A new liturgy war? Magnum principium

Pope Francis has promulgated a Motu Proprio,  Magnum principium, giving Bishops’ Conferences somewhat more authority over the translations used in their areas. Conferences always had a lot to do with translations, and Rome still has the final say, so I have to defer to others who understand these things exactly what, if any, difference this is going to make. 

I don't expect the English speaking bishops to start making big changes, as everyone sensible is thoroughly exhausted by the revision of 2011. The amount of time, money, and energy required for this things is gigantic. However, I suppose we can expect liturgical progressive to initiate a renewed debate about ‘inclusive language’, ‘pro multis’, and the word ‘ineffable’, because they will always do that given half a chance. 

Is the EF dangerous to souls?

A number of people have commented on the Fisher More College situation, saying that the Bishop's banning of the Traditional Mass on campus is a response to various Bad Things happening in the college. Exactly the same thing has been said about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

The people who say this often add that banning the EF seems an odd way to address the problems, and I agree. But while I don't know if the claims about the motivations involved in either case are true, I would like to address the idea that frequent attendance at the Traditional Mass can be a danger to your soul. This argument was often hinted at before Summorum Pontificum, and if it is making a comeback that is a little worrying.

A brief autobiographical note. As I've mentioned before, for a number of years I attended the Novus Ordo in Latin. I bought myself a little booklet with the Latin and the English side by side. After a while I noticed something rather strange. Here is the booklet I used to use, open at the bit in Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) immediately after the Eucharistic Acclamation. The Latin is on the left, the English, the official 1974 ICEL translation, on the right.

The weird thing is that the Latin text is a lot longer than the English translation. It is exaggerated by the fact that the Latin is divided into more paragraphs than the English, and uses shorter lines, but closer examination reveals that a large number of words and indeed whole phrases were not being translated.

Now this is the scandal of the 'old ICEL' translation which has now been addressed by the new translation. At what cost of effort and conflict, we all know, and we must be grateful to Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for persisting with it. Because what 'old ICEL' said was this: there had been a concerted effort, accepted if not instigated by the very highest authority in the Church - let's not say, 'conspiracy' - to present a systematically one-sided - let's not say, 'falsified' - version of the Church's liturgical tradition. If you get into this, if you start reading about it, you realise it neither began nor ended with ICEL. And I don't mean reading books written by tin-foil hatted trads; the strongest dosage of conspiracy theory-stuff can often be found in the books of triumphalist liberals.

Once you become aware of all this, one can become a bit distracted while attending the Novus Ordo, by being reminded of all the things which are missing, added, or changed, for highly controversial reasons, and also by liturgical abuses. (At one point I started counting liturgical abuses at the Masses I attended. Not a good was to participate in the Holy Sacrifice.) Furthermore, every celebration of the Novus Ordo, one realises, can be read in terms of the views and preferences of the celebrant, and the battles he may have had with members of the congregation. Bidding Prayers are often the scene of conflicts, and what they are like can tell you a lot about the parish. The use of Extraordinary Ministers, and exactly what they do, is also fascinating, in a deeply unhelpful way. (Do they receive Communion at the same time as the Priest? Do they cleanse the Sacred Vessels? Do they put things in and out of the Tabernacle? Do they genuflect?)

In this frame of mind, it can be a huge relief to go to the Old Mass, the Vetus Ordo. It can feel as if, for the first time for a long while, one is able to stop worrying about the political meaning of every detail, and just pray. What happens in Mass is, essentially, what the Church has done for centuries. It happens simply because the Church has done it for centuries. I don't mean it has no meaning, I just mean that the priest hasn't decided that because of his personal views this meaning is good and let's do it today. He is doing it in accordance with Tradition. Those attending can stop campaigning for more Latin, for fewer Marxist bidding prayers, or to stop the Extraordinary Ministers wearing skirts which make genuflection either impossible or indecent. They can just participate in Mass and develop their spiritual lives.

We used to hear a lot about our desire for the Traditional Mass being a 'personal preference', with the implication that this was a bad thing. I can't help being amused by this. Have those who use this phrase not noticed the role of personal preferences in celebrations of the Ordinary Form?

I am by no means saying that everyone who attends the Traditional Mass has gone through this mental process. I do think, however, that the ones which people - perhaps including Bishop Olsen of Fort Worth, Texas, or Fr Volpi, the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate - are most worried about, may well have. The ones who those people worry might end up with the SSPX or as sede vacantists; the ones who get a bit worked up about these things.

What I want to say is this: those people, the ones who get worked up, are not going to be helped by being deprived of the the Vetus Ordo  and forced to go to the Novus Ordo. If they are really worked up, it is more likely to drive them even more nuts. For them, Pope Benedict's liberalisation of the Extraordinary Form was truly pastoral: it made it possible for them to remain in the Church in a serene fashion, and to make spiritual progress. To calm down, in fact.

