The Kiss of Peace

Bishop Schneider giving the Kiss of Peace to Fr Finnegan, the Assistant Priest, at West Grinstead

Today I am publishing a new Position Paper from the Una Voce Federation (FIUV), on the Kiss of Peace: go over there to read it.

The Pax may not seem the most important issue, but it is an interesting one, and also one which has a big effect on many people's liturgical experience. The over-chumminess and disruption caused by the Novus Ordo's 'Sign of Peace' is a trial for many people, and has been repeatedly condemned by Rome, notably in Pope Benedict's Post-Synodal Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (2007) 49:

Bishop Schneider giving the Peace to Fr Goddard FSSP, the deacon

‘…during the [2007] Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one's immediate neighbours.’

Pope Benedict's words reflects the feelings of many, like those of a certain Mr Waits who felt moved to write the following to the Universe (UK Catholic weekly newspaper) in 2011:

Whoever dreamt up the sugary sign of peace seems to have been naively oblivious to some unpleasant practicalities. In my church, one elderly widower tours the pews 'making a meal'; of his license to to make contact with female bodies. ... When the 'feel good' moment arrives, they approach me expectactly, but I ignore such cheap, shallow, bonhomie. I have often felt like adding 'a little peace before Mass would not have gone amiss.'

The reform of this little ceremony exemplifies the 'archaeologism' of the reformers: their attempts, at least in some places, to resurrect long-extinct texts and rubrics. It also exemplifies the problems with such archaeologism: its dependence on the limited scholarship of half a century ago, its ability to miss the most crucial point about a ceremony, and its refusal to understand the good reasons why, under providence (not thanks so some know-it-all committee), change happened, gradually, over the course of the centuries.

The Assistant Priest giving the Peace to the Master of Ceremonies

First, yes everyone did exchange the kiss of peace in antiquity. The reformers saw that this took place earlier, at the Offertory, in the Gallican Rite, and there was a widespread idea (see the scholars Gregory Dix and Josef Jungmann) that the Roman Rite moved the Pax from that position to its current one before Communion, at some point prior to a famous letter on the subject written by Pope Innocent I in 416. This is an example of scholarship getting ahead of itself, however: there is not a scrap of evidence that it ever took place at the Offertory in the Roman Rite (or in the closely associated African liturgical practice).

This is important for the meaning of the ceremony. At the Offertory, the key to it is the reconciliation of the Community, an idea which appealed to Bugnini and his gang in the 1960s. But in the Roman Rite, while this idea is not absent, there is something else which sets it into a bigger context.

The Peace is on the Altar.

Christ, the Prince of Peace, has come down upon the Altar, and it is His peace which is imparted in the Kiss. So it is not just exchanged between members of the congregation: it is given to them from Christ. The celebrant kisses the Altar next to the Consecrated Host, and it is this kiss, exchanged with Christ, which is passed on, one by one, to the rest of those present.

Bishop Schneider giving the Peace to Fr Hayward, the subdeacon

This is done with the very beautiful ceremony of the 'embrace', first to the deacon, then the subdeacon, then the MC and so on. I was delighted to hear that in Spain and her former Empire this can be passed on to the congregation with a 'paxbrede', a physical object (usually a small silver disc with a handle), as was done in Medieval England. Elsewhere, for practical reasons, the participation of the Faithful in the ceremony has, since the end of the Middle Ages, become purely spiritual.

The passing on of the Peace from the Altar has been completely lost in the current ceremony--if we can call it that--in the Novus Ordo, where everyone simultaneously shakes hands with everyone else.

Speaking personally, I am always moved to see the ceremony of the Pax at Traditional High Mass; I think it is one of the most symbolically eloquent ceremonies in the Mass. It is an example of something which really works. Those arguing about what to do about the Sign of Peace in the Novus Ordo should bear that in mind.

Loftus on the Sign of Peace

The Kiss of peace is hierarchical. It comes from the Altar, where the Lamb of God is present
(after the consecration), and is passed from the celebrant to the deacon, from the deacon to the subdeacon...

Loftus' Catholic Times column of 22nd August is a real crowd-pleaser. He trots out all the old favourite themes, but his main theme is an attack on the recent Instruction on the Kiss of Peace, as I predicted.

An attack on the Monsignorial title which is so vividly displayed in his byline, and often on the paper's front page, and which has stood him in such good stead against criticisms over the years:

...there is the Church-inspired colour-coded ranks, which Holy Father Francis has now begun to eliminate,

Pope Francis has done nothing of the kind - unless you count his failure to wear red shoes, something to which I have always refused to attribute any tremendous symbolic significance. Red shoes are not the kind of symbol Pope Francis is interested in: that's exactly why he doesn't bother wearing them.

...separating priests from people in a way that subordinates sacramental reality to social protocol, distinctive dress, and pompous titles.

Yes, we're looking at you, Monsignor.

The Sign of Peace, for Catholic Answers

The Kiss of Peace at the LMS Walsingham Pilgrimage 2023: High Mass in the Shrine

The Pax, the Kiss of Peace, is one of my favourite ceremonies of High Mass: one of the most dramatic and easily understood symbolic actions. The celebrant kisses the Altar and given the deacon a stylised embrace; the deacon embraces the subdeacon, the subdeacon the MC, and if there are clergy in choir it can be passed on down a whole row of them on both sides of the church.

