Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel
Embed this content in your HTML

Search
Report adult content:
click to rate:
Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


    0 0

    Fr Dunstan Robertson has reminded me of the pilgrimage being organised by Pluscarden Abbey, the Benedictine house in northeast Scotland. It started in June, and is going on now, but people can still join for the rest or part of the pilgrimage, which will end in September.

    Fr Dunstan himself is a monk at a daughter house of Pluscarden, St Mary’s in Petersham, Massachussets. He writes:
    Our motherhouse, Pluscarden Abbey (founded 1230 AD), is conducting a 1230 mile pilgrimage from their founding monastery in France to the Abbey in an effort to raise funds for a major building renovation. There will be 13 legs of roughly 80 miles with different groups of pilgrims each week, with daily Mass and talks. They’re looking for physical pilgrims (to walk), virtual pilgrims (to pray and offer organizational help), and financial pilgrims (who can help cover costs.) Academic credits available for US college students. For more information contact Fr. Dunstan at St. Mary’s at monks@stmarysmonastery.org or 978–724–3350.
    You can read more on a webpage here, or see Fr Dunstan being interviewed by the folks at Catholic TV in Boston (old friends of mine who produced the Way of Beauty TV series which I presented a few years ago). In this interview, he talks about both the monastery in Petersham, and the Pluscarden Pilgrimage.

    Here is a photo of Pluscarden Abbey, built in the 13th century. The pilgrimage has spiritual and material aims - it will raise money for the renovation of the original abbey building. It’s good to see the medieval practice of mixing spirituality and money at work in the 21st century!
    And here is a photo of the interior of the abbey with a San Damiano crucifixion painted by yours truly:

    0 0

    Celebrate the patronal feast of the St Ann Choir next Wednesday, July 26 at 8:00 p.m. They will sing the Missa Sesquialtera of Orlando di Lasso and the Gregorian chants for the day at St Thomas Aquinas Church, located at 751 Waverly at Homer, in Palo Alto, California.





    0 0

    A few years ago, Shawn Tribe published an article about the presence of Saints of the Old Testament in the Eastern liturgies, and their almost total absence from those of the West. Although a large number of Old Testament Saints are mentioned in the Martyrology, the Seven Maccabees Brothers are the only ones on the traditional Roman Calendar, and their feast was suppressed in the new rite, despite its great antiquity. A number of churches in Venice, a city always marked by strong Greek influences, are dedicated to Saints of the Old Testament, such as San Moisè and San Giobbe. (Moses and Job) The most prominent exception to this absence, however, is the celebration of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha as the founders and patriarchs of the two Carmelite Orders. Of these the former has his feast day on July 20th, the latter on June 14th, the same days on which they are observed in the Byzantine Rite.
    Seen above is the central panel of the altarpiece painted by Pietro Lorenzetti (ca. 1280 - 1347) for the Carmelite church of his native city of Siena, San Niccolò del Carmine. The altarpiece is now dismembered and removed from its original frame; most of the surviving pieces are in the National Gallery of Siena, but the two narrower panels originally on either side of the central one are in the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California, and a smaller piece from the top is at Yale University.

    To the left of the Virgin stands St Nicholas, to whom the church is dedicated; to the right is the prophet Elijah. On the scroll in his hands are written the words which he speaks in 3 Kings 18, 19: “Nevertheless send now, and gather unto me all Israel, unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty.” The Carmelites have traditionally honored the prophet Elijah and his disciple Elisha as their founders; in the liturgical books of both the Old Observance and the Discalced, they are each given the title “Our Father”, as is St Dominic in the Dominican Use, St Benedict in the Monastic Use, etc. Both orders also add the name of Elijah to the Confiteor, the Discalced even before that of St Theresa of Avila. Their feasts were kept with octaves, a traditional privilege of patronal feasts, even before an octave was given to the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel on July 16th.

