FIUV Mass in St Peter's

Today is the first day of the Una Voce General Assembly. We had a glorious High Mass in the Chapel of the Choir in St Peter's, here in Rome. The celebrant was Mgr Richard Soseman (of the Congregation for Clergy), assisted by various people from the North American College, and MCed by Fr William Barker FSSP.

Better photos will follow!













- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Traditional Mass and the Christian East, Part 2: Syro-Malabar

Reading the Epistle from the Altar in Low Mass.

In my last post I discussed the general problem of the Eastern Catholic Churches and liturgical reform. On the one hand, ever since Leo XIII it has been recognised that the failure of Eastern Catholics to preserve their own traditions was an ecumenical disaster, and official efforts have been directed at their preservation and even restoration. On the other hand, the mid 20th century saw an unprecedented attack on the concept of tradition in the liturgy, and on many of the liturgical principles which the Western and Eastern traditions have in common, and this could hardly fail to have its effect on Eastern Catholics. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Although the 1970 Missal, and the seemingly endless permissions for liturgical novelties which preceded and followed this (Communion under Both Kinds, Communion in the Hand, the priest facing the people, Altar Girls, etc.), were officially promulgated, theological arguments against the traditional practices are surprisingly difficult to find in Magisterial texts. It would be strange, after all, for the Magisterium to say that the continuous practice of many centuries was wrong, especially as this practice had been obligatory and defended continually by the Magisterium itself. The Council of Trent even saw fit to issue infallible statements defending a whole lot of them:

Session XXII:
Canon VII. If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. ...
Canon IX. If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; ... let him be anathema.

Indeed, in many official documents we actually find encouragement of the traditional practice, even while something else is being permitted. This is notably the case with Communion in the Hand, but it is also true of the use of Latin, Chant, and the non-use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and Altar Girls. What the Church has explicitly taught, even non-infallibly, is frequently a very long way short of what liturgists have had to argue in order to justify their novelties and abuses.

This becomes particularly clear when we come to the principles of liturgical reform set out by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. They naturally take their start from the Second Vatican Council, which (with hindsight) seems amazingly conservative:

there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23)

Added to which is the political imperative of Eastern Catholics being seen by the Orthodox as holding faithfully to their traditions by Vatican II in Orientalium Ecclesiarum:

A tiny Offertory procession, from credence table to Altar,
by the server. In the Syro-Malabar rite it should be done by deacons,
and never with a big fuss by lay people.

6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.

Now I am going to talk about a really obscure document, it is not even in the Acta Apostolis Sedis, but it has been published, and I can provide a copy online for the first time. It is the official response of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches to a proposal for liturgical reform by the Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, an Oriental Church with its own very ancient Rite which is in communion with Rome. This church is not autocephalous (self-governing, with its own Patriarch), so it comes more directly under the authority of the Congregation than the larger Catholic Oriental Churches, like the Ukranian or Maronite Churches. So, as you will see, the Congregation was involved in a very detailed way in criticising this proposal.

The proposal could be described loosely as a Novus Ordo-isation of the ancient liturgy of Syro-Malabar, whose authentic restoration had been sponsored by Rome, culminating in a new edition of their liturgical books in the 1950s. The proposal was finalised in 1981 and sent for approval to the Congregation, who replied in 1984, their document (which I think was composed in English) having the snappy title:

Instruction “Observations on: ‘The Order of the Holy Mass of the Syro-Malabar Church 1981’ ” (1984)
On the process by which the proposal was put together: the need for consensus.

The results of the voting in the commission show a rigid pattern of two opposed blocks, at least on most essential issues. Hence, the text represents not a consensus, but the victory of one party. This can hardly be a firm basis for changing age-old traditions that are the heritage of all. Furthermore, it is clear that the minority in the commission consisted of those desirous of preserving the integrity of the Eastern tradition, which is in accord with the constantly repeated instructions of the Holy See.

The normal, most solemn form of Mass: Pontifical Mass

On principles of reform.

In general, there is a “reductionist” tendency to limit and reduce and Westernize as much as possible, with little awareness of the nature of ritual activity as understood from the view-point of cultural anthropology – that is, one sees hardly any awareness of what an extremely delicate thing it is to touch in any way the established ritual patterns of a tradition.

Low Mass as the normative form of Mass?