For a photographer it is easy to miss. It only happens at High Mass with deacon and subdeacon, and not at Requiem Masses or on Maundy Thursday. At Prelatial Masses and First Masses of newly ordained priests, you get an extra chance to catch it, with the 'Assistant Priest'.

This is the historical context for the ceremony in the Novus Ordo, which sadly can take a form that feels not only somewhat secular but even disruptive and an invasion of personal space. I always think of a letter to the Catholic press from one worshipper in Bristol some years ago:

In my church, one elderly widower tours the pews 'making a meal'; of his license to to make contact with female bodies. ... When the 'feel good' moment arrives, they approach me expectactly, but I ignore such cheap, shallow, bonhomie. I have often felt like adding 'a little peace before Mass would not have gone amiss.'

My latest piece for Catholic Answers is on this topic. It begins:

The Sign of Peace, the handshake that takes place at Sunday Mass between the Our Father and the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) before Holy Communion, is sometimes a source of friction and confusion.

The friction derives from the experience of it getting out of hand—being disruptive and even an intrusion. These problems were serious enough to raise the question, at the 2009 Synod of Bishops in in Rome, of moving the Sign of Peace to before the Offertory. Here, I want to shed some light on the meaning of the rite, which helps to put the question into some context.

Read the whole thing there.

At the LMS Annual Mass of Reparation in Bedford.

 

Support the Latin Mass Society

Liturgical conflict in Bristol

There is an interesting letter in the Catholic Herald this week (12th August), by a certain Brendan McBride, rejoicing in the loss of the Church's liturgical traditions.

'I was born and brought up when the priest said Mass with his back to me in a language I did not understand. Women covered their heads in church and no girl altar servers were allowed. To receive Communion I had to kneel at a barrier between me and the sanctuary and stick out my tongue. In those days the priest and the people inhabited different sacramental worlds; thank God such days have gone.'

He goes on to describe the Mass he attends in Bristol (ie presumably Clifton) Cathedral. Of the celebrant:

'We see his smile when calling us to prayer, and he sees ours when we respond. The altar is wide open and at Gospel time the younger children scamper up the steps to sit beside him--he is wonderful with children--while he tells them Bible stories...'

There are altar girls and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The writer practices intinction: 'I take the Host in my hand and dip it in the chalice wine.'

It's all down to Vatican II, which 'recovered for us all the simplicity of the communial meal that He institured, one in which He gathers His friends to Himself as He did the night before He died. Communion with Him is not an occasion of adoration, nor one calling for "an atmosphere of focus, solemnity and mystery", but for intimacy and the happiness it brings.' He is very grateful to Bl Pope John XXIII, surprisingly, since the poor man would have been even more horrified than most of the Council Fathers at the liturgy Mr McBride descibes.

Not everyone in Bristol is taking the love-feast so well. This week's Universe (14th August) carries a letter given the title ' 'Unpleasantries' of the Sign of Peace', from A.W. Whaits, Bristol.

Whoever dreamt up the sugary sign of peace seems to have been naively oblivious to some unpleasant practicalities.

In my church, one elderly widower tours the pews 'making a meal'; of his license to to make contact with female bodies. ...

When the 'feel good' moment arrives, they approach me expectactly, but I ignore such cheap, shallow, bonhomie. I have often felt like adding 'a little peace before Mass would not have gone amiss.'

One man's 'intimacy, and the happiness it brings' is another man's invasion of personal space. I wonder if these two individuals have ever sat beside each other in the pew, and what happened at the kiss of peace.

Leaving aside the question of liturgical law, the real problem with Mr McBride's liturgy is that it depends, for its success, on a number of things which are not widely available.

First, architecture. Clifton Cathedral is famous for its modernist architecture; it was built for the liturgy McBride describes, but very, very few Catholic churches were. So while Clifton Cathedral is not to everyone's taste it has a coherence and integrity which few Catholic places of worship have, once they have been smashed up and rearranged in an attempt to create an atmosphere for which they are utterly unsuited.

Second, clergy. The Dean of Clifton Cathedral is 'wonderful with children'. That is very nice to hear. 'Wonderful' implies 'far above average'. Half our Catholic clergy are, by definition, below average in their ability to deal with children. (Only children themselves have the privilege of being 100% above average.) So what are they supposed to do? The liturgy described by McBride clearly depends on the Dean's remarkable personal qualities. Without them, it would fall flat.

Third, the faithful. Bristol is a populous city and the Cathdral's distinctive liturgy no doubt draws a good congregation from accross the city. People who like it must seek it out. I am happy for them. But what about priests who have to serve all the Catholics in their parishes? Not just the smiley ones who love touchy-feely services, but the curmugeons like A.W. Whaits. Even Clifton Cathedral's Dean might find his talents stretched to inject enthusiasm into a congregation made up, like the general Catholic population, 50% people coming out of habit, with little clue about what is going on, 30% curmudgeons going with gritted teath, and 20% liberal enthusiasts. We've all seen priests try to deal with this kind of congregation, and it can be a painful experience for all concerned.

The hyper-liberal liturgical experiment is something which by the very nature of things can work (at least superficially) very well in certain settings, but simply cannot be replicated across the country. The attempt by bishops and individual priests to impose it in the wrong conditions has had disasterous consequences. But in the liturgical orthodoxy of the last generation, they had nothing else to try.

But now things are changing.


First Mass of Fr Matthew McCarthy FSSP in the chapel of the Carmelite Convent of Jesus Mary & Joseph at Valpariso, Nebraska. More photos. The Chapel and convent are new; the priest is newly ordained, the chapel is full of families with young children, the convent is full of young nuns, all committed to the Traditional Mass.