Attending the Traditional Mass may make people realise that the Mass has changed rather radically, and this may start the train of thought I described above. But any contact with reality can do that: looking at the religious art in an art gallery, reading about the history of the Church, looking at old church buildings. You can't hope that people will never realise that the Mass used to be said in Latin and ad orientem. What you can do is to make the point, as Pope Benedict did, that however much has changed, the Church has not repudiated the past. What was sacred in the past is sacred now; what was doctrine in the past is still doctrine now. This relieves us of the necessity of double-think, which actually drives you mad after a while.

Suppose the wretched Franciscans of the Immaculate are as bad as their critics claim; suppose the wretched Michael King, President of Fisher More College, is as bad as his critics claim. For heaven's sake don't deprive them of this spiritual solace, of the Traditional Mass. It is cruel, it is unjust, and it will make whatever theological or political problems there may be much, much worse.



Photos of Low Masses celebrated during the LMS Priest Training Conference in Leicester in 2013.

Fighting a lost war: Loftus on the new translation of the 1970 Missal

Young people fleeing the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Mass 

Mgr Loftus is helping me catch up with his columns by writing twice on the same theme in successive weeks: the old standby, the new translation of the Novus Ordo.

In the column of 4th August, he makes a truly contorted argument against the translation of 'pro multis' by 'for many'. It really is a tour de force of confusion and non-sequiters, which would be too tedious to retype. But, in a nutshell:

People of all ages being 'alienated' by the ancient liturgy

1. Pope Francis has said that Christ died for everyone.
2. Hang on, so did Pope Benedict!
3. So Pope Benedict must have been contradicting himself when he said that the ancient liturgical text be translated accurately.

Does Loftus really think that the Pontiff Emeritus is that stupid? And is it really impossible that Loftus has lived so long without coming across the very simple explanation? Let me state it as simply as possible:

Christ's blood is available to all. Christ's blood is actually efficacious not for all, but only for many.

It is true that Christ died for all. It is also true, in a different sense, that his blood is shed - efficaciously, with salvific effect - only for many. I'm not aware of anyone denying the first proposition. Plenty deny the second, and they are wrong to do so; the correct translation of the formula shows that they are wrong, with the authority of this very ancient liturgical text. Until Loftus can produce an authoritative teaching from Pope Francis or Pope Benedict that all are saved, then he can forget about showing that there is anything theologically problematic about the translation. If, per impossibile, this did happen, it would not only contradict the Church's immemorial refusal to accept 'Universalism', the theory that all are saved, but also the liturgical text itself. We'd have to change, not just the translation, but the original. The Latin just does not say 'all', but 'many'.

Clearly these young folk can't stand all that Latin.

With the column of 11th August, he assumes, without any real argument, that Pope Francis will agree with him about everything.

What a pity, then, that Francis was not Pope in time to abort the monstrously over-intellectual new English translation of the Roman Missal, which far from furnishing us with a 'grammar of simplicity', obfuscates the whole Mass through tortuous constructions, contorted vocabulary, and a plethora of dependant clauses. [Is this a parodying illustration of the style he is criticising? No, it's just the Loftus muse doing her stuff.]
...
     As we wait for all this to be corrected we can at least rejoice that it is highly unlikely that further inroads will be made into the translation of the lectionary readings at Mass, or the Children's Eucharistic Prayers. Or if there is any progress to be made, then it will be in different hands from those which now must be completely disqualified.
... Too much tidiness not only makes for unhappiness, in the Church as in a family, but it particularly alienates the young.

Don't hold your breath, Mgr. It took a decade to get the new translation through. No one is going to undo that any time time.

Loftus, of course, knows all about what alienates the young: he's been an expert at doing it for half a century at least. Does he really think that non-chaotic liturgy and accurate translation alienates the young? The older translation didn't exactly set the Faithful on fire (recall what the sociologist Anthony Archer said about it). But the free-wheeling liturgies Loftus wants have in all seriousness driven two generations of young Catholic out of school Masses and University chaplaincies: hasn't he noticed?

Congregation at a Mass during the LMS Walsingham Pilgrimage. They must be mad. 

This is what many young people like: order, dignity, reverence, a sense of the sacred. I can't say 'all', most of them haven't had the chance to experience it; others have been indoctrinated against it with some effect. But it is attractive to an important percentage, and it is often the same ones who are seeking a life in accordance with the laws of God. They actually want to be Catholics.

Come and meet them on the Walsingham Pilgrimage next weekend: 22-24 August.
Sign up here.

Was the true Council betrayed? Reply to 'Savoranola'

The real Savoranola

The real Savoranola would have given pretty short shrift to the individual who has taken on his name for the purpose of making anonymous swipes at orthodox Catholics in blog comms boxes (not to be confused with @frasavonarola), but I think it is worth making a response to the more substantive part of what he's put under yesterday's post, since (as he says), he speaks for many, though perhaps not quite as many as he imagines (and pretty few under 70):

'I think you should know that there are probably many many Catholics who have for a long time been dismayed by the way in which the great and inspiring vision of Vatican II for the renewal of the Church has been betrayed and undermined by members of the hierarchy (who is really being disloyal to the authority of the Church?) and are very grateful that there are people like Basil Loftus who still uphold that vision and are given a platform by the Catholic Times.' 

