What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Biretta tip to Jon o{]:¬) for alerting me to a story in the London Times on the issue of the "restoration" of the older, "Tridentine" form of Mass to greater use in the Church. Keep in mind that this article was written by Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen, who provided us a while back with one of the stupidest articles I have ever read in a serious paper. Here is the text, with my emphasis and comments, from the Times:

 

Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church [Another candidate…]

By Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen

THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times. ["Sources" mentioned twice so far… gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, right?]

Use of the Tridentine Mass, parts of which date from the time of St Gregory in the 6th century and which takes its name from the 16th-century Council of Trent, was restricted by most bishops after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

This led to the introduction of the new Mass in the vernacular to make it more accessible to contemporary audiences. By bringing back Mass in Latin, Pope Benedict is signalling that his sympathies lie with conservatives in the Catholic Church. ["NEWSSS FLASSHH!! BENEDICT ALIGNED WITH CONSERVATIVES]

One of the most celebrated rebels against its suppression was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with Rome in 1988 over this and other reforms. He was excommunicated after he consecrated four bishops, one of them British, without permission from the Pope.

This is the part that goes blah blah blah, so I cut it.

 

The new indult would permit any priest to introduce the Tridentine Mass to his church, anywhere in the world, unless his bishop has explicitly forbidden it in writing. [And I imagine that vicars general everywhere are being sent out two by two to buy new boxes of Biks for their bishops. They will burn through them pretty fast in those first, heady days of "freedom".]

Catholic bloggers have been anticipating the indult for months. The Cornell Society blog says that Father Martin Edwards, a London priest, was told by Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, that the indult had been signed. Cardinal Zen is alleged to have had this information from the Pope himself in a private meeting. [A SOURCE!! And it is our favorite CARDINAL ZEN]

“There have been false alarms before, not least because within the Curia there are those genuinely well-disposed to the Latin Mass, those who are against and those who like to move groups within the Church like pieces on a chessboard,” a source told The Times. “But hopes have been raised with the new pope. It would fit with what he has said and done on the subject. He celebrated in the old rite, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

The 1962 Missal issued by Pope John XXIII was the last of several revisions of the 1570 Missal of Pius V. In a lecture in 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger said that it would be “fatal” for the Missal to be “placed in a deep-freeze, left like a national park, a park protected for the sake of a certain kind of people, for whom one leaves available these relics of the past”. [But that is not what Benedict ever thought would happen. He knows that a tertium quid will go forth organically from the influence each rite will exert on the other.]

Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, a UK umbrella group that campaigns for the restoration of traditional orthodoxy, said: “A lot of young priests are teaching themselves the Tridentine Mass because it is so beautiful and has prayers that go back to the Early Church.” [Right. And it is because of this, among other reasons, that their celebrations of the Mass with the Novus Ordo are so much better than many have been in the past few decades.]

TRADITIONAL SERVICE
# The Tridentine Mass is celebrated entirely in Latin, except for a few words and phrases in Greek and Hebrew. There are long periods of silence and the priest has his back to the congregation [WRONGG!! Everyone is facing the same direction!]

# In 1570, Pope St Pius V said that priests could use the Tridentine rite forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty” [Of course you have to understand that "forever" in that context meant until the next Pope made a change. Also, Pius allowed older rites to be used in certain local Churches, provided that no one be forbidden to use also the Missale Romanum at will.]

# Since the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Mass has been almost entirely superseded by the Mass of Pope Paul VI

# Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who took the lead in opposing the reforms, continued to celebrate the old Mass at his seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, and formed a dissident group. He was excommunicated in 1988

# The advantages of the Mass, according to the faithful, are in its uniformity and the fact that movements and gestures are prescribed, so that there is no room for “personalisation” [Well… not entirely accurate. But the older form of Mass surely does tend to "control" the priest.]

Okay, folks. I am guessing that the leaks were on purpose in order to create storm of opposition against Benedict’s plans, if they are indeed his plans. Loose lips sink ships, after all. That is what happened when "the Document" was on the Pope’s desk back in the late 80’s. Sad but true. Very sad but true.

 

I figured out how to play piece of pre-recorded video over the streaming Z-Cam in the chapel of the Sabine Farm, which, alas, I am leaving soon in favor of the Roman chapel.  I recorded this mornings Holy Mass (with the 1962 Missale Romanum of the Holy Angels) through the cam.  In any event, if I put the archived video of Mass on the Z-cam, let me know if you catch a glimpse.

We continue our Patristic Rosary Project today with the:

4th Luminous Mystery: The Transfiguration

The Mystery of the Transfiguration was a matter of intense reflection on the part of the Fathers.