Just for fun, here's a taste of the kind of liturgy Pope John XXIII used to preside over.

The Universe garbles story about H1N1

Texas, to the North and East of Mexico.

An alert reader from the USA has identified the source of the story about H1N1 ('Swine Flu') which appeared last weekend in the Catholic Universe, which I, thinking it was a bit fishy, reported verbatim on this blog.

I realise that all newspapers make mistakes, but this is real howler. Cheerily chopping out the 'TX' for 'Texas' in the opening line of the story, the subeditor began to wonder where exactly the story is from. Seeing a reference to 'Rio Grande', he jumped to the conclusion it was about Mexico. Mexico! Has the Universe not caught up with Texas' independence from Mexico in 1835?

Then the story has been made to say that Communion has been suspended completely, and not just the Chalice, which is completely wrong.

Even more troubling, from a professional point of view, the reference to the news agency which composed the story in the first place, and the journalist (Ms) Alex Stockwell, has been chopped, even though it is clearly just a (badly) edited version of it. Are newspapers supposed to do this?

Come on, Editor Joseph Kelley! Let's have a correction.

Original story: RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TX (KVEO NEWSCENTER 23) — The H1N1 virus is spreading rapidly across the Valley, prompting everyone from doctors to teachers and now priests to take extra steps in preventing the illness from infecting more people.

In a traditional Catholic Mass, the Precious Body and Blood of Christ are consumed by parishioners, but with the H1N1 flu, some churches are not serving the Blood of Christ, which is taken from a communal chalice.

Chilies are eaten in both places,
so perhaps it doesn't matter.

Universe version: Rio Grande: Growing concern over the spread of the H1N1 virus has prompted the Mexican Church to change the way the Mass is delivered. To prevent the transfer of the virus, some priests are not serving the Blood of Christ from a communal chalice, while others have have further and stopped giving Communion completely. 

Original story: "Some parishes, because of the epidemics or for logistical reasons, decide not to have communion under both species," said Rev. Msgr. Heberto Diaz of the Diocese of Brownsville.  "And that's up to the local pastor of each of the parishes.  If someone is ill, then they shouldn't receive from the chalice."

Universe version: "Some parishes have decided not to have Communion," said Rev Mgr Heberto Diaz of the diocese of Brownsville. "And that's up to the local pastor of each of the parishes. If someone is ill, then they shouldn't receive from the chalice." 

Original story: Another custom in Mass that is being adjusted is the "Sign of Peace" before Communion, where people shake hands with one another and wish each other peace.

"In the past when we had this H1N1 epidemic, what we did is we asked people if they were sick not to shake hands with each other but to maybe bow as a form, as a gesture of like shaking hands, of community," explained Rev. Msgr. Diaz.

Universe version: Parishioners are also being discouraged from shaking hands at the 'Sign of Peace' before Communion, which can also transfer the H1N1 virus. 

Original story:  Monsignor Diaz says the best way that churches can help the spread of the flu virus is by reminding parishioners that it's perfectly fine to miss church if they are sick.

"It's not a sin to not come to church on Sunday if you're ill, so that's another thing people really need to know if they're ill or if they feel like they could be contagious to others."

When the Mexican attempt to regain control of Texas
was defeated, in 1836. Texas joined the USA in 1845.

Universe version: Mgr Diaz says the best way that churches can help prevent the spread of the flu virus is by reminding parishioners that it's perfectly fine to miss church if they are sick. "It's not a sin not to come to church on Sunday if you're ill, or if you feel you could be contagious to others," he said.

Response to Fr Ruff on Liturgical Polarisation

Mass for Vladimir Ashkenazy and family at Maiden Lane last week.

Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.

Fr Anthony Ruff at the Pray, Tell blog tells us that the basic picture, in the debate about liturgy, is that

either one supports Vatican II and the reformed liturgy to the exclusion of the preconciliar liturgy, or one shows greater or lesser openness to the preconciliar liturgy, which seems to be equated with opposition to Vatican II.

He does not pause to explain what "opposition to Vatican II" might mean, but admits that not everyone falls into these two strictly opposed camps:

people who don’t fit neatly in either camp... [who] don’t see the preconciliar liturgy as particularly bad or harmful and don’t mind attending it at times.

Fr Ruff would like such people to realise

that the preconciliar liturgy is incompatible with the large advances made by the Second Vatican Council in ecclesiology and liturgical theology and inculturation and all the rest.

He gives the impression that he would like to see the Church become two armed camps snarling at each other from their trenches, with barbed wire, if not clouds of poison gas, marking out no-man’s land. But as for what these Vatican II "advances" might be, Fr Ruff does not say.

Islamic terrorism: What can we do?

Fr Mark Withoos celebrates a Low Mass in the church of
the Domus Australia, under a picture of St Peter Chanel, a
a French Marist priest brutally killed in Tonga in 1841. He is
the protomatyr of Oceania.

Reposted from August 2016
------------------------------------------

I wrote the below shortly after the killing of Fr Jaques Hamel, but for various reasons it's publication has been delayed until now.