The great liberal myth of the Betrayal of the Council is that, when the Holy Ghost descended upon the Council Fathers, the 'Curia' (boo! hiss!) and the 'hierarchy' (boo! hiss!) clamped down and did not allow the wonderful things, which the Council demanded, to happen. The result being that the Council has never been fully implemented, and the fruits have not developed as they should. This is the kind of story you'll find on the little-visited websites of groups such as 'Catholics for a Changing Church'.

One difficulty they always have is quoting Council texts to support their case. When they try to do this, either it is a rather vague and general aspiration, or it is something they have taken out of context. For the fact is, looking at the texts, it is abundantly clear that the reforms which followed the Council went much further than had been intended by the Council Fathers: so, far from the process of Reform demanded by the Council being stifled by the wicked hierarchs after the Council had closed, it would be more accurate to say that it was hijacked by zealots who took the changes to extraordinary lengths. And then, of course, there was a lot of disobedience to the new rules, also in a liberal direction.

Cardinal Ottaviani: legendary
opponent of Conciliar liberalism

Let me give a few examples. The Council gave permission for a 'greater use of the vernacular' in the Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium 63). The context makes it clear that it was the 'people's parts' which were under consideration, and this is reflected by the very earliest reforms, which allowed the use of the vernacular in the parts of the Mass where there is a dialogue between priest and people, and the readings. When the Dominican Cardinal Browne said, in the Council, that if the vernacular were allowed in part, it would take over, the other Council Fathers laughed at him. Yes, they laughed at the idea that the Canon of the Mass should be translated. They didn't make it explicit that it must not be, but it clearly wasn't what they intended to happen. If we want to know what the Council documents say, we look at them and read, in the same section (63) quoted above: 'Latin is to be retained'.

So what happened was that the people implementing the reform persuaded Pope Paul VI to permit a reform far, far more radical than that considered by the Council Fathers. Is this what 'Savoranola' means by the 'vision' of the Council being 'betrayed and undermined by members of the hierarchy'?

A very similar process took place with Communion under Both Kinds. The Council (SC55) said that it could be allowed in certain highly restricted cases:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

And so it is no surprise to see in 1970 a document (Sacramentale Communione) implementing this pointing out

'This faculty should not be granted on occasions when there are large numbers of communicants'.

It was persistent disobedience to this, particularly by the then bishops of the United States, which eventually forced the Vatican to give up trying to enforce this restriction. What happened in practice is a far more radical step that anything imagined by the Council Fathers.

An even more radical category of changes includes Altar Girls, Communion in the Hand, Extraordinary Ministers, and Mass 'facing the people': none of these were so much as mentioned in the Council texts. The liberal hotheads might imagine that these innovations were in the 'spirit of the Council'; it all gets rather vague at that point. But what they can't claim is that what the Council demanded was, wickedly, suppressed by dreadful conservatives like Cardinal Ottaviani. What the Council actually demanded, in black and white, in the texts, is something rather limited and mild, compared to what actually happened.

The internet is the great boon for us on the subject. Everyone can see the documents for themselves, they can link to them, they can put dubious quotes into context, they can dig out the more obscure things which the Vatican website prefers not to publish from other sources (such as EWTN). The difficulty of getting hold of the real documents made possible the wholescale misrepresentation of the Council by the liberals which dominated public consciousness for decades. I'm sorry, 'Savoranola': you can't do that any more.

The Mass of the Council: at the LMS AGM on Sunday, St George's Cathedral, Southwark

For more on many of these issues see the FIUV's short and well-documented Position Papers:

Latin as a Liturgical Language

Liturgical Orientation

The Manner of Receiving Communion

The Service of the Altar by Men and Boys

An open letter to Mgr Basil Loftus

St Peter Canisius, hammer of 

heretics: ora pro nobis

Mgr Basil Loftus has picked up his pen to write to me. This is what he wrote.

4th June 2013
Dear Dr Shaw,
May I once again ask you to refrain from garnishing your 'blog' with offensive illustrations when you refer to me. My attention has been drawn to yet another instance of this jejune, hurtful and totally unacceptable practice in you 'blog' of 29 May.
     It is particularly worrying that within the same computer-reference parameters (www.lmschairman) on 1 December 2012 you spell our your connection with St Benet's Hall, "my own academic home". You are already damaging the once conciliatory and respected Latin Mass Society with your personally vitriolic writings. Please do not also try to tarnish yet another well-loved institution.
     Your purported 'cartoons' have succeeded in their clear intent to cause hurt and harassment. Now, I ask you again to desist.
     Yours sincerely,
          Basil Loftus.


This is an interesting letter on a number of levels, and I think it is worthy of a reply. I am today sending him this open letter.