The text is based on a “low mass” celebrated by one priest, whereas universal, age-old Eastern practice has always been that the approved official text of the liturgy be the solemn form. Other liturgies are lesser services based on the solemn form; the solemn form is not a sung version of the low mass. 

'The theme of today's Mass...' (see the Position Paper on the Lectionary)

The “intention” or “theme” is not announced at the beginning (“General Instructions” no. 4). This contemporary Western fad has no basis either in Indian culture nor in a proper understanding of the liturgy in any tradition. All liturgy has but one theme, Jesus Christ dead and risen for our salvation; and the intentions of every Eucharist, including the particular intentions of the local community, are expressed in the liturgical texts themselves at the proper time. The proper time is not the beginning of the service, when our thoughts should first turn to the glorification of God (hence the opening “Glory to God …”) and not to our own needs. Indeed, this proposal is an example of the inadequate liturgical understanding manifested by the proposed text: it proposes to suppress the diptychs, one of the most ancient and traditional Eastern expressions of such intentions, and to add a recent Western innovation at a place in the liturgy where it certainly does not belong.

Ex tempore prayers.

Spontaneous prayers are not to be admitted. This Western experiment has opened the door to mediocrity and banality. Very few people have the talent for spontaneous public prayer, and one person’s “spontaneous” prayers always sound the same. Furthermore, in public, ritual worship (as distinct from private prayer) there is little room for spontaneity of composition and from. Indeed, such “spontaneity” is actually not that of the people of God, but of individual celebrants, who often impose their particular ideas and piety on a captive audience. Spontaneity in liturgy is found in the movements of hearts as they respond to grace, not in the liberty of individual priests to impose their personal piety on the common prayer of all.

Silent prayers by the priest (see the Position Paper on Silence in the Liturgy)

Let the rubric specify that the prayer be said quietly. It is sometimes said that all liturgical prayers should be said aloud so that everyone can hear them. This is a false principle both historically and liturgically. Some prayers are specifically designed to be said during singing or processions or other activities of the people, or are apologies pro clero. Just as the clergy do not have to sing everything the people chant, so too the people do not have to hear all the prayers. Indeed, to recite all prayers aloud interrupts the proper flow of the liturgical structure.

Use of a lectern?

The place of honor for this book [the lectionary] is the altar, and nowhere else, in the Christian East. Let this be specified in the rubrics.

'Let us pause for silent prayer'?

Silent periods of reflection cannot be allowed to interrupt the liturgy: they have no place in Eastern usage.

Spontaneous bidding prayers?

If other, particular intentions are added to suit special necessities, these are to be submitted to the priest before the liturgy and are to be formulated in conformity with the pattern of the karozutha petitions. Spontaneous petitions from the congregation are to be avoided. (Privately composed litanies, generally unsatisfactory in both theology and expression, are one of the least successful aspects of the Western reform. There is no need to imitate the failures of others.)

Elaborate Offertory procession to show the people's involvement?

Apropos of “General instructions” n˚ 15 (“It is good if the bread and wine are brought to the altar in procession”:) no Eastern tradition has ever known an “offertory procession” of the faithful. If that is what is meant here, this is a latinization as well as an anachronism. (Even Western liturgists have come to see that the excessive solemnization of the preparation and transfer of gifts was based, in part, on a pseudo-theology according to which the “offertory” is the laity’s liturgy, and the “eucharistic offering” is the priest’s. As everyone knows today, the whole Church offers the total service, each according to his or her place and order.)

These principles, expressed in an usually robust way by a somewhat exasperated Congregation, are applicable to the West as well as to the East, as the Congregation often makes clear. This is as clear a statement as one could wish that on a whole series of issues the theories of trendy liturgists are completely outside the teaching of the Church, even if the results are permitted in our churches.

In the next post I will examine another document of the same Congregation, Il Padre, incomprensibile, issued in 1996.

The Traditional Mass and the Christian East: Part 1

The Traditional Latin Mass behind a Rood Screen, at St Birinus,
Dorchester on Thames.

Like some of my earlier posts about obscure (or deliberately obscured) documents from Rome, this comes into the category of what we might call 'What Does the Church Really Say?' The documents I have looked at vary in authority but they are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, they establish a cumulative case against a lot of liberal assumptions. In this short series I am going to look at a couple of very interesting documents produced by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. First, in this post, a little background.