The brutal murder of Fr Jaques Hamel in Normandy is the culmination of an extraordinary period of violence, even allowing for the tendency of the media to get into a rut of similar news stories. Even as an attack on a Catholic priest or a Catholic church, it was not as isolated as one might hope, since minor acts of violence are not usually reported nationally or internationally, but this represents a new low. The movement behind these attacks is not going to dissipate quickly on its own, and it is perfectly possible, indeed probable, that this kind of thing, at some level of intensity, is going to become part of our lives in the West, in the way that it is part of the lives of our Christian brothers in Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and many other places.

To say that these events are meaningless, irrational, or incomprehensible, is not a way of understanding them: it is a way of refusing to understand them. In truth, they are none of those things. They are the logical outcome of an ideology which says that a Muslim can redeem a far-from pious life by attacking, abusing, terrorising and killing non-Muslims, or Muslims who fall below the ideology’s standards. The attacker’s own death can even be seen as a bonus, as it is imagined that he or she will immediately attain the promised, supernatural reward. There is no need for any close organisational connection between those bitten by this ideological bug, or training, or special equipment, although some of the recent attackers had some or all of these. In the words of Fr Hamel’s killer, Adel Kermiche: “You take a knife, you go to a church, you make carnage, bam!”

It is a type of terrorism which is significantly different from those we have experienced in the recent past, but it is not entirely without modern European precedent. A parallel is offered by the anarchist assassins of the late 19th century. Like the Islamists, they emerged from a milieu (in their case, of left wing radicalism) in which most people, most of the time, lived fairly normal lives, and certainly weren’t constantly in danger of murdering people. Out of this milieu a few individuals got the super-radical bug, deciding that only assassinations were going to achieve their political goals. All they needed was an easily-obtained pistol or some dynamite; since they were careless of their own survival, they were very difficult to stop. Their ‘propaganda of the deed’ encouraged both admiration and imitation. Just as secular ideology inspired history’s greatest acts of mass-murder, so, in its day, it has inspired suicidal terrorism. It must be admitted, however, that there were only ever relatively tiny numbers of such assassins, and they generally chose only very specific targets.

I don’t have the expertise to offer specific policy suggestions in the face of this challenge, but I’d like to make two general observations about our response, the response of the target, Western societies, to the latest pattern of outrages.

The first thing to note, since it is being (apparently) denied by some, is that violence, and other forms of coercion, is certainly part of the solution. It is sometimes possible to stop unjust violence non-violently, but generally speaking it requires violence. I’m talking about violence and coercion by the forces of law and order, and occasionally private self-defence. Christ chose not to use violence to defend himself against the unjust actions of the public authorities of his own day; it is perverse to interpret this as undermining the right of public authorities to use violence justly. States may not neglect the necessary, violent, means to defend the populations which they are supposed to be governing. The state has the right and duty to employ violence, up to and including the right to kill, in war and in police action, for the sake of public peace. Public officials who refuse to defend the public by just and necessary means are not being noble; whether or not they are motivated by cowardice, they are doing grave wrong. Citizens and voters won’t put up with inaction, and nor should they. As far as the aggressors are concerned, a failure to use violence to oppose them is seen, correctly, as a sign of moral weakness, a sign that this is a society wide open to demolition.

So, within the limits of justice, we should support state action aiming to give effective opposition to terrorism. The danger of injustice here makes it all the more important to support just measures, or at least (if we disagree about their effectiveness), to make it clear that we do not regard them as unjust. If things get really bad, our societies are going to need to hear voices making a distinction between killing unjust aggressors and killing the innocent. If we have opposed every measure taken against terrorism, however mild and common-sensical, up to that point, no one is going to listen to us when they really need to.

A second, related, thing to note is that, while the cultural self-hatred of some on the political left is not a direct cause of terrorism, it is certainly making the situation worse. This goes beyond its manifestations in public policy. Outsiders see in the West a society which does not believe in itself, in its own values. As a society we suffer from the low self-esteem of the classic victim of bullying. In philosophical terms, there has been a move, over a number of centuries, from the substantive values of Christianity and classical culture, towards empty formalism. Instead of saying: ‘this is true’, ‘this way of life has value’, or ‘this work of art is good’, modern Westerners want to say: ‘nothing is true or false’, ‘only the choice between ways of life can be called good’, or ‘any purported work of art is good if they artist says so’. We can maintain for a little while a community of people committed to the notion of choice and the power of the individual to invent himself and set his own goals, but eventually people will ask: ‘If nothing substantive is true or good, why should choice or self-invention be true and good?’ There being no answer to this question, the whole thing turns out to be an empty charade. Even before the final, post-modern implosion of Western culture, there is nothing here for the soul to feed upon, there is nothing of substance to give society common values, there is nothing worth defending or promoting. People who possess nothing they regard as worth defending are not going to be very vigorous in its defence.

Here, there is something which can be contributed by people who still believe in something, something wholesome and historically rooted. Self-doubt and self-flagellation, even when offered by Christians, has nothing to offer the West; these are things already widespread in our societies. What we can offer is something substantive: that life, beauty, and God are real and have value, are worth something, and can give shape, discipline, and meaning to our lives. If Westerners really believed these things, and set themselves in their lives to live accordingly, then the Islamists would not be confronting such an easy and open target.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

Rosary on the Coast

Rosary on the Coast

for Faith, Life and Peace in the British Isles

Sunday 29 April 2018 at 3pm

How to get involved

Website:  https://www.rosaryonthecoast.co.uk/

Facebook:  https://facebook.com/rosaryonthecoast/

Email: admin@rosaryonthecoast.co.uk

LMS Statement on the Coronavirus and Holy Communion

STATEMENT ON COVID-19 (CORONAVIRUS) AND THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION AT CELEBRATIONS OF THE MASS ACCORDING TO THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM,

FROM THE LATIN MASS SOCIETY, 3rd MARCH 2020

The Bishops of England and Wales have issued ‘Guidelines’ (dated 27th February 2020) on steps to be taken in parishes in relation to the possible spread of COVID-19 (the Coronavirus).