Dear Mgr Loftus,

Thank you for your letter of 4th June.

I am sorry you feel hurt and harassed by my blog posts about you. You may like to consider, however, the hurt and harassment you cause each week in your columns in that once respected Catholic newspaper, The Catholic Times.

As I have begun to chronicle more regularly, almost every column of yours attacks, in the most sneering and disrespectful tones, those Catholics in good standing with whom you happen to disagree. Allow me to illustrate the point briefly.

St John the Baptist: didn't mince his words

In your column of 26th May, to which my blog post of 29th was a response, you seek to ridicule priests who distribute communion at Mass from the Tabernacle: 'imitating the television cook who explains: "Here's one I prepared earlier"'. As you by implication acknowledge, this practice is widespread, permitted by liturgical law, and in accordance with immemorial tradition. It is not to your taste, but rather than offering a reasoned argument against it you use a degrading comparison which is disrespectful both to your fellow priests and to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

In the same column, you described the new English translation of the 1970 Missal as  'unwanted and unwelcome, artificial and stilted, unprofessional and occasionally theologically inaccurate', in relation to which 'priest and people lose the will to live', and which constitutes 'oppression'. This is vitriolic language, directed at something promulgated officially by the Church, and by implication at those who prepared and authorised it, such as Mgr Andrew Wadsworth of ICEL, Bishop Roche of your own old diocese, and Pope Benedict XVI. Do you really think that this is an appropriate way in which to treat such a complex and delicate matter? Do you believe that that this way of addressing the Church's officials, including the Pontiff Emeritus, reflects the respect due to them, and the heavy burdens it is their duty to bear?

The Prophet Jeremiah: didn't opt for the
quiet life when faced with evil

In the same column you wrote 'And every week people in many parishes are deprived of fuller participation because, in total contravention of an explicit General Instruction in the Roman Missal, their view is impeded by a crucifix and six candlesticks.' This is an even more direct attack on Pope Benedict XVI who, I venture to say, had more authority to speak and act both on the meaning of liturgical legislation and on the best ways to foster liturgical participation than you do yourself. Granted that this is a subject open to free discussion, do you really think that your manner of addressing it is compatible with a proper respect for the Office of the Papacy?

It is not enough, however, for you to attack your fellow priests and your hierarchical superiors in this disedifying way, for you extend your campaign of degradation to the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. In your subsequent column of 2nd June, you attempt to cast doubt on three of her titles: 'the idea of Mary as 'co-redemptrix' is simply a non-starter', 'Some mediation on the part of Mary is part of her role - but clearly not for "all" graces', and 'Pope Paul VI cheated, and referred to Mary as "Mother of the Church" during one of his private documents during the Council' The suggestion in each case is that the titles are theologically inappropriate and not upheld officially by the Church. Since I doubt that you are entirely ignorant of the truth of the matter, it is hard to excuse you of mendacity in this case, something all the more extraordinary in the context of the honour due to Our Lady, intimately related as it is to the most heartfelt aspects of the piety of the simple Faithful.

Our Blessed Lord: not exactly flattering
toward the Lakeside Towns

Is is really possible that you do not know that the title co-redemptrix was, at least implicitly, upheld by Pope St Pius X in his Encyclical Ad diem illum (1904) 14? 

On the title 'Mother of the Church', can you really be so deluded as to have convinced yourself that Paul VI's Address to the Second Vatican Council on September 21, 1964 was a 'private document'? Can you possibly describe his Encyclical Solemni hac liturgia of 1968, in which the title is repeated, as a 'private document'? And what of the addition of this title to the Litany of Our Lady by Blessed Pope John Paul II: does this not count as an official public act?

On the title 'Mediatrix of All Graces', what you regard as 'clearly not' true was affirmed as not only true but suitable for a public liturgical celebration by Pope Benedict XV in 1920. Do you perhaps imagine yourself to be superior, not only in wisdom but in magisterial authority and legislative power, to a succession of Supreme Pontiffs?

In your columns you have deployed your invective against good Catholics at every level of the Church. You have made The Catholic Times notorious for your rudeness, insensitivity, and divisiveness. You have trampled on the piety and traditions of the simplest of the Faithful and of the Holy Father alike. And now you complain that my blog posts about you cause 'hurt', that they aren't as 'conciliatory' as the Latin Mass Society was wont to be, and that they are 'personally vitriolic'. I think readers of my blog and your column will find the mote-and-beam comparison here easy to make.

Edmund Burke (attrib) 'All that is necessary for
the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'

I wish to end, however, on a conciliatory note nevertheless. I will undertake to cease writing these posts about you, with or without the illustrations you find so offensive, on one simple condition: that you similarly cease to write your columns, and also the letters to the Catholic press in which you carry on the same themes. You have had a good many years and a good large space to set out your ideas. The debate within the Church has moved away from your views in so many ways. Isn't this a good moment to give it up? Or, as you put it, 'I ask you again to desist.'