    The tradition behind this is recorded in the lessons of the Roman Breviary for that day, with the cautionary parenthetical note “ut fertur – as the story goes” added at the beginning. In the Books of Kings, there are several references to a group of holy men called “the sons of the prophets”. They foretell to Elisha that Elijah is to be taken away by the Lord, although Elisha already knows this, and afterwards bear witness that “the spirit of Elijah resteth upon Elisha,” who then works several miracles on their behalf. The traditional Carmelite legend claims that a group of men dedicated to God remained on Mount Carmel until the days of the New Testament, when they were “prepared by the preaching of John the Baptist for the coming of Christ”, and “at once embraced the faith of the Gospel.” They are also said to be the first Christians to build a chapel in honor of the Virgin Mary, on the very spot on Mount Carmel where Elijah had seen the “little cloud”, understood as a symbol of the Virgin Mary.

    One of the two pieces now in Pasadena shows St John the Baptist; it was originally placed to the right of the central panel, so that he would be next to Elijah, since John went before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, and the Lord Himself said in reference to him, “Elijah has already returned.” On the left was the panel of Elisha, looking very much like an Eastern monk, despite his Carmelite habit; on his scroll is written “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw him, and cried: My father, my father, the chariot of I[srael, and the driver thereof.]” (4 Kings 2, 11-12)
    Even for an age in which the veneration of the Virgin Mary may truly be described as omnipresent, the city of Siena stood out as a place of particular devotion to Her. In 1260, before the crucial battle of Montaperti, the city placed herself by a special vow under the protection of the Virgin, and proceeded to heavily defeat her long-time rival Florence, whose army was nearly twice as large as her own. Both the cathedral and the city hall were prominently decorated with famous paintings of the Virgin enthroned, of the type known as a “Maestà”; the former had that of Duccio di Buoninsegna, commissioned less than twenty years before Lorenzetti’s Carmelite altarpiece, and the latter that of Simone Martini from just twelve years before. When Lorenzetti’s work was finished, the mendicant Carmelites could not afford to pay for it, and so the artist’s fee was provided by the city itself.

    Despite all this, the panels at the bottom of the altarpiece are not dedicated to the principal subject of the main panel, as they would normally be, but rather to the prophet Elijah. In the first, an angel appears to his father, with a prophecy of his son’s future greatness, just as an angel would later appear to the father of St John the Baptist.
    In the second, we see hermits in the desert around a fountain, which was said to have been built for them by Elijah. These would be the spiritual ancestors of the Carmelite Order, men who lived as monks in the Greek tradition in the Holy Land, before being organized under a rule during the period of the Crusader kingdoms.
    The striped mantle which they are wearing is part of the habit worn by the Carmelites when they still lived in the Holy Land; because of it they were often called in Latin “fratres barrati – barred friars”, or “fratres virgulati – striped friars.” A tradition of the medieval Carmelites held that these stripes represented the tracks of the chariot that took Elijah into heaven, and had been inherited as part of their habit from Elisha.

    When the Carmelites were forced to abandon the Holy Land at the fall of the Latin kingdoms, they brought their traditions, including the habit, with them to Western Europe, where the striped mantle was considered completely outlandish for religious of any kind, but especially for medicants. Many of the universities refused to admit them dressed that way; hence, the decision of a general chapter held at Montpelier in 1287 to replace it with the white mantle still worn to this day. This was a matter of some controversy within the order at the time, and the prophets are shown by Lorenzetti in the “new” habit probably as a gesture to persuade the friars to accept it.
    In the central panel, St Albert of Jerusalem, Latin patriarch from 1205-14, presents to the Carmelites the rule which he has written for them at the request of their superior, St Brocard. (click to enlarge) The fountain of Elijah is shown again, but now with a church right next to it, indicating that the hermits of Mount Carmel have now been officially organized into an order.
    In the fourth panel, Pope Honorius IV (1285-87) grants the Carmelites their new habit with the white mantle.
    In the last panel, Pope John XXII (1316-34) confirms the decisions of previous Popes, shown above him among the angels with bulls in their hands, recognizing the Carmelites as an approved religious order.

    0 0

    The celebrations for the tenth anniversary of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum are an initiative of the Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum, the organizers since 2012 of the annual Populus Summorum Pontificum international pilgrimage to Rome, of Giovani e Tradizione (Youth and Tradition) and Amicizia Sacerdotale Summorum Pontificum (Priestly Friends of Summorum Pontificum).