The Oriental Catholic Churches, the ones in communion with the Pope, have endured a sad history of 'Latinisation': the adoption of the liturgical and other practices of the Latin Church, which has flattened the rich diversity of the Universal Church and cut them off from the traditions still kept, in most cases, by Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome. Indeed, from the point of view of the latter this process was and remains a scandal and an impediment to reunion: if this is what happens when you accept Rome, they reasoned, then we don't want to have anything to do with it! However, the great Pope Leo XIII initiated a very clear policy of encouraging Eastern Catholics to preserve and restore their traditions in their integrity, and this was powerfully reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council. It was easier said than done, unfortunately, since the leaders of these Churches were usually educated in Rome and were often eager to be as like their Latin friends as possible, even without any of the official encouragement of Latinisation which was in evidence in the 17th and 18th centuries. Nevertheless, important progress was made.

In the meantime, of course, we had the liturgical reform of the West. Out goes (nearly all) silent prayer by the priest. Out goes worship ad orientem. Out goes the use of the West's ancient liturgical language. Out goes (a lot of) proskynesis, which in the West usually takes the form of kneeling and genuflections. Out goes the mystery, the awe, the timelessness and otherworldliness of the liturgy, and liturgical texts which anticipate the consecration (referring to the unconsecrated Host as 'this spotless Victim' in the Offertory). Out goes (a lot of) the sense of the sinfulness of the priest. Out goes the sharp distinction between Sanctuary and Nave, marked in modern times in the West by steps and rails. In comes a lot of new things like lay people distributing the Blessed Sacrament, secular musical styles, and so on.

None of these things were, in fact, called for by the Second Vatican Council, with the partial exception of the use of the vernacular, but they happened, they were officially promulgated or, at least, permitted, and the theological rationales for them gained currency even if they were never explicitly endorsed by the Magisterium.

Thus, Bugnini and his friends said that the pre-Conciliar Latin liturgy was illogical, that the stuff about sinfulness was 'negative' and unpastoral, that Latin, silence, and worship ad orientem excluded the Faithful and made them 'dumb spectators' at Mass, and that its historical development was a matter of 'accretions' which obscured the true, pastoral, and logical shape of the primitive liturgy.

If this is true, then it is true in the East as well as the West: you don't cross some invisible line in the Balkans and suddenly find that human nature, logic, and the principles of historical development flip upside-down.

The leaders of the Oriental Catholic Churches, accordingly, could hardly look at these arguments without seeing a systematic attack not only on the traditions of the West, but on the traditions of the East. Insofar as they wanted to be up with the latest trends, it was natural that they should seek to implement a version of the reform in their own churches, in direct opposition to the official policy of eastern traditionalism.



Taking the policy of Eastern Traditionalism with the de facto endorsement of Bugnini's attack on Western traditionalism, it would appear that in the West, the ancient Mass is obscurantist; in the East, though, where the liturgy exhibits many of the same traits in a far more extreme way, this is all wonderful, mysterious, and (in the words of Bl Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen), speaks to the human person in his totality, and not just the intellect: tota sua cum persona (Orientale lumen (1995) 11). Again (section 8):

Today we often feel ourselves prisoners of the present. It is as though man had lost his perception of belonging to a history which precedes and follows him. This effort to situate oneself between the past and the future, with a grateful heart for the benefits received and for those expected, is offered by the Eastern Churches in particular, with a clear-cut sense of continuity which takes the name of Tradition and of eschatological expectation.

Non-Catholic Easterners, of course, may well wonder how sincere all this respect for tradition is given the way the Latins treat their own traditions. Indeed, I would forgive them for thinking we are completely schizophrenic on the subject. It is not surprising that they welcomed Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, since it suggests that the Latins might begin to walk the walk and not just talk the talk about preserving liturgical tradition. The late Patriarch of Moscow's reaction was recorded by Zenit:

‘Benedict XVI’s move to allow for wider celebration of the Roman Missal of 1962 has received a positive reaction from the Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow. “The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we greet positively,” Alexy II told the Italian daily Il Giornale. Benedict XVI's apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, published in July, explains new norms allowing for the use of the 1962 missal as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration. “We hold very strongly to tradition,” he continued. “Without the faithful guardianship of liturgical tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been able to resist the period of persecution.”