Failing this, I will on the contrary undertake to make reasoned criticisms of as much of your output as I can, as I have been doing in recent weeks, lest lack of contradiction give your views specious credibility. 

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Shaw

Colin Mawby on the new Missal texts and censorship

This is part of the talk Colin Mawby gave at the Gregorian Chant Network weekend course, 9th April this year.



It has been on Gloria TV for a bit and Fr Andrew Wadsworth, who works for ICEL, has commented:

Mr Mawby unhelpfully conflates two different considerations: the responsibility of Bishops' Conferences to regulate the publication of music to be used in the celebration of the Mass and the function of ICEL to maintain the integrity of liturgical texts in English and to administer the copyright of such texts on behalf of the Conferences. It is idealistic to imagine that the complex, lengthy and costly process whereby English translations are made and approved could be funded by individual Conferences when the reality of the situation is that the income from such copyright enables the subsidy of the production of liturgical books in those parts of the world where publication would not otherwise be possible.

I'm glad to say I don't have a dog in this fight; the whole thing just seems a bit rum, and I'm very grateful to be using musical materials which are in the public domain.

One of the really handy things about the Old Mass is that vast amounts of the text, in Latin and in various translations, on online. Try finding the Latin texts of the propers of the 1970 Missal and you quickly run into a brick wall. Using copyrighted compositions, too, can be a pain, but anyone wanting to use Chant can download several different editions of the chant for the Mass for free, thanks to the Church Music Association of America. The polyphonists of the Schola Abelis have been known to edit their own texts of the music they want directly from the sources.

Cups and Chalices, again

My letter in The Tablet about the alleged vulgarity of the Roman Canon talking about the 'precious chalice' stimulated a predictable mail-bag for their letters page, and they published one response in the mag and another in their 'Letters Extra' page on their website. The appearance of two letters attacking me by name does not seem to justify their publishing a response from me, however, so I'll give the letter I immediately sent them in full below.

First, the letters from the enraged, but clearly terribly confused, liberals. The repetition of the same old point, that New Testament doesn't use the phrase 'precious chalice', unlike the Roman Canon, never seems to stimulate the obvious question: are we talking about a translation of the New Testament, or a translation of the Roman Canon?

Letters, 12th Oct

Perhaps the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw (Letters, 8 October), might go back to the Bible to find the authentic version of what Jesus himself said and did at the Last Supper? All our English translations of the Greek/Aramaic synoptic gospels and St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians refer to “the cup” in their accounts of the institu- tion of the Eucharist. There was no “precious chalice” at the Passover meal in the upper room, despite the use of “hanc praeclarum calicem” in the fifth century, Latin adaptation of the original texts. Wasn’t one of the aims of the new translation of the Mass to bring us closer to biblical sources?

Margaret Smart

Brighton, East Sussex

Note the glorious fantasy of the Aramaic Gospels. This version only exists today in the fevered imaginations of biblical critics, and probably never existed anywhere else. What weight does an imaginary text have in this debate? Does the Church teach that imaginary documents are inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Letters Extra 12th Oct

Joseph Shaw (Letters, 8 October) is right: "he took the cup" is not an accurate translation of the words accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in the Roman Canon. But it is an accurate translation of labon to poterion, (literally, "getting the drinking-cup") which is what we read in Matthew (26:27) and Mark's (14:23) accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. Luke (22:20) and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) use the same word, poterion, which means "cup". There is no suggestion that there was anything praeclarus ("excellent" or "noble") about it, nothing to justify our calling the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper a "precious chalice" – still less "this precious chalice" (hunc means "this"). So what is Dr Shaw claiming: that an uninspired prayer trumps the Word of God?

(Fr) Paul Browne OSB, Leyland, Lancs

My response (directed to the letter published in hard copy, though equally applicable to both).

Margaret Smart (Letter, 15th October) unwittingly illustrates the point she wishes to deny. She clearly thinks that it was a mistake for St Jerome, and his predecessor translators of the gospels into Latin, to use the Latin 'calix' ('chalice') to translate the Greek 'poterion'. She further thinks it was a mistake for Pope St Gelasius I to allow the phrase 'praeclarem calicem' into the Roman Canon. Most interestingly of all, she thinks it was a mistake for Pope Paul VI to retain this phrase in the First Eucharistic Prayer, and allow 'calix' in the others. What she cannot claim is that the new Missal translation is mistaken in giving 'precious chalice' for 'praeclarem calicem'. That is simply what it means.

So her objection, to repeat, is not to the translation, but to the Latin original. She, like many of your correspondants, is rejecting the theological aptness of the 1969 Mass, and of the entire Western liturgical tradition which lies behind it, in relation to this exact phrase.

However, I fancy her objections are based on a misunderstanding. While the chalice may, or may not, have been precious in terms of human craftsmanship, it was certainly precious in terms of its contents. And as the Church accepts Tradition as a source of dogma alongside Scripture, the Roman Canon has its own theological authority.