While noting that these guidelines do not take the form of a decree with the force of canon law, we welcome them. We should like to make the following clarifications on their application to celebrations of the Extraordinary Form and other traditional Rites and Usages of the Latin Church, such as the Dominican Rite.

1.  In these celebrations the Sign of Peace is not given among members of the congregation; the Precious Blood is not distributed to the Faithful (from the Chalice); and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not employed. In these respects these celebrations already adhere to or render unnecessary recommendations given in the Guidelines for a heightened level of hygiene necessary in the case of a more serious outbreak of the virus.

2.  In these celebrations Holy Communion (the Host) may not be distributed in the hand, according to the universal liturgical law applicable to them. Should the spread of COVID-19 necessitate the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, this would mean the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful in these celebrations.

The Communion of the Faithful is in no way necessary to the validity or liceity (in such circumstances) of the Mass. Should prudence dictate the necessity for such a step, the Faithful should be encouraged to make a ‘Spiritual Communion’. One form of words for making such a Spiritual Communion is given below.

3.  We wish to observe, however, that the distribution of the Host in the hand does not appear to be less likely to spread infection than the distribution on the tongue. On the contrary, distribution on the hand has the result that the Host touches possibly infected surfaces, the palm of the left hand and the fingers of the right hand of the communicant, which is avoided in distribution by a priest directly onto the communicant’s tongue.

A Reply to Cavadini, Healy & Weinandy

Rubrics erased in the Reform

Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.

It would try to patience of readers, and more than exhaust the time I have available, to comment on the whole series of five articles published in Church Life Journal by John Cavadini, Mary Healy, and Thomas Weinandy (hereafter, CHW). Instead I will focus on just two points in the concluding article of the series: ‘The Way Forward from the Theological Concerns with the TLM Movement’.

Throughout this article they keep repeating two fundamental misunderstandings of the movement for the Traditional Mass, misunderstandings which make their analysis and recommendations beside the point. It is a principle of academic discussion that before criticising a position one must first be able to summarise it in a way which would be acceptable to those who put it forward. In this, CHW have, I am afraid, completely failed.

The first misunderstanding is in the motivation of the movement. It is all the more remarkable in that they express their own understanding as their reading of a passage from Peter Kwasniewski which says something entirely different. Dr Kwasnieski, as CHW quotes him, says this:

Loftus and the authority of the Holy See

The Editor of the Catholic Times, Kevin Flaherty, tells us that Mgr Basil Loftus provides his readers with 'a loyal summary of 'counsel' coming from the Holy See, and in particular from the Holy Father.' 20 March 2015.

So it will be interesting to have a look at what Loftus has to say about one of the most closely-guarded prerogatives of the Holy See: the authority to regulatge the liturgy, part of the munus of the Holy Father himself, as we are reminded by the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae 8.

Do we read Loftus accepting with docility the rulings of the Holy See, through the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? Does he seek to understand the reasoning behind their decrees, urge everyone to obey them, and perhaps humbly petition for sensible changes in the future? Well, no.

Montessori and the Directory for Masses with Children

Continuing from the discussion in this post, we may ask the question: What happens if you start out with the idea that children need to be constantly doing or saying things in Mass, and need to understand everything they hear immediately?

You get the nightmare scenario experienced already in the early 20th century, which Maria Montessori describes: over zealous pedagogues influenced by the Liturgical Movement turning the Mass into a classroom. (The Mass Explained to Children p3)

Some lay masters lead files of children into church, rapping out orders to them like a corporal to a squad of new recruits: "Kneel down! No, not like that, all together!" Or one sees a teaching actually taking the children by the shoulders and planing them one by one in the benches, just as if she were packing fruit into baskets.
   Another obvious mistake is to teach them during the Mass.
   ...Even at the Consecration, during those moments of silence and recollection, one hears the voice of the zealous teacher raised...

Loftus: Vatican II ushered in 50-year 'winter'

There must be no more post-conciliar winters, such as that which for nearly 50 years followed Vatican II, inhibiting new growth.

This is a pretty amazing assessment of the recent history of the Church, from some one who claims to support the message of the Council.

For most of his column for the Catholic Times, published on 29th August, Mgr Basil Loftus engages in one of his rambling explanations of why his every wish has the backing of the law of the Church, and in particular the Council, while nevertheless everyone else's is against the law of the Church.

The argument can be summarised in this way. When it comes to stopping people receive Communion on the Tongue:

Seriously unbalanced prejudice, whether it proceeds from a Roman Congregation or from an individual fundamentalist bigot [i.e. someone who prefers to receive on the tongue], is not a 'rightful expectation'. A local bishop in those circumstances is the equivalent of the military would call the 'field-commander'. He calls the shots.

When it comes to local bishops' failure to set up diocesan (as well as parochial) 'pastoral councils' of lay people, on the other hand:

The continuance of monarchical rule by certain bishops frustrates the rightful expectations of priests and people to share in the governance of the Church.