    On Thursday, September 14, Giovani e Tradizione and Amicizia Sacerdotale Summorum Pontificum will organize their fifth colloquium on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI; the first of which took place in 2008. This year’s will be entitled “A Renewed Youthfulness for the Whole Church” and will be held at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, better known as the Angelicum. Among the speakers are announced Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Sarah, Dom Pateau, Martin Mosebach and Ettore Gotti Tedeschi.

    On the evening of Thursday, September 14, at the conclusion of the colloquium and to celebrate the opening of the pilgrimage, His Excellency Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Pontifical Household, will celebrate Vespers in the Basilica of St Mark in the Piazza Venezia.

    Here is the official program of this important event, which will culminate on Saturday, September 16, with a solemn procession through the streets of Rome, led by His Excellency Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and a Pontifical Mass celebrated by His Eminence Carlo Cardinal Caffara, in St Peter’s Basilica at 12 noon. We note that, in gratitude to Pope Benedict XVI, Maestro Aurelio Porfiri, Cardinal Bartolucci’s pupil, will direct a Mass especially composed for this occasion.

    E-mail: info@summorumpontificum2017.org
    Web: https://www.summorumpontificum2017.org/en/

    Thursday, September 14
    9:00 - 18:00 Fifth Annual Colloquium on Summorum Pontificum: “A Renewed Youthfulness for the Whole Church”, Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum)
    18:30 Vespers for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross celebrated by His Excellency, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Basilica of St Mark in Piazza Venezia

    Friday, September 15
    16:00 Way of the Cross (Colosseum area) led by the Institute of the Good Shepherd
    19:00 Solemn Mass celebrated by Rev. Mons. Gilles Wach, Superior General of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Basilica of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva Saturday

    Saturday, September 16
    9:00 Eucharistic Adoration, Chiesa di Santa Maria in Vallicella (Chiesa Nuova)
    9:45 Solemn Procession through the streets of Rome led by His Excellency, Archbishop Guido Pozzo
    11:00 Pontifical Mass celebrated by His Eminence, Carlo Cardinal Caffara, St Peter’s Basilica, with choir directed by maestro Aurelio Porfiri
    13:30 Buffet lunch for clergy (registration required), sponsored by Paix Liturgique and FIUV (International Federation Una Voce)

    Sunday, September 17
    11:00 Solemn High Mass in the Dominican Rite celebrated by Rev. Fr Dominique-Marie de Saint-Laumer, General Prior of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini

    0 0

    Card. Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, recently had an article in the French magazine La Nef; in it, he discusses among other things the mutual enrichment of the two Forms of the Roman Rite which Pope Benedict proposed in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The text has not yet been made available on their website, but someone provided Fr Zuhlsdorf with an English translation, which he reads (with an introduction) in a podcast posted here.

    Yesterday, the Catholic Herald published a commentary on the La Nef article by Fr Raymond de Souza, “Cardinal Sarah’s challenge to traditionalists.”
    (Quoting the Cardinal) “ ‘Reform of the reform’ has become synonymous with dominance of one clan over the other, … This expression may then become inappropriate, so I prefer to speak of liturgical reconciliation. In the Church, the Christian has no opponent!”
    Reconciliation means movement from both “clans”, as it were. That is likely to encounter opposition from some, perhaps many, traditionalist quarters.
    Sarah proposes that efforts be made to have a shared calendar and a shared lectionary, so that both the EF and OF would celebrate more feasts together and have the same Scripture readings at Mass.
    That poses a twofold challenge. First, it requires the EF community to acknowledge that some aspects of the OF, particularly its reformed calendar and its lectionary – which includes far more Scripture than the EF one – are actual improvements and possible enrichments for the EF.
    But others, not an insignificant part, consider the entire OF to be an impoverishment with little, if anything, enriching to offer. …
    For example, EF devotees often speak about the simplified OF calendar as being too banal – “Ordinary Time” instead of Sundays after Pentecost – and consider it a mistake to have abandoned Passiontide and the octave of Pentecost. They are right about that, but thinning out the number of feast days of obscure saints and incorporating the more recently canonised is more controversial.
    A shared lectionary would require a shared Sunday calendar at least, which could not be achieved without significant changes in both the current EF and OF calendars. And while there is wide consensus that the OF lectionary is superior, it is not universal, and any move towards it would encounter stiff opposition. Sarah knows of such positions, and warns us against treating the EF as a “museum object” locked forever in 1962.
    The gist of this, therefore, is that the much of the discussion of “mutual enrichment” has really been about unilateral enrichment, the idea that the customs of the EF can obviously enrich the OF in a variety of ways, (he specifically cites ad orientem celebration, greater use of Latin, and more silence, a subject near and dear to His Eminence’s heart) but that the OF brings little or nothing to the table for enrichment of the EF. The challenge to traditionalists would therefore be to accept certain aspects of the OF that can indeed enrich the EF.