So here I am, once again defending Archbishop Bugninni and Pope Paul VI against the onslaughts of ignorant people who think they know better. And I shall always defend them in such cases. Insofar as they gave us innovations, what they did is fallible of human nature and can be criticised by Catholics of good will. But insofar as they faithfully passed on to future generations the ancient tradition of the Church, their actions have the authority of that tradition, in this case an unbroken Ordinary Magisterium of fifteen centuries. That authority does not give way to silly letters in The Tablet.

Chalice: the Holy Chalice of Valencia, which has long been claimed to be the 'poterion' used at the Last Supper. The cup part of it is indeed of Our Lord's era, and is made of agate. There is more information on Fr Z's blog.

Attacks on the 1969 Mass

I have just blogged about Dom Sebastian Moore OSB complaining about 'calix' being translated 'chalice'; in the background is the issue that the Roman Canon actually says 'praeclarum calicem' - 'precious chalice' - and the translation Fr Moore prefers simply ignored the 'precious' bit and use the most prosaic word possible to render 'calix'. It similarly ignored the 'holy and venerable hands' which, in the Roman Canon, comes next.

What is at the bottom of this is, as I have said, an attack on the Roman Canon itself: the most important liturgical prayer of the Latin Church. The text of the new Novus Ordo missal is not an immediate issue for me or the Latin Mass Society, but the Roman Canon certainly is.

Fr Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ is pulling the same trick, and it is clear this time. He likes the old translation of

'Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tanto dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea'

simply as

'Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.'

The new translation says

'Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.'

His arguments evade the fact that the words 'under my roof' are simply a translation of the Latin words 'sub tectum meum'. Leave aside, for a moment, the issue of whether we want a more explicit reference to Matthew 8:8, or if that is too complicated, or indeed whether the faithful are too stupid to understand difficult words like 'soul'. The question is: do you want a translation of the Mass at all? The 1973 text simply does not translate the words 'sub tectum meum'. As a translation, it is a failure.

With that in mind, we come back to Cameron-Mowatt's arguments. These aren't arguments about felicity or fidelity of translation. They are arguments that this ancient Mass text (as Cameron-Mowatt observes, this particular Latin text is unchanged from the 1962 Missal) was liturgically defective, and that the 1973 translation was an improvement, not in style but in substance. It is interesting to see that he says that the text may have been appropriate in the context of a liturgical practice in which the faithful received communion only infrequently, so it would not have been defective in 1570, but was in 1970. (His argument as to why that is does not seem very clear to me, but let it pass.)

Obviously the 1969 Mass text, what was called the 'Missa Normativa' at the time, in Latin, was reformed in the context of the modern practice of frequent communion, and retained the full version of this particular text, including 'sub tectum meum'. Fr Cameron-Mowatt thinks that this was a mistake.

From time to time traditionalists are asked: do you attack the 1969 Mass? Do you accept its theological merits? Speaking for myself, and as a matter of LMS policy, the answer is: our concern is to do as the Holy Father has requested, which is to give a place of honour in the Church to the 'riches' represented by the Church's ancient liturgical tradition, not to engage in polemics about the reformed Missal. But here is someone, Fr Cameron-Mowatt SJ, who really is attacking the theological aptness of the Missa Normativa, and doing so from a liberal direction. Less explicitly, Fr Sebastian Moore is doing the same thing, and so are a whole gang of liturgists on the 'Pray Tell' blog and elsewhere, who are kicking up a stink about the new translation. In their view, clearly, Bugnini and his collaborators who put together the Latin text of the Novus Ordo got it badly wrong.

They were wrong to include the phrase 'pro multis'; they were wrong to include 'praeclarem calicem' (and maybe even the whole Roman Canon, as an option); they were wrong to include 'sub tectum meum' and to use the word 'anima' (soul); and so on in case after case. They were wrong in precisely those cases, I suppose, that they retained elements of previous editions of the Roman Missal in the new one. Insofar as there was continuity, there was error.

I begin to feel sorry for Archbishop Bugnini. Who is going to speak up for him, I wonder? But the bigger picture is that these liturgists are attacking the entire liturgical tradition of the Latin Church, even as represented by the post-conciliar editions of the Roman Missal. This is a fact which should be exposed.

(Pictures: Christ hearing the petition of the Centurion to heal his servant, by Veronese; Archbishop Annibale Buggnini.)

Is the Roman Canon vulgar?

This is a question posed, by implication, by Dom Sebastian Moore OSB, in a letter published in The Tablet last weekend (1st October).

The substitution of the word “chalice” for “cup” in the Eucharistic Prayer has already been noted. The unconscious vulgarity of this change, at the most dramatic moment in the whole liturgy, is horrifying, as though the dignity of the word “cup” were not upheld by the hands that held it and passed it round, and to “improve” on this is to make of another good word a genteelism which betrays the mentality of the translator – and three times! It confirms all that we now know, thanks to The Tablet’s preparatory articles, about the process whereby this translation was arrived at.