Right, so that's clear then, isn't it? When a bishop contravenes the right of the faithful to receive on the tongue, which is established by custom going back more than a millennium and affirmed by the latest Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship (Redemptionis sacramentum 92), that is right and proper.

When a bishop fails to adopt something merely suggested by a Council document, in this case Apostolicam actuositatem 10 (even Loftus concedes the bishop 'is not directly breaking a law of the Church. Such [pastoral] councils are merely 'earnestly recommended'.'), then that is wrong: 'a dishonest flanking manoeuvre by those in authority', which should be met with noisy opposition by priests and people. Never mind that after exhaustive experimentation the bishop may have concluded that these councils are unworkable, and in practice undermine the authority and even the identity of bishops and priests as taught by the same Council.

Prayer for the Jews: what about Medieval anti-Semitism?

Another photo of Mass for the Feast of St Gregory the Great. 

The Position Paper on the Prayer for the Jews goes into the question of Medieval anti-Semitism, because of the association between the Traditional Mass and the medieval period. The Middle Ages is when the Traditional Mass assumed its current form in a number of ways. Should we not expect to find in its texts a reflection of Medieval attitudes?

Certainly not in this case, because the Orationes sollemnes, of which the Prayer for the Jews is a part, derive not from the Middle Ages at all, but from Antiquity: probably the 3rd century, with links back to even earlier times. This is the scholarly consensus; the references are in the Position Paper. There is such a thing as Medieval anti-Semitism, and it is a phenomenon which got going in a big way in the 13th century. The Prayer for the Jews of the ancient liturgical tradition was composed a thousand years earlier. That really is rather a long gap.

Loftus attacks Bishop Alan Hopes

Fr Daniel Lloyd of the Ordinariate celebrating the EF in SS Gregory & Augustine's, Oxford.

The subject of Mgr Basil Loftus article in the Catholic Times of 1st August is frequent Communion.

...it is really quite astounding that there should currently appear to be a campaign, led by some bishops in England and Wales, to play down the very desireability of frequent Holy Communion, to the extent that another Catholic newspaper, The Tablet, by no means alarmist or addicted to 'screaming headlines', recently warned: 'Frequent Communion in Question.'

Let's rewind the tape a bit. In the 12th July issue, the Tablet ran a story reporting some remarks of Bishop Alan Hopes, the new bishop of East Anglia, which included this passage.

“People at Mass have a view – ‘What do I get out of this?’,” he said. “We have shifted to a practice where everybody gets up for Communion and makes it awkward for those who can’t go to Communion.”

The headline was
Hopes says Mass has become consumerised (link for subscribers)

In the next issue, The Tablet published three letters criticising Bishop Hopes, one from the deeply depressing lay(icised) theologian Nicholas Lash, another from Mgr Loftus himself. The latter read:

To suggest that because people have “a sense of entitlement about receiving Holy Communion”, they are unacceptably becoming part of a “consumer society”, directly contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “it is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required disposition, receive Communion each time (italics in original) [sic] they participate in the Mass”, (n.1388). Of course “we expect Communion at every Mass, and Mass has become the most prevalent service”. That is what being a eucharistic community is all about. The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church. For the very bishop charged with promoting liturgical observance to suggest otherwise is deeply disturbing.

It was these letters which got the headline
Frequent Communion in question (link for subscribers)

Readers can decide for themselves what view The Tablet took of this exchange, but they did not use that headline as a quasi-editorial comment on Bishop Hopes' remarks, but to indicate the content of Loftus' own frothings about it - and those of his fellow correspondents. They once printed a letter of mine beneath the headline 'Enthusiasm of young for old rite'.

I report this because it illustrates a number of points I have been making about Mgr Loftus over the months.


1. He has no intellectual integrity.

How can you argue with someone who writes, in a newspaper column, things which he knows aren't true? It is not a matter of a divergent interpretation, but of someone who just doesn't care. If you challenged him he would, as always, have something to point to: the headline. But if you actually look it up it quite obviously doesn't support his argument in the way he claims. This is absolutely typical of Loftus. There's no engaging with him, but it is important to point out his superficially plausible falsehoods. Those without a subscription to The Tablet have no way independent way of knowing it was not true.


2. His level of polemic is far below even that of The Tablet.

I've made plenty of criticisms of The Tablet, but Loftus is on a completely different level. Whether it is fear of reprisals or journalistic self-respect, they don't print obvious and trivial falsehoods like this. It reminds me of a remark by the Australian Catholic politician, Arthur Calwell, who was leader of the Australian Labor Party, about Australian Communists.

If these people went to Russia, Stalin wouldn't even use them for manure.

If Loftus turned up at The Tablet, he wouldn't get a job cleaning the loos.

Fr Armand de Malleray FSSP distributing Holy Communion at the LMS Day of Recollection
at St Edmund's College, Ware.

3. His attacks on the hierarchy are more persistent, more open, more extreme, and more unfair, than anything served up by a mainstream Traditional Catholic.

There is simply no one who can be described as part of the conversation among Catholics in the UK - which is to say, leaving aside those totally off the radar in either direction, whether it be sede vacantists or women-priest ordaining fantasists - who is as remotely hostile to our bishops as Mgr Basil Loftus. In this article he refers to Bishop Alan Hopes without naming him, but he names, and attacks, Cardinal Nichols and Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster. In other columns he has attacked Bishop Davies of Shrewsbury (whose remarks 'might even call for anger'), Cardinal Ranjith ('the Sri Lankan cappa magna fetishist and Tridentine-rite devotee'), Cardinal Müller (under whom the CDF is 'not fit for purpose'), Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen (without naming him), his former ordinary Archbishop Roche (without naming him), and the Papal Nuncio. He has also made extraordinarily vicious swipes at the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Office of Papal Celebrations and its head, Mgr Marini, the PCED, the Ordinariate, and any bishop who has had anything to do with the Traditional Mass (of whom there are, these days, many). And again, and again, and again, Pope Benedict XVI.