    Today, Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society published, also on the Catholic Herald, a reply, “Why Cardinal Sarah’s liturgical ‘reconciliation’ plan won’t work.” Painful as this is to write, I cannot help but agree with Shaw when he says:
    (Card. Sarah’s) reasons are confusing, but his proposals are unworkable. … (he) explains: ‘ “Reform of the reform” has become synonymous with dominance of one clan over the other.’ He prefers the phrase ‘liturgical reconciliation’.
    The ‘Reform of the Reform’ is a movement among practitioners of the Ordinary Form, who argue over Latin, chant, the direction of worship, altar girls, and so on. It is one of the advantages of the Extraordinary Form that we don’t have to get into these battles. Cardinal Sarah, however, seems to want to solve the endless squabbling by bringing the older Mass into the equation as well.
    I would to add some observations of my own to what Dr Shaw goes on to say about the very real practical difficulties of “reconciling” the two features to which His Eminence and Fr de Souza refer. First, I must add that I wholeheartedly concur with him when he concludes by saying that “(a)bove all I would like to suggest that the Church has nothing to fear from a varied liturgical landscape ... Vatican II reassured us on this point (Unitatis redintegratio 17): ‘…from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting.’ ”

    In consideration of the calendar, an important distinction must first be made, one which Fr de Souza blurs in talking about the octave of Pentecost and “obscure Saints” at the same time. Both Forms of the Roman Rite have within them two calendars, the Temporal and the Sanctoral. The difference between the two calendars of Saints is far less important than the difference between the two Temporal cycles. The Church has always had varying calendars of the Saints; as I noted in this article from 2011, after Pope St Pius X’s Breviary reform, which also affected local calendars in many regards, St Peter’s Basilica still kept almost sixty feasts which were not on the General Calendar of the Roman Rite.

    The Temporal cycle, on the other hand, was one of the stablest parts of the Roman Rite throughout its long and varied history. There are few notable differences between the features of it attested in the oldest Roman lectionaries and sacramentaries in the seventh and eighth centuries, and that of the Missal of St Pius V; those which do exist consist almost entirely of the addition of feasts such as Corpus Christi. It hardly needs repeating that the fathers of Vatican II did not in any way ask for or envision the drastic mutilation of the Temporal perpetrated by the post-Conciliar reformers.

    This brings us to the second point, regarding the lectionary. Since very few feasts are allowed precedence over a Sunday, the average Sunday Mass goer encounters the Temporal part of it much more than the Sanctoral part. Joseph Shaw is also absolutely correct to note that because the two lectionaries are based on two different Temporal cycles, and are therefore incompatible. The integration of either one into the other is simply impossible without damaging it beyond repair; I cannot imagine that those who truly love either Form of the Roman Rite want that to happen. (This does not even begin to address the equally important questions of the number of readings and the three-year vs. one-year cycle.)

    I also cannot imagine why Fr de Souza writes that “there is wide consensus that the OF lectionary is superior,” when almost every feature of it has been argued against and contested from every point of view. The new lectionary’s creators were thoroughly convinced that they were restoring an ancient custom of the Roman Rite when they introduced the three-reading system for Sundays and solemnities; this is now known to be completely untenable. Many years ago, I attended a lecture by the grand doyen of liberal Biblical scholars, Fr Raymond Brown, on the Epistles of St Paul. He pointed out that in Ordinary Time, the first reading is chosen in relation to the Gospel, while the Epistles run between them in broadly canonical order, and are not chosen in reference to them; the new lectionary therefore almost guarantees that priests will rarely preach on the writings of St Paul.