(Dom) Sebastian Moore OSB
Downside Abbey, Somerset

(That's his photo, from his blog.) They have published my reply:

Dom Sebastian Moore repeats yet again in your letters pages (1st October) the suggestion that the use of the word 'chalice' in the new translation of the Missal is wrong. It would be astonishing if he or anyone could seriously claim that 'he took the cup' is an accurate translation of 'accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas'. If the authors of the Roman Canon had wished to avoid what Fr Moore regards as 'vulgar' they would certainly not have used such flowery language, and substituted a more prosaic word like 'poculum' ('cup') for 'calix'.

It is clear that Fr Moore and your other correspondents are not objecting to the new translation at all, but to the Latin original. This has been used continuously by the Roman church since the time of Pope St Gelasius I, who died in the year 496. Alas, I think the consultation period may have closed.

Yours faithfully,
Joseph Shaw
Chairman, The Latin Mass Society

It makes no sense to suggest that the elevated language of the new missal translation is wrong but the even more elevated language of the original Latin is ok. As well as its frequent doubled adjectives ('holy and venerable') and other poetic tricks the Latin makes free use, for example, of archaism, which has not been allowed in the translation, exotic foreign words, and words only ever used in the context of Christian Latin. If the new translation is vulgar, the Roman canon must be utterly bourgeois.

The idea that only 'nobly simple' things avoid vulgarity, which rejects with disgust not only the Roccoco but the Gothic, which prefers the monotone to the melisma, is thankfully a fad passing away with Fr Moore's generation. It is small minded, petty, and parochial. What person of taste can tolerate only one style, and one, indeed, of only a handful of artists working in only a few decades corresponding to the formative period of their own lives?

Fr Moore's generation had their fun razing irreplaceable altars and dynamiting exquisite churches which they were incapable of understanding. He should allow the painful work of restoration go on without further interference.

Are we asking liberals to act against their conscience?

Liberals in the Catholic Church are a sensitive bunch. Not sensitive to others, of course, but to themselves and their friends. If they see another liberal disciplined, they always defend him, even if (like the former Bishop of Toowoomba in Australia) they would hesitate to agree with what he said. Such disciplinings are extremely rare, but acts of Papal authority are becoming a little more forthright under the present Pope (and God be thanked for that), and the liberals have an increasingly long list of things they disagree with which are actually going to be enforced. They are being compelled to accept things which they can't prevent, such as the Anglican Ordinariate and celebrations of the Traditional Mass; they are being asked to do what they do not want to do, such as use the new Missal translation; and they are being told not to say things they want to say, such as that women can be ordained priests.

I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of Catholic liberals, so the question arises whether their refusal to obey - should they refuse - would be morally justifiable. After all, the Church teaches that we should follow our consciences. Actually, this is almost a truism, since your conscience is that faculty which tells you what you are obliged to do: it would be nonsense to say 'you ought to do what you believe you ought not to do'. So if a liberal Catholic thinks it would be wrong not to be as obstructive as possible to those who want a Traditional Mass, to use the new Missal translation, or to remain silent about the ordination of women, what should they, in conscience do? What would it be reasonable for their superiors to punish them for? And in doing what would they be committing a sin?

A full treatment of this would require a book; I'm just going to make a few points. First, a knee-jerk Ultramontanism which says that you should do whatever you are told by a legitimate authority is wrong. This is called 'Indiscreet Obedience' by St Thomas Aquinas and is a serious error. If you are told to commit a sin, you must not do it, nor do you avoid committing a sin yourself by the plea that you were commanded to do it. The command is no defence because even if the person commanding has legitimate authority that authority does not extend to commanding sins. You are no more obliged to obey the Pope if he tells you to commit fornication than you are obliged to obey a car park attendant if he tells you to hang blue curtains in your living room.

Second, Catholic traditionalists do not find knee-jerk Ultramontanism at all attractive, because although we'd all like to see liberal excesses curbed, we can see what damage this 'I was only obeying orders' mentality did to the Church in the 1960s and 1970s. A large percentage of a generation of priests who were brought up on obedience and (apparently) little else wrecked their churches and drove countless souls out of the practice of the Faith by zealous application of ill-considered initiatives deriving from what they took to be legitimage authority. On closer inspection many of the things encouraged by bishops or Diocesan liturgical directors and the like were contrary to authoritative documents from Rome, but these priests didn't see it as their place to question such things. When asked they would often say that it wasn't their idea, they quite liked the old high altar, the Penny Catechism or whatever it was but they had to obey. This was obedience in wilful ignorance of the rightness or real bindingness of the command.

So not only must you not obey what you know to be a sinful command, but you cannot close your eyes to the possibility that it is sinful and hope for the best. Does that mean Catholics, even those with special vows of obedience, should only obey commands they happen to agree with?