The Western Rood Screen served, as can be seen in the photos in the post, more to frame the action of the Mass than to prevent people seeing what was going on. It nevertheless places the importance of the symbolic separation of the Sanctuary, representing Heaven, from the Nave, representing Earth, ahead of considerations about sight-lines and feelings of 'inclusion'. The solid Eastern Iconostasis (Icon screen) takes this idea much further. Rood Screens were often destroyed by 18th century western liturgists inspired by very similar ideas to those of Bugnini and his followers, and a new wave of hostility to them manifested itself after the Council. But if we can't tolerate Rood Screens, what can we make of the Iconostasis?

The answer is that we need to distinguish that de facto but not de jure endorsement of the attack on Western traditions, from what the Church actually teaches about tradition.

In the next posts I will discuss two documents of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches which discuss the principles of liturgical reform, with this in mind.

Some of these issues and texts are discussed in two of the FIUV's short Position Papers: On Liturgical Piety and Participation, and on Liturgical Pluralism (pdfs).

Photographs: more from this Mass can be seen here.

General Absolution is a danger to souls

Relics of St Ivo of Chartes, patron saint of lawyers

If you receive General Absolution without an intention to confess your sins individually to a priest, in the normal way (including the sins you had in mind when receiving General Absolution), you will not receive sacramental absolution.

I explained this in my post about Mgr Basil Loftus' scandalous article on General Absolution (using scandal in its technical theolgical sense, of leading others to sin, as well as in the usual sense); a commenter called 'Sebastian' suggested that the practical consequences might not be as bad as I suggested. If people go to a service of General Absolution in good faith, and do not know, because they are not told, about the need to intend to confess their sins in individual confession, and do not so intend, Sebastian suggested they'd get sacramental absolution anyway.

This is because of Can. 144 §1.: "In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum."

This boils down to: "If you're dumb but not evil, that's okay."

This is what canon 144 says:

§1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

The crucifix lifted up in the Good Friday liturgy (the FSSP in Reading)

I promised to come back with a proper canonical response, and I now can. I asked Mgr Gordon Read, the Latin Mass Society's National Chaplain and also our Canonical Advisor, a trustee of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland and, as they say, the Real Deal when it comes to understanding canon law.

One of the points of addressing Loftus' painful ramblings is the chance to air these sorts of issues, and I'm grateful to Sebastian for raising a technical but very important question. Nevertheless, he is mistaken.

Mgr Read writes:

It is misconceived to describe the requirement as a 'legal condition'. Integral confession is part of the Church's doctrine as enunciated at Trent even if spelled out in the form of a legal requirement in this canon. The exceptions referred to in canon 144 do not apply to the exercise of sacramental power as such but jurisdiction or executive power as is made clear by the references in §2. If a priest hears confessions without faculties to do so then the Church supplies them but only in common error. It must not be a simple misunderstanding on the part of an individual but one that anyone would reasonably fall into....

Canon 962 §1 requires for validity not only proper disposition but also that the penitent be resolved to confess in due time the grave sins that cannot now be confessed. Clearly awareness of this requirement depends on both general instruction and if possible the announcement of it on the occasion of its administration (canon 962 §2). Where the person is inculpably ignorant of this requirement and so believes their sins have been forgiven I would suggest that what is applicable is the moral impossibility mentioned in canon 960. Should they later become aware of this requirement then the obligation revives. Clearly this is not the same as making use of this form of the sacrament in order to avoid having to mention grave sin since this is supine or affected ignorance.

Canon 960 tells us:
Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

The crucifix venerated on Good Friday.

The other means here are things like a perfect act of contrition, acts of penance, and the apostolic indulgence in the hour of death.

The intention to go to individual confession not a merely legal condition, it is not a matter of 'executive power or governance', it is absolutely necessary to make General Absolution work sacramentally, like the intention to marry in marriage and to baptise in baptism. If you are ignorant inculpably that is tough luck. If your contrition was real but imperfect, as is often the case, sacramental absolution would have freed you from your mortal sins; anything else will not.