    Even if one regards the new calendar and lectionary as unmitigated triumphs in every way, we simply cannot dismiss as mere partisanship the question of why the phrase “Reform of the Reform” came into existence in the first place. Pope Benedict XVI himself famously described the current state of the liturgy as a “sad ruin,” compared both to what it had been before the Council, and what the most recent ecumenical Council wanted it to be. A great deal of progress has been made to improving the liturgy, but much of it by way of eliminating abuses which ought never to have been inflicted on the faithful in the first place, much less tolerated for a single day. Exemplary celebrations of the OF Mass, such as those of St Agnes in Minneapolis-St Paul or the London Oratory, are extremely rare. It is pointless to deny that many bishops and religious superiors would not tolerate attempts by their clergy to emulate the practices of such churches. Whole nations remain untouched by this progress; model celebrations of the Ordinary Form of the Mass remain vanishingly rare in Italy, for example.

    Fortunately, when Pope Benedict called for “mutual enrichment” of the two Forms, he established no criteria for determining the conditions under which it might take place. I hazard to suggest two such conditions. One would be to put the OF house in order by purging out its many scholarly falsehoods, and deleterious practices like allowing the celebrant to choose the Eucharistic prayer. The other would be to clock in couple of a centuries in which even a substantial minority of the faithful can attend a Mass celebrated according to the mind of the Fathers of Vatican II.

    0 0

    At the kind invitation of Dom Mark Kirby, O.S.B., I delivered a lecture this past Tuesday, July 18, at Silverstream Priory in Ireland, entitled "Liturgical Obedience, the Imitation of Christ, and the Seductions of Autonomy." The full audio with Q&A may be found here (the lecture is about 45 minutes, and the Q&A 17 minutes).

    Some excerpts from the as-yet unpublished manuscript:
           Given what I have said about liturgy as inherently hierarchical, otherworldly, ecstatic, and absolute in its demands over us, it is entirely in keeping with the devil’s strategy to destabilize, democratize, secularize, and relativize the liturgy here on earth. He seeks to loosen our bond with a fixed and efficacious tradition. He seeks to smudge in our perceptions, and, eventually, to obliterate in our minds, the distinction between sacred and profane, formal and informal, fitting and unfitting.  He seeks to darken or blot out the manifestation of the heavenly hierarchy in the earthly distinctions of sacred ministers and their complementary but non-interchangeable roles.  He seeks to persuade us — particularly the clergy — that the liturgy is not the font and apex of the Christian life, but only one means among many for advancing a “Christian agenda.”
           The devil knows he cannot prevent some advancement of the Christian faith, but he is well aware that nothing comes close to the liturgy’s power for hallowing the Name of God and establishing His kingdom in our midst, giving us our daily nourishment, and moving us to the forgiveness of sins and the avoidance of sins. In truth, liturgy is an end in itself because it is God’s peculiar possession and makes us His peculiar possession. If the devil can convince us that liturgy is not an end in itself, but rather, that it is a helpful tool we should manipulate for ulterior ends, then he has already won half the battle for souls. He has shaken our fundamental orientation to the heavenly Jerusalem and the kingdom that will have no end. 
           One of the great strengths of the traditional Latin liturgy is that it leaves nothing to the will or imagination of the priest (and the same may be said of every minister in the sanctuary). It choreographs his moves, dictates his words, shapes his mind and heart to itself, to make it utterly clear that it is Christ who is acting in and through him.  In the words of the Psalmist: “Know ye that the Lord he is God: he made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people and the sheep of his pasture” (Psa 99:3). Sheep are to follow the lead of their shepherd. The clergy is not and will never be the first principle of the liturgy; as St. Thomas Aquinas says with sobering humility, the priest or other cleric is an “animate instrument” of the Eternal High Priest: “Holy orders does not constitute a principal agent, but a minister and a certain instrument of divine operation.” Ministers are like rational hammers or chisels or saws, by which a greater artisan will accomplish His work of sanctification, while conferring on them the immense dignity of resting in His hand and partaking of His action.
           [...] The clergy are privileged tools, to be sure, but they are still tools; and the liturgy remains the work of Christ, the High Craftsman, the carpenter of the ark of the covenant, the architect of the heavenly Jerusalem, the New Song and its cantor. In its external form, in text and music and ceremonial, the liturgy should luminously proclaim that it is the work of Christ and His Church, not the product of a charismatic individual or a grassroots community.
           [S]ince free choice is antithetical to liturgy as a fixed ritual received from our forebears and handed down faithfully to our successors, choice tends rather to be a principle of distraction, dilution, or dissolution in the liturgy than of its well-being. The same critique may be given of all of the ways in which the new liturgy permits the celebrant an indeterminate freedom of speech, bodily bearing, and movement. Such voluntarism strikes at the very essence of liturgy, which is a public, objective, formal, solemn, and common prayer, in which all Christians are equally participants, even when they are performing irreducibly distinct acts. The prayer of Christians belongs to everyone in common, which means it cannot belong to anyone in particular. The moment a priest invents something that is not common, he sets himself up as a clerical overlord vis-à-vis the people, who must now submit not to a rule of Christ and the Church, but to the arbitrary rule of this individual. 
    Go to this link to listen to or download the audio of the entire lecture.