That would appear to be the position of many liberals. Documents from Rome which they don't like go into the wastepaper basket regardless of their level of authority, unless they tickle the recipient's fancy. This is the opposite extreme to what I've called knee-jerk Ultramontanism and is also wrong. The correct position depends on an understanding of what authority in the Church is actually for.

Authority in the Church, like authority in the family and the state, is for the promotion of the Common Good. In the Church this is specifically the good of souls. Commands which are contrary to the good of souls have no binding force, because they are failures as commands, in the same way that they would be failures if they were not promulgated, or asked you to do something yesterday, or to breath underwater. This is recognised explicitly in the canon law tradition, which says 'the good of souls is the supreme law'. The Church operates with a Natural Law understanding of law, not a Legal Positivist conception.

Since it is the precise role of people in authority to determine what is for the good of souls in particular concrete circumstances, those commanded don't need to second-guess them all the time. We can give them the benefit of the doubt when commanded to do something we don't fully understand. It is only when it is clearly contrary to the good of souls that this principle comes into play.

Now the liberals may think this gets them off the hook, since they think it is clear enough, but in considering what is for the good of souls we are not starting with a blank piece of paper. Scripture, Tradition, the constant practice of the Church, the Magisterium, the Sacraments: these things teach us what is for the good of souls. Being formed by these things in one's moral understanding is to have a 'formed conscience': the kind of conscience which is not just willfulness, but that we really should obey.

And this is the key to the error of many 'conservative' Catholics who over the years have attacked Traditionalists and said that we are no better than liberals in subjecting Church documents to examination and criticism and not just blindly obeying everything. Because if you have a formed conscience, if you are properly formed in the Church's Tradition, in scripture, in the Magisterium, then you will have more reason to disobey commands (or purported commands) which are contrary to Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium, and less reason to disobey commands which protect, advance, and reiterate what is found in Tradition and so on. So far from the Traditionalist and the liberal being parallel in disobedience, they are taking opposite positions.

The liberal may argue that the new Missal translation, for example, is not for the good of souls, and I grant he may really believe that. But look at the arguments and it quickly turns out that what he doesn't like is in many cases simply the accurate rendering of liturgical texts which are deeply embedded in the Church's tradition. Catholics have always (since at least Pope Gelasius) said Christ's blood was shed 'pro multis': to say it is wrong to say it was shed 'for many' is to reject the constant teaching of the Church.* To say that it is not for the good of souls that they be exposed to the teaching of the Church is to cease to be Catholic. (We're not talking here of some situation under persecution where explaining the subtleties would be impossible, where the Church's enemies will seize on some formulation to damage the Church, or anything like that.)

Similarly, when liberals disobey liturgical law, the laws they disobey are attempts to keep them in line with tradition. In using General Absolution, pottery chalices, leaving the sanctuary to give the kiss of peace, etc. ad nauseam, they may think they act for the good of souls but they are rejecting the guidance of the Church herself on what is good for souls - not just the views of the jack-in-office (if there is one) seeking to enforce the petty rule, but the voice of Christ speaking through the Church's immemorial traditions, discipline, and Magisterium.

We are beginning to see more traditionally-minded priests bending some of the rules of the Novus Ordo to make it more traditional. The Holy Father does this from time to time. I won't go into details, but we are talking about minor rubrical issues. Cardinal Burke, the Church's chief legal officer under the Pope, has been criticised for wearing a galero. Are the Holy Father and Cardinal Burke undermining a proper respect for the Church's law? No. Sure, these things are not explicitly permitted in the latest edition of the rule book. But breaking rules in this way is NOT parallel to the liberal breaking of rules, since it is in accord with tradition, not against it. The Church tells us that certain rubrical gestures are helpful to the faithful and pleasing to God: the Church tells us that when we read that they were used by the Church for a millennium or so. If they can be used once more in the Novus Ordo when not explicitly called for in the current rubrics, without causing 'admiratio', well it is not for me to give permission for this kind of thing but I'm not going to complain either. What it is not is a parallel to a liberal priest doing what has been deliberately rejected by the Church for a millennium or so and is still contrary to the rules, because the Church in her wisdom judges it harmful for souls.

The liberal may appeal to conscience, but where does this conscience come from? If the liberal's conscience is not 'formed', it is not Catholic, it is just willfulness. If the liberal's conscience is not Catholic, the Church needs to use her discipline to protect the faithful and perhaps even to convert the liberal.

*In response to criticism my reasoning here is as follows. 'Pro multis' is the teaching of the Church; 'for many' is simply an accurate rendering of that phrase; to reject 'for many' is ipso facto to reject 'pro multis', and therefore to reject the teaching of the Church. The case I have in mind is where, as noted earlier, "it quickly turns out that what he doesn't like is in many cases simply the accurate rendering of liturgical texts". The reasoning of many liberal dissenters appears to be against not so much 'for many' as a translation of 'pro multis' but 'pro multis' itself. I say 'appears' and it is not my purpose to pick out named examples of people who hold the view, but only to ask what someone who did in fact hold such a view would be morally obliged to do about it.