Yes of course God's mercy can use other means, and I've just mentioned what they might be. But we mustn't run away with the idea that therefore it doesn't matter, that God will look down and say this person is no less sincere than another who's had sacramental absolution, and so his mortal sins must be washed away. Because to say that is to say that the sacraments make no difference. That the priest who stays in his confessional all afternoon, or indeed the priest who risks imprisonment, torture, and death to bring people absolution in time of persecution, make no difference, that if they didn't bother those penitents, who through no fault of their own were without confession, would be fine, they'd be no worse off. And come to that those people who never heard the Gospel, because St Francis Xavier hasn't yet squandered his heart and soul in bringing it to the teeming millions of India and China, they'd be fine because it wasn't their fault, St Francis made no difference, he was not God's instrument in saving anyone. And while we're at it Christ's death on the Cross makes no difference, because if it hadn't happened God is such a softy he's have let us all into heaven anyway.

No, God is not a softy, not like that, because that takes all meaning from human life, it takes away all the significance of human efforts and struggles and sacrifices, and God has not placed us in a meaningless liberal universe, but into one where there is work to do, where the good we do has consequences for good and the evil has consequences for evil.

God's Mercy does not consist in pushing His Justice aside, it consists in giving us the chance to satisfy His Justice, through the merits of Christ, applied through the sacraments. That is why we have a missionary mandate, to bring the sacraments to people. As Pope Paul VI said (Evangelium nuntiandi 5):

It is the duty incumbent on her [the Church] by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people's salvation.

The Blessed Sacrament, made possible by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, on Good Friday.
Yes, it made a difference.

The worst survey in the world

The survey in preparation for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which we are all invited to fill in, contains no fewer than forty questions. I started to fill it in but ran out of time; others have said it has taken them an hour and a half or two hours. It is the worst-designed survey I have ever seen. Someone should learn something from its deficiencies, so here are a few. Taking for granted, obviously, that it is absurdly long, to the point that very few people are going to be able to plough through it.

Total number of Catholic marriages taking place in England and Wales. The peak is 1968.
There are fewer Catholic marriages today than at the eve of the Great War a century ago.

It is not exactly an opinion poll; complaints about bringing democracy into doctrinal matters are not quite right. Many questions are factual.

1. Question 4a: Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage?

Other questions ask for an analysis of a problem, or a proposed solution.

5. Question 3e: What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?

Both categories of question are problematic, however, since both call for types of expertise which the person filling in the form is unlikely to have. Parish priests filling it in might be expected to have something useful to say about pastoral strategies, and parents about raising children in the Faith, but some questions are appropriate only for a social scientist, or someone who has done a study of diocesan initiatives.

3. Question 1c: How widespread is the Church's teaching in pastoral programmes at the national, diocesan and parish levels? What catechesis is done on the family?

Frankly, I don't have a clue. I could try to find out on the internet, but what would be the point of that? Presumably the people writing the survey can do that for themselves. 'Pastoral programmes' are something the ordinary Faithful are not involved with. If they are any good, they would have some beneficial effect without drawing attention to themselves. If they are bad, they will absorb the energies of the parish busybodies in endless meetings. What I do know is that Church teaching on the family is not preached, it is not taught in Catholic schools, and it is not found (much) in the kind of educational materials I sometimes browse in St Paul's bookshop. That's what I know as a layman, but that's not what they've asked.

Some questions are factual to the point that it is absurd to be asking them at all.

2. Question 4b: Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?

1. Question 6a: What is the estimated proportion of children and adolescents in these cases, as regards children who are born and raised in regularly constituted families?

Why are they asking us? Can't they look it up for themselves? What happens when they get varying answers: are they going to take an average, or just find out what the truth is?

Then there are the questions with pretensions to philosophical profundity.

1. Question 2a: What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?

Try asking that down the pub. Here, mate, you're a non-Catholic, what anthropological ideas underlie your discussions on the natural basis of the family? I don't say: ordinary Catholic are too stupid or uneducated to answer this question. I say: as someone with a DPhil in philosophy, I couldn't begin to answer it, certainly not in the comment box of an on-line survey, and I struggle to comprehend even what they are asking. (I think it must be a loaded question: what if people don't think the family is 'natural'?) I don't think many bishops or theologians would be able to give a useful response, and I am quite sure the people collating the results won't understand the question or the attempted answers. In fact, I don't think the people asking the question knew what they really meant. The question is a monumental waste of energy.

There are lots and lots of very open-ended questions about what is or could be done, pastorally.

