalter, translated by the Benedictines at Conception Abbey in Missouri. Canticles from the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gospel may use the current translation, an updated translation from the New American Bible, or new translations from Conception Abbey.
Biblical readings will be adjusted according to approved texts.
Source: Catholic News Agency
↧
Vatican Congregation To Emphasize Liturgical Music, Art
15-November-2012 -- Catholic News Agency
Vatican Congregation To Emphasize Liturgical Music, Art
VATICAN CITY, November 14 (CNA/EWTN News) .- With the Vatican's approval on Nov. 14 of its restructuring, the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will shift its focus more intensely on art and liturgical music.
The restructuring is in accord with a Sept. 2011 apostolic letter issued by Pope Benedict XVI, where he noted that the changes will help the congregation in "giving a fresh impetus to promoting the sacred liturgy in the Church."
This will be achieved mainly through a new office dedicated to sacred music and liturgical art - including architecture - which will become operational next year.
Its charges will include issuing guidelines on liturgical music and the structure of new churches so that they reflect the mysterious encounter with the divine, as well as follow the dictates and instructions of the new English translation of the Roman Missal.
In his letter, the Pope wrote that these all must be in accord with the Second Vatican Council's "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy." Overlooking that 1963 document has allowed for the post-conciliar trend of building unedifying churches and filling them pop-influenced music.
Spanish Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the congregation, is entrusted with overseeing that these future guidelines and existing ones on liturgical celebration are followed throughout the world.
He is a long-time ally of the Pope, back to the pontiff's days as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Cardinal Canizares is sometimes referred as "Little Ratzinger" for his similar beliefs and opinions.
Overseeing the many facets of worship in the worldwide Church is a significant task, especially in light of last December's implementation of the new Roman Missal in English, which is truer to the original Latin and more elevated in its language.
To help the congregation focus on issues related to worship, the new restructuring removes two responsibilities that proved time consuming: processes of dispensation from ratified and non-consummated marriage and cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination.
Those duties have been shifted to the Roman Rota, the Church's highest appellate tribunal.
"The Holy See has always sought to adapt its structures of governance to the pastoral needs that arise in the life of the Church in every period of history, thereby modifying the structure and competence of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia," wrote the Pope in his Sept. 2011 letter.
That letter was issued motu proprio, meaning that he wrote it for reasons which he himself deemed sufficient.
↧
Universality, Noble Accessibility and a Pop Culture that will Save the World
The principle of universality is not something I had considered in any depth at all until recently, when it was mentioned in a talk about sacred music. I have been reflecting on its meaning in other aspects of the culture and what it says to me about how I should approach my own painting. Here are some first thoughts.
The word ‘catholic’ means universal. The Catholic Faith is offered to and has meaning for every human person regardless of where and when they live; Catholic culture should always, to some degree be universal too, that is, it should appeal to all peoples in the world;. recently I heard universality in the context of sacred music described in the following way: something will have universal appeal if it does not exclude anyone from any other culture from appreciating it.
The idea, it seems to me, is an extension of that expressed also by the phrase ‘noble accessibility’ (previously discussed in this column), which says that the music that is meant to be sung by a congregation must be simple enough so that they can; and the music that is more difficult to perform and so realistically can only be sung by a choir, must be easily appreciated by the congregation and not abstruse. At the same time, there must be no compromise on the ‘nobility’ that is the beauty of any piece of music. This principle makes high demands of the composer, but not of the listener. The principle of universality says that music, and by extension all aspects of the culture should portray this noble beauty and be accessible to all people, of all times and all places. To the degree that we are able to think about this it should be there in anything that we do, but most obviously this will always apply in the arts – painting, music, architecture for example.
Some have interpreted this principle of universality as meaning that it does not belong to any place or time at all. They are saying that something is universal only to the degree that it is a-cultural, that is culturally neutral and does not characterize any time or place. As I understand it this is not what is being said at all.
Every general principle, which is understood as an abstract idea, must be manifested in a particular example. By looking at the particulars, we discern the general. Every work of art, every piece of music is a product of its time and place. A work of art that is universal is therefore both timeless and timebound, it is both homeless and planted in a particular place.