This, remember, is in a newspaper which enjoys ecclesiastical approval, which is sold at the back of Catholic churches, has 'Catholic' in its name, and bears the legend 'Follow Peter' on its masthead.

Talk about about a lack of loyalty to the hierarchy by Traditional Catholics, which used to be something of a parlour game among conservative Catholics, has to be set into this context. For some inscrutable reason (which I've discussed here), the bishops of England and Wales, and Scotland, have chosen to put up with this clown's columns since the early 1990s.

4. Loftus never engages with the substance of the teaching he attacks.

Loftus presents the remarks of the various bishops about the problems presented by the over-casual frequent reception of Holy Communion as simply incomprehensible, motiveless attempts to stop people benefitting spiritually from the Sacrament. Never in the entire column, which takes up more than half a broadsheet page, does he so much as mention the possibility that receiving Communion in a state of grave sin does not confer spiritual benefits on the communicant, or the possibility that people should be encouraged to prepare more carefully, receive more reverently, and give thanks afterwards more gratefully, in order to receive more spiritual benefit from it. It is as if these considerations, which are clearly in the minds of the bishops, did not exist.

In fact, this has been a concern at the highest levels of the Church for decades. Back in 1980, St John Paul II noted:

Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one’s conscience.

There more on this in the FIUV Position Paper on the Eucharistic Fast.

The importance of this point is that in no sense can Loftus be regarded as a valid or useful contribution to the debate. A liberal Catholic who articulated the claim that we don't need to worry about popping up to Communion regardless of our spiritual state, as if it were sweeties which were being handed out, because there is no such thing as an objective state of sin, and / or because the Eucharist does not really contain the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but just some kind of symbolic reminder - such a liberal might help to clarify the issues and advance the discussion. That is the kind of article, however, which the Catholic press would never print. Instead, they print this kind of thing, which by subterfuge and omission undermines the teaching without confronting it clearly. It serves to do nothing but confuse its readers and alienate them from the teaching of their bishops.


5. Loftus is losing the argument.

Like many liberals, Mgr Loftus is always fighting a rear-guard action. He protested in the most intemperate terms about the corrected English translation of the Novus Ordo Missal: in vain. He has railed repeatedly about the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and the legal status of the Traditional Mass: in vain. But it is not just in Rome, under Pope Benedict, where things have been going badly for him. Here he is whining about increasingly urgent attempts by our own bishops, by no means some group of ultra-conservative 'usual suspects' but perfectly mainstream members of the Bishops' Conference, to do something about the lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. We can look forward to him complaining about recent statements condemning over-the-top behaviour at the Sign of Peace. This, remember, is under Pope Francis, by whom Loftus sets such store.

Why, the reader may ask, am I so concerned about Loftus, if he is always on the losing side of the argument? Taking the long view, it is clear that the liberals are losing the argument about almost everything about the liturgy and pastoral theology. It is possible to look ahead, on current trends, to the restoration of Altar Rails, the systematic encouragement of Communion on the Tongue, more frequent Confession, and perhaps a longer Eucharistic Fast: and similar developments in other areas of the Church's life.

But how many of the nominal Catholics in the pews today are the new generation of Bishops and priests going to take with them? Are we going to end up with a conservative Novus Ordo being celebrated by zealous young priests in empty churches?

If those Catholics interested enough in the Faith to read The Catholic Times are continually fed Loftus-style propaganda, it makes the preparation of the Faithful for liturgical re-sacrilisation much, much harder. Perhaps no one cares about this except me and my faithful blog readers, but it ought to be a serious concern for our bishops. By tolerating Loftus, they are making their jobs that much harder. And their job, remember, is an important one: it is the salvation of souls.

Fr Anthony Glaysher distributing Holy Communion at the LMS AGM Mass in Westminst Cathedral.

As a service to the public, I have put together quotations on a range of themes from Loftus' published writings, mostly his Catholic Times columns, in a dossier here, and made one of his most theologically egregious articles, on the Resurrection of Our Lord, available here.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

The Sacra Liturgia Conference has set the cause of the Reform of the Reform back by 20 years. That may not be a bad thing.

The reactions to Cardinal Sarah's words encouraging celebration of Mass 'ad orientem', with the priest facing east as the congregation does, continue to reverberate. In addition to a 'clarification' by the Vatican spokesman, Fr Lombardi, and a letter from Cardinal Nichols to the priests of Westminster Diocese, we have now had a letter from the Chairman of the relevant committee of the US Bishops' conference. All these statements point out that Cardinal Sarah's comments do not change liturgical law, and in slightly different ways claim that the current law favours celebration 'versus populum,' with the priest facing the people. The US letter asserts that a decision to change from vs. pop. to ad orientem celebration by a priest should only be done with the knowledge and approval of the bishop.

None of these statements, any more that Cardinal Sarah's, have in themselves the force of law. Nevertheless, they make public, clear, and official, a view which was up to now not so public, not so clear, and not so official: that celebration vs. pop. is officially favoured to the point that celebrating ad orientem needs, at least, special justification.