3. Question 3c: In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfil their vocation of transmitting the faith?

4. Question 3d: In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary?

1. Question 8a: Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?

Catholic marriages per 1000 of the Catholic population.
After a post-war rush, the rapid collapse began in 1968.

Well, how long have you got? Someone filling this in could write a whole essay, or indeed book, on any of these questions, and I wonder whether anything short of a book-length treatment is going to be any use. The problem is that there are no widely accepted categories of answers for people to choose between; it's not like a question about whether there should be more tax and government spending or less, or whether immigrants make a contribution to the community or something. The person filling in the form would need to find words to describe the different things going on, before giving an assessment of them. More helpful questions might be: Does using the Penny Catechism lead to a tick-box attitude to the Faith? Does the Neo-Catechumenate strategy of separating age groups undermine the family? Is the love of parents for each other an education for the children in Christ's love of the Church? But then you'd have to ask many more such questions to explore all the things going on, and whether they were helpful or not.

Most worrying of course are the questions which seem to be aimed at getting people to say that the teaching and discipline of the Church needs to be loosened somehow.

4. Question 1d: To what extent — and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

4. Question 4d: In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular situation? Are they aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the sacraments?

5. Question 4e: What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?

6. Question 4f: Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?

7. Question 4g: Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?

These questions all present divorced and remarried couples as a problem for the Church, a problem created and sustained by all this rigid teaching and discipline. At one level, of course, this is true. But it is also true that the existence of such couples, not being able to receive the sacraments, is the flip side of a positive and attractive teaching which helps to sustain Catholic families.

Catholic marriages as a percentage of all marriages in England and Wales.
The peak is 1960, the eve of the campaign against the Church's
teaching on birth control.

Furthermore, it is the only kind of testimony to the seriousness of the Church's attitude to marriage which is ever going to be noticed by the secular world. It is a form of witness, a form which, like most effective forms, is given only at the cost of great sacrifice, a witness to the indissolubility of marriage, to a world which rejects this. The world knows that the Catholic Church, in spite of everything, joins men and women in an indissoluble bond of marriage, that it is not just talk when we say 'What God has joined, let not man put assunder'. Catholic couples know that they have something precious which they will lose if they go off with someone else. Remarried couples know that they need to get themselves right with God, however difficult this may be.

So this is a real problem with the survey. It could ask:

Would super-fast marriage tribunals rubber-stamping annulments cause scandal and undermine the teaching of the Church? Would this have a disastrous effect on couples struggling to maintain their marriages in a hostile environment?

Would turning a blind eye to divorced and remarried couples receiving Communion send the signal that the Church has given up on sexual morality? Would this have a disastrous effect on young people struggling to live in light of the Church's teaching in a hostile environment?

But it doesn't.

Pictures: statistics from the Latin Mass Society's research into Catholic Directory statistics.

Sunday Mass and a Christening at Blackfen

On Sunday I was at Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, for Fr Tim Finigan's regular Sunday Sung EF Mass, which was followed by a Vetus Ordo Baptism, and blessing of the mother 'after childbirth', 'churching'. Fr Tim has posted about it too. 



Our Lady of the Rosary is still one of a very small number of places where there is a Sung Mass every Sunday. The FSSP in Reading, the Institute in New Brighton in the Wirral, St Bede's, Clapham Park, and the Birmingham Oraotry are I think the only other places in England and Wales. Only in these places will you see the Asperges (top photo) every Sunday, the blessing of the congregation with holy water before Mass starts; this is only done on Sundays.



Below, the catechumen is being anointed with chrism; he is held by his godmother. The traditional Baptism places the godparents at the centre of the ceremony, they are not just witnessing it, but make the candidate's responses. What do you seek from the Church of God? Faith! What does Faith offer you? Eternal life!



The mother's blessing, like the child's baptism, starts at the church door and draws her inwards, in this case to the communion rails where she is sprinkled with holy water. Fr Finigan has a cunning brass device for doing this, which you can see in this picture.



A little celebration afterwards in Our Lady of Rosary's substantial parish hall and bar.



Thou who through holy baptism hast granted Thy servant remission of sin and newness of life, cause the light of Thy countenance, Lord, to shine ever in his heart. Keep the shield of his faith unscathed against every assault of his foes; keep clean and unblemished the garment of incorruption that he has put on; by Thy favour keep unbroken upon him the seal of the Holy Ghost; and as Thou art rich in mercy, deal gently with him and with us. Amen.