We can think of the iconographic tradition in painting to illustrate this. Every painting conveys information through what is painted – content; and how it is painted – style. While the content, for example we might paint Christ on the cross, is proscribed by the tradition, there are other traditions that legitimately portray Christ on the cross, such as the gothic or the baroque. It is the stylistic features of an icon that make it an icon, unite with the tradition and also differentiate it from other forms of sacred art. Each characteristic element participates in the essential principles that describe an icon. These are timeless and homeless. Nevertheless every icon has a time and a home as well. Each bears the stylistic mark of the person who painted it, and as a product of a time and a place, it bears therefore, some indication of those two factors. They may not be deliberately imposed upon it by the artist, but they will come out naturally as he works. Learned students of the iconographic tradition are able to look to a previously unseen icon and just by observation of the style pin down the geographic region in which it was painted and date it to within about 50 years. Even individual painter styles are recognizable.
The purest forms of universality, I suggest, are those therefore in which every particular speaks of both a general principle and a particular time and place – and, inversely, there is no element that is time or place bound in its form and is not participating in the timeless as well.
In music Pius X isolated several aspects that are essential for music to be sacred and that are best portrayed in Gregorian Chant, which was for him the exemplar of universality in music: ‘The more closely a Church composition approaches Gregorian Chant in movement, inspiration, and feeling, the more holy and liturgical it becomes; and the more it deviates from this supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” (1)
The most powerful manifestation of the culture is when the timeless and time- and place-bound aspects all speak to us. Every traditional aspect of Catholic culture speaks us because of its universality. However usually, because it originates in a different time and different place, part of it seems alien until we become very familiar with it. If we wish to speak instantly and powerfully to modern people then we must strive to compose and create new works of art that are consistent with the tradition but speak to people today. This is why we paint icons now and never rely on the canon of past works. So we should be thinking of composing new Gregorian chant tones for Latin and the vernacular.
There is a tendency today to assume that popular culture is low culture, but if we truly had inspired composers and artist creating new works that are universal, they would outshine the works of the secular culture and create a noble pop culture. It would appeal to the masses, not just the cognoscenti.
Let us hope that today's artists and composers can do this.
Notes:
1. Tra le sollecitudini, ¶3, p. 180![]()
![]()
The word ‘catholic’ means universal. The Catholic Faith is offered to and has meaning for every human person regardless of where and when they live; Catholic culture should always, to some degree be universal too, that is, it should appeal to all peoples in the world;. recently I heard universality in the context of sacred music described in the following way: something will have universal appeal if it does not exclude anyone from any other culture from appreciating it.
The idea, it seems to me, is an extension of that expressed also by the phrase ‘noble accessibility’ (previously discussed in this column), which says that the music that is meant to be sung by a congregation must be simple enough so that they can; and the music that is more difficult to perform and so realistically can only be sung by a choir, must be easily appreciated by the congregation and not abstruse. At the same time, there must be no compromise on the ‘nobility’ that is the beauty of any piece of music. This principle makes high demands of the composer, but not of the listener. The principle of universality says that music, and by extension all aspects of the culture should portray this noble beauty and be accessible to all people, of all times and all places. To the degree that we are able to think about this it should be there in anything that we do, but most obviously this will always apply in the arts – painting, music, architecture for example.
Some have interpreted this principle of universality as meaning that it does not belong to any place or time at all. They are saying that something is universal only to the degree that it is a-cultural, that is culturally neutral and does not characterize any time or place. As I understand it this is not what is being said at all.
Every general principle, which is understood as an abstract idea, must be manifested in a particular example. By looking at the particulars, we discern the general. Every work of art, every piece of music is a product of its time and place. A work of art that is universal is therefore both timeless and timebound, it is both homeless and planted in a particular place.
We can think of the iconographic tradition in painting to illustrate this. Every painting conveys information through what is painted – content; and how it is painted – style. While the content, for example we might paint Christ on the cross, is proscribed by the tradition, there are other traditions that legitimately portray Christ on the cross, such as the gothic or the baroque. It is the stylistic features of an icon that make it an icon, unite with the tradition and also differentiate it from other forms of sacred art. Each characteristic element participates in the essential principles that describe an icon. These are timeless and homeless. Nevertheless every icon has a time and a home as well. Each bears the stylistic mark of the person who painted it, and as a product of a time and a place, it bears therefore, some indication of those two factors. They may not be deliberately imposed upon it by the artist, but they will come out naturally as he works. Learned students of the iconographic tradition are able to look to a previously unseen icon and just by observation of the style pin down the geographic region in which it was painted and date it to within about 50 years. Even individual painter styles are recognizable.