The kind of initiatives in which the 'Reform of the Reform' (RotR) consists, at the local level, depend on a degree of ambiguity about what is allowed or favoured by the rules. Such ambiguity abounds in official documents. Are altar girls permitted or actually favoured? Female lectors? Communion under both kinds? The use of the Roman Canon? Silent recitation of the Offertory? The sign of peace? Concelebration? The debate about the rules (unlike the debate on the underlying theology) is not only endless, but both exceedingly boring and ultimately pointless. It suffices that conservative and liberal priests alike can claim a degree of leeway and, when the pastoral and political conditions permit, quietly move things in their favoured direction. The golden rule in such matters is that you don't press for clarification unless you are sure things will be clarified in your favour.

H1N1 prompts bans on Communion under Both Kinds in Mexico

I can't find this story online, but it is in the print edition of the Catholic Universe, 19th Jan 2014.


Virus Prompts Mass Change. 



Rio Grande: Growing concern over the spread of the H1N1 virus has prompted the Mexican Church to change the way the Mass is delivered. To prevent the transfer of the virus, some priests are not serving the Blood of Christ from a communal chalice, while others have have further and stopped giving Communion completely. 


"Some parishes have decided not to have Communion," said Rev Mgr Heberto Diaz of the diocese of Brownsville. "And that's up to the local pastor of each of the parishes. If someone is ill, then they shouldn't receive from the chalice." 


Parishioners are also being discouraged from shaking hands at the 'Sign of Peace' before Communion, which can also transfer the H1N1 virus. 


Mgr Diaz says the best way that churches can help prevent the spread of the flu virus is by reminding parishioners that it's perfectly fine to miss church if they are sick. "It's not a sin not to come to church on Sunday if you're ill, or if you feel you could be contagious to others," he said.

This seems unusually badly written, and I don't want to attribute too quickly to the bishops of Mexico the strange claims or terminology implied in the report. I assume it has been through some kind of news agency, though the Catholic Universe does not say what the source is.

(No, it is not 'up to each pastor' to refuse Communion to the entire parish at whim - such a thing would only be licit of the Bishop had issued a decree, effectively calling an emergency situation.)

It is interesting that the H1N1 / Communion Under Both Kinds issue hasn't gone away. In England we had all this back in 2009. The people still determined to ignore the public health aspects of the question are going to feel increasingly beleaguered.

To reiterate what the FIUV Position Paper on the general issue of Communion under One or Both kinds said, the hygiene problem is not with the early Medieval Western practice of reception from the Chalice (using a straw) in small congregations once or twice a year. The problem is certainly not with Vatican II's suggestion that one or a few people receive from the Chalice in addition to the priest once or twice in a lifetime. Nor is the problem with the Eastern practice of intinction using a spoon which does not touch the Communicant's lips or tongue. The problem is with the practice unique to the Latin Church after 1970, in direct contradiction of the liturgical law of the 1970s and early 1980s, until they gave up trying to enforce it, of large congregations receiving the Chalice (with little solemnity) every Sunday of the year.

Read the Position Paper here.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Prayers for Persecuted Christians

The Arabic letter 'Nun', for Nazarene, is being painted
on Christian homes in Mosul, to mark them out.

I posted this in July 2014 for the Christians of the Middle East. Today I repost it with the thought particularly of the Catholics of China.

--------------------------------------------------

At this moment of disaster for the Christians of Mosul, and of the Middle East in general, we should remember to keep them in our prayers, and have Masses said for them.

There are several Votive Masses and Commemorations in the 1962 Missal for suitable intentions ('For the Church', 'Against Persecutors', 'For Peace' and the like). The Collect of one of them was enriched with an indulgence in 1934, for use as a prayer on its own. The indulgence has gone but we can still say the prayer.

Graciously hear the prayers of Thy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord: that her enemies and all heresies be brought to nought, and that she may serve Thee in perfect security and freedom. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, preces placatus admitte: ut, destructis adversitatibus er erroribus universis, secura tibi serviat libertate. Per Christum Dominium nostrum. Amen.

(Translation from the Raccolta, the official handbook of indulgenced prayers.)

The Raccolta also includes this short prayer, taken from the Roman Ritual:

That Thou wouldst vouchsafe to bring low the enemies of holy Church, we beseech Thee to hear us.

Ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.

A longer prayer, which isn't in my edition of the Raccolta but which was also granted an indulgence in 1934, was issued as a Prayer Card by the Catholic Truth Society with an imprimatur from Cardinal Godfrey in 1962.

Almighty, everlasting God, look with compassion on all those who suffer persecution for justice’ sake.
     Grant them grace to carry their cross with patience in the name of Thy beloved Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
     Let the chalice pass from them is such by Thy holy Will: yet, in all things, may Thy Will be done.
     Grant to those who persecute, light to see the truth, and the grace of mercy and forgiveness, for they know not what they do.
     Mary, Mother of Jesus, Comfort of the Afflicted, help thy children in their time of bitter trial.

O Lord our God, by the sign of Thy holy cross deliver us from our enemies.




Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

A Catholic funeral for Crookback Dick?

We should demand the Catholic rites to be used for the reinternment of King Richard III of England.

Being succeeded by Henry VII, father of Henry VIII, he was the penultimate King of England to die a Catholic, until Charles II was received on his deathbed.

There's a petition online, so fight the good fight, sign up and may he rest in peace.