FIUV and Latin Mass Society in Rome this week!

This weekend is the General Assembly of the International Federation Una Voce, which takes place every two years. Mass and Vespers (and Benediction) have been arranged from before the start to after the end of the GA; the music has been sponsored by the Latin Mass Society which has arranged a pilgrimage to Rome to coincide with the General Assembly: it starts before and ends after it.

Some of the celebrants are still to be confirmed, but as you will see Cardinal Brandmüller and Archbishop Pozzo, are among them. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos will be speaking at the Open Forum.

The Casa Maria Immacolata is the venue for the General Assembly itself, and where most delegates are staying; it is located on the Via Enzio (28), near the Vatican: map here.

Everyone is welcome to attend our Masses and other liturgies, and also to attend the 'Open Forum' on Sunday afternoon: highlighted below.

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce

XXI General Assembly,

9^th and 10^th November 2013.

Casa Maria Immacolata, Rome.

Via Ezio 28, 00192 Roma.

Thursday 7^th November. 

18.00 hrs.  Vespers and Benediction: Casa Maria Immacolata Convent chapel.

Music

Magnae Deus potentiae Gregorian chant

Magnificat septimi toni Gregorian chant

Ave verum  Fauré

Organ: Le banquet céleste  Messiaen

Friday 8^th November. 

Commemoratio SS. Quatuor Coronatorum Martyrum

10.00 hrs. Solemn Mass.  Casa Maria Immacolata Convent Chapel

Music

Missa VIII (De Angelis)

Organ: Méditation pour orgue Duruflé

16.30 hrs. Solemn Vespers and Benediction. St Peter’s Basilica, Chapel of the Choir

With His Eminence Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

Music

Caelestis urbs Jerusalem Gregorian chant

Magnificat primi toni Palestrina

Ave verum Elgar

Organ: Fuga sopra il Magnificat, BWV 733 Bach

Saturday 9^th November.

Dedication of the Archbasilica of the Saviour (the Lateran).

08.00 hrs. Solemn Mass.   St. Peter’s Basilica, Chapel of the Choir

Celebrant: Mons Pablo Colino

Music

Kyrie ‘Le Roy’ Taverner

Mass  ‘The Western Wind’ Taverner

Bone Pastor Tallis, arr. Terry

O nata lux Tallis

Credo III

Organ: Toccata in C, BWV 564 Bach

18.00 hrs. Solemn Vespers and Benediction. Casa Maria Immacolata Convent chapel

With His Excellency Archbishop Guido Pozzo

Music

Caelestis urbs Ierusalem Gregorian chant

Magnificat sexti toni Vecchi

Ave verum corpus Byrd

Organ: Elévation, Op. 22 Villette

Sunday 10^th November

[XXIII Sun after Pentecost] Dominica V quae superfuit post Epiphaniam

10.00 hrs. Solemn Mass.  Casa Maria Immacolata Convent Chapel

Celebrant: Mons Gordon Read

Music

Mass for Four Voices Byrd

Panis angelicus Franck

Rosa Mystica Fauré, arr. Knowles & Turchetta

Asperges, Credo III

Organ: Suite Médiévale (Prélude: Asperges me) Langlais

14.00 – 17.00 hrs.  Open Forum. Conference Hall, Casa Maria Immacolata

Guest Speakers:

His Eminence Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos,

Fr Cassian Folsom, OSB, (The Monastery of San Benedetto, Norcia)

Fr William Barker, FSSP

Canon Gilles Guitard, ICRSS

18.00 hrs. Solemn Vespers & Benediction: Casa Maria Immacolata Convent Chapel.

Music

Lucis creator optime Washington
Magnificat Tone 1 à 4 Viadana

Ego sum panis vivus Byrd

Organ: Suite Médiévale (Acclamations: Christus Vincit) Langlais

Monday 11^th November.

S. Martini Episcopi et Confessoris

09.00 hrs. Solemn  Mass.  St. Peter’s Basilica. Choir of the Chapel.

Music

Coronation Mass Mozart

Exsultate Jubilate (Alleluia) Mozart

Ave Verum Mozart

O sacrum convivium Messiaen

Organ: Apparition de l’église éternelle Messiaen