    (Photo courtesy of Silverstream Priory.)

    0 0

    O happy Mary of happy merit, that first among mortals did merit to see the Son of God rising from the dead; for whose love thou disdained the blandishments of the world: * by thy prayer, we ask thee, commend us to Him with diligence. V. That with thee, o Lady, we may merit to enjoy his most happy presence. By thy prayer... (The eighth responsory of Matins of St Mary Magdalene in the Dominican Breviary.)

    The Risen Christ Appears to St Mary Magdalene, by Lavinia Fontana, 1581
    R. O felix felícis mériti María, quae resurgentem a mórtuis Dei Filium vidére meruisti mortalium prima! Pro cujus amore, saeculi contempsisti blandimenta: * sédula nos apud ipsum, quaesumus, prece commenda. V. Ut tecum mereámur, o Dómina, pérfrui felicíssima ipsíus praesentia. Sédula...

    0 0

    In the old city of Innsbruck one finds the rather impressive Jesuit church dedicated to the Most Holy Trinity, adjacent to the Theology Faculty. This is and has long been a major center for Jesuit studies.

    The Theology Faculty building, abutting the church
    When one enters the church, one is confronted with a highly ornate screen that separates the atrium from the nave:

    A major Marian statue from Belgium, Our Lady of Foja, “Mother of Mercy,” found its way to this church and is now venerated at a side altar, beneath a painting of the Annunciation:
    Not surprisingly, one of the side altars is dedicated to St. Ignatius of Loyola, with a typically ornate Baroque altar beneath the painting:
    In Austria one sees some of the most marvelous reliquaries. Here are two particularly elaborate ones contained in this church, although I was unable to identify the contents:
    I am not entirely sure who this saint is or what he is doing; perhaps a reader could comment?
    Another side chapel honors the secondary Patron of Innsbruck, St. Pirminius (+753), whose relics are housed here. (The primary Patron is St. Peter Canisius.) This side chapel, like the others, contains carved benches intended for daily Mass-goers at a time when the side altars were used for private Masses.
    Naturally, the church features a wall-mounted elevated pulpit, although not nearly so elaborate as others from the Baroque period:
    The sanctuary of the church features what is perhaps the most hideous contrast between old and new that I have ever seen. The juxtaposition stretched my understanding of aesthetic self-mutilation to new heights. The Jesuits’ own website offers a moralizing interpretation: “The contrast between the reconstructed baroque altar and the modern nave altar of stone and metal expresses the task of a church: it should stand rooted in a long tradition and, at the same time, with both feet in the present.” I leave it to the reader to discern for him- or herself how successfully this task has been achieved:
    (This latter photo is from the church’s own website; I did not have this vantage.)
    We headed downstairs into the crypt where the remains of the Jesuits of Innsbruck are buried behind modest wooden signs. By far the two most famous Jesuits to be buried here are the eminent liturgical scholar Josef Jungmann (1889-1975), whose flawed perspectives on liturgical history were invoked as justification for the wholesale reconstruction of the Roman Rite in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, and Karl Rahner (1904-1984), who disguised his radical revision of Christianity behind a scholastic veneer.
    Later on, my host took me to a restaurant a couple of blocks away that was said to be Rahner’s favorite place to dine. I have only one photo of it -- and I don't know which table he sat at!