The purest forms of universality, I suggest, are those therefore in which every particular speaks of both a general principle and a particular time and place – and, inversely, there is no element that is time or place bound in its form and is not participating in the timeless as well.
In music Pius X isolated several aspects that are essential for music to be sacred and that are best portrayed in Gregorian Chant, which was for him the exemplar of universality in music: ‘The more closely a Church composition approaches Gregorian Chant in movement, inspiration, and feeling, the more holy and liturgical it becomes; and the more it deviates from this supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” (1)
The most powerful manifestation of the culture is when the timeless and time- and place-bound aspects all speak to us. Every traditional aspect of Catholic culture speaks us because of its universality. However usually, because it originates in a different time and different place, part of it seems alien until we become very familiar with it. If we wish to speak instantly and powerfully to modern people then we must strive to compose and create new works of art that are consistent with the tradition but speak to people today. This is why we paint icons now and never rely on the canon of past works. So we should be thinking of composing new Gregorian chant tones for Latin and the vernacular.
There is a tendency today to assume that popular culture is low culture, but if we truly had inspired composers and artist creating new works that are universal, they would outshine the works of the secular culture and create a noble pop culture. It would appeal to the masses, not just the cognoscenti.
Let us hope that today's artists and composers can do this.
Notes:
1. Tra le sollecitudini, ¶3, p. 180
↧
↧
Veterans Day Mass, Chesapeake, Virginia
By way of Philip Gerard Johnson comes the following report about a "Veterans Day Mass" celebrated on November 12th.
Here are some of the photos provided by Philip.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
On Monday, November 12, 2012, Benedictine College Preparatory (Richmond, VA) revived their traditional Veterans' Day Mass for the 101st Anniversary of their school. Diocese of Richmond Bishop DiLorenzo granted permission for a special Votive Mass of Thanksgiving. The Solemn High Latin Mass in the Extraordinary Form took place at St. Benedict (Fraternity of Saint Peter) parish in Chesapeake, VA. Chesapeake is in the Tidewater area, so many active and retired military members attended in uniform.
Celebrant: Fr. Kevin Cusick, Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. (Reserve Navy Chaplain)
Deacon: Fr. Neal Nichols, F.S.S.P. (Graduate of Benedictine College Preparatory)
Subdeacon: Seminarian Philip Johnson, Diocese of Raleigh, NC (Retired Navy Officer)
Here are some of the photos provided by Philip.
↧
Requiem for the Departed Souls of the House of Savoy
Over the years we have mentioned an Mass which is celebrated in Santa Maria ad Martyres (i.e. the Pantheon) in Rome in relation to the Savoy family there and in association with the "Movimento culturale Rinnovamento nella Tradizione" and the"Associazione Mafalda e Giovanna di Savoia."
The Mass was offered, as usual, for the souls of all the departed souls of the House of Savoy. In attendance was Principe Amedeo di Savoia, his wife, Principessa Silvia, and Principessa Maria Gabriella di Savoia. At the end of the Mass, Principe Amedeo, accompanied by relatives and by civil and ecclesiastical authorities, laid a wreath at the tomb of King Vittorio Emanuele II.
The Mass was celebrated by Don Riccardo Petroni, a priest of the diocese of Rome.
Here are some photos which are copyright Luca Schirano, and printed with the permission of Crocereale.it.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Mass was offered, as usual, for the souls of all the departed souls of the House of Savoy. In attendance was Principe Amedeo di Savoia, his wife, Principessa Silvia, and Principessa Maria Gabriella di Savoia. At the end of the Mass, Principe Amedeo, accompanied by relatives and by civil and ecclesiastical authorities, laid a wreath at the tomb of King Vittorio Emanuele II.
The Mass was celebrated by Don Riccardo Petroni, a priest of the diocese of Rome.
Here are some photos which are copyright Luca Schirano, and printed with the permission of Crocereale.it.
↧
On Alexander Schmemann
Over on our friend Adam DeVille's Eastern Christian Books site, he has an interview with William Mills which touches on the work of the noted Eastern Christian liturgical theologian, Fr. Alexander Schmemann. The interview is fairly lengthy, so I will suffice to simply point you in that direction.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