    0 0

    In response to a query from the Cappella Gregoriana Sanctae Cæciliae, a traditional rite choir based in the Philippines, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has issued a clarification on the subject of the so-called Pontifical Sung Mass. The historical custom of the Church has been that a bishop may celebrate either a Low Mass of the type known as a missa praelatitia, or a full solemn High Pontifical Mass, attended by an assistant priest, deacon, subdeacon, the requisite minor ministers, and of course a choir; there was no provision for a bishop to sing Mass without the major ministers, analogous to the priest’s Missa cantata.

    The first permission for a bishop’s sung Mass was given by the decree Inter oecumenici, which was issued on September 26, 1964, and became legally active on March 7 of the following year. This decree states simply that “It is allowed, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.” Wholly in keeping with that era’s nascent liturgical chaos, it says nothing about which, if any, ceremonies of the Pontifical Mass are to be retained, or whether the bishop is to simply pretend to not be a bishop when exercising the fullness of the priesthood vested in him as a successor of the Apostles.

    The PCED has now formally clarified that, since this provision was not in force in 1962, according to the terms of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and the instruction Universae Ecclesiae, is not licit to celebrate a Pontifical Sung Mass. (Click image to enlarge. Thanks to the Capella Gregoriana Sanctae Caeciliae for making this available to us.)



    0 0

    I wrote recently about some ideas for guiding principles by which we might create a canon of art for Roman Rite churches, and a schema that would guide the placement of such images in a church.

    I now plan on a series of articles describing the key elements of images of the saints of the Roman Canon - Eucharistic Prayer I - and the major feasts of the year. My hope is that it may stimulate interest in some of you to realize such schemes of art in your church. As I say in the article linked above, the goal is also to engender a manner of worship in which the faithful engage fruitfully with holy images while participating in the liturgy.

    This is quite a big project, and so I don’t expect to do the whole thing in the course of one year. I don’t know if I have the time to do the research and writing for the complete set in that time, but I will do the best I can. I am heartened by the fact that even for our own Shawn Tribe, who for many years was tireless in posting several times a day on this site, two years elapsed between his feature The Saints of the Roman Canon, Part 1 and its reprise The Saints of the Roman Canon, Part 2! My general plan is to cover the Saints first, and then the feasts, but I always go where my curiosity takes me, so I will throw in a great feast from time to time in this first year. I have created the tag “Canon of Art for the Roman Rite”, so that should any be interested, they can access the accumulating body of articles at any time.

    Anyway, so here we go...

    Today, July 25th, is the feast of St James the Greater, the Son of Zebedee.
    The images of St James are simple, and it would not always be easy to recognise him - except that in order to be worthy of veneration, the name of the saint should appear on or beside every image! In traditional iconography, he is depicted bearded with short, brown curly hair. He was martyred only 10 years after the Resurrection, and is ordinarily not seen with grey hair to indicate that he did not live to old age. He holds a scroll, which is an indication of divine wisdom. In Western images, the equivalent might be also the holding of a book. The icon below is from the late 18th century.

    In Western images, he is often depicted with longer hair, still usually brown and curly, and holding a pilgrim’s staff, a reference to the tradition that he is buried at Santiago de Compostela. This is, of course, still a very important pilgrimage site to this day, and many people every year follow all or part of the Way of St James from France to the final destination in Spain.

    Here is a 14th century depiction by Pere Serra, who lived and worked in Cataloniam with Ss Peter, Clare, James, and John the Evangelist.

    Below is one of my favourite images of him, painted by the baroque master, Guido Reni. (1636-38)

    A contemporary painting by the Spanish baroque master, Alonso Cano.

    And a 15th century Spanish statuette in stone.

    For the fullest presentation of the principles of sacred art for the liturgy, take the Master’s of Sacred Arts at www.Pontifex.University.