Remember that this takes place some eight days after the Lord confers the keys on Peter by the Jordan at Caesarea Philippi.  The Fathers thought everything in Scripture was significant and they attached great meaning to numbers.  Let us see what the mighty Ambrose of Milan (+397) has to say about the timing of the Transfiguration in relation to the events at Caesarea Philippi:

You may know that Peter, James and John did not taste death and were worthy to see the glory of the resurrection.  It says, "about eight days after these words, He took those three alone and led them onto the mountain." Why is it that he says, "eight days after these words"?  He that hears the words of Christ and believes will see the glory of Christ at the time of the resurrection.  The resurrection happened on the eight day, and most of the psalms were written "For the eighth".  (cf. e.g., Ps 6:1; 12:1 LXX and Vulgate)  It shows us that He said that he who because of the Word of God shall lose his own soul will save it, (Luke 9:24) since he renews his promises at the resurrection.  (Matthew 16:25-27)  But Matthew and Mark say that they were taken after six days.  (Cf. Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2)  We may say that they were taken after six thousand years, because a thousand years in God’s sight are as one day.  (Ps 89:4 LXX)  We counted more than six thousand years.  We prefer to understand six days as a symbol, because God created the works of the world in six days (Gen 2:1), so that we understand works through the time and the world through the works.  [Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 7.6-7]

St. Augustine (+430) also gets into this issue of six days, as recounted in Matthew and Mark, and eight days (as in Luke) in a discussion of the resurrection three days after the Passion and death of the Lord.  He is trying to make sense of the numbers.  In other places I have explained how the ancients numbered their periods of days, that is, inclusively.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444) wrote of the Transfiguration in terms of the connection between suffering and glory, between the Law and the Prophets, between the foreshadowings of the past and their fulfillment.

"I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they have seen the kingdom of God." ... By the "kingdom of God" He means the sight of the glory in which He will appear at His revelation to the inhabitants of earth.  He will come in the glory of God the Father and not in a humble condition like ours.  How did He make those who received the promise spectators of a thing so wonderful?  He goes up into the mountain taking three chosen disciples with Him.  He is transformed to such a surpassing and godlike brightness that His garments even glittered with rays of fire and seemed to flash like lightning.  Besides, Moses and Elijah stood at Jesus’ side and spoke with one another about His departure that He was about, it says, to accomplish at Jerusalem.  This meant the mystery of the dispensation in the flesh and of His precious suffering upon the Cross.  It is also true that the law of Moses and the word of the holy prophets foreshadowed the mystery of Christ.  the law of Moses foreshadowed it by types and shadows, painting it as in a picture.  The holy prophets in different ways declared before hand that in due time He would appear in our likeness and for the salvation and life of us all, agree to suffer death on the tree.  Moses and Elijah standing before Him and talking with one another was a sort of representation.  It excellently displayed our Lord Jesus Christ as having the law and the prophets for His bodyguard.  It displayed Christ as being the Lord of the Law and the Prophets, as foretold in them by those things that they proclaimed in mutual agreement beforehand.  The words of the prophets are not different from the teachings of the law.  I imagine this was what the most priestly Moses and the most distinguished of the prophets Elijah were talking about with one another.  [Commentary on Luke, Homily 51]

The last line here is interesting.  It makes me call to mind what one finds in studying ancient historiography, such as Herodotus and Thucydides.  When reporting the speeches great figures made, about which they might at the very best have some distant report from someone who heard about the content of the speech, such as Pericles’s great oration, from a generation or more removed, Thucydides would record what the great man ought to have said in that momentous occasion.  This sounds much like what Cyril is doing.

Have you ever wondered why some get some graces and others do not?  St. Maximus Confessor (+682) gives an interesting insight while he comments on the Transfiguration:

The Lord does not always appear in glory to all who stand before Him. To beginners He appears in the form of a servant (Phil 2:7); to those able to follow Him as He climbs the high mountain of His Transfiguration He appears in the form of God, the form in which He existed before the world came to be (John 17:5). It is therefore possible for the same Lord not to appear in the same way to all who stand before Him, but to appear to some in one way and to others in another way, according to the measure of each person’s faith. When the Logos of God becomes manifest and radiant in us, and His face shines like the sun, then His clothes will also look white. That is to say, the words of the Gospel will then be clear and distinct, with nothing concealed. And Moses and Elijah – the more spiritual principles of the Law and the Prophets – will also be present with Him.  

St. John Chrysostom (+407) takes on this same issue:

"Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves;" (Matt. 17:1) ...Note, I pray you, the severe goodness of Matthew, not concealing those who were preferred to himself. Also, John often does this (in his Gospel), recording the peculiar praises of Peter with great sincerity. For the choir of these holy men (disciples) was everywhere pure from envy and vainglory. Having taken, therefore, the leaders, "He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him." (Matt. 17:2,3) Why does Jesus take with Him these three only? Because these were superior to the rest. And, Peter indeed showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; John; by being exceedingly loved by Him; and James again by his answer which he gave with his brother, saying "We are able (to drink this cup);" (Matt. 20:22) but not by this answer only, but also by his works …For so earnest was he (James), and so grievous to the Jews, that Herod himself supposed that he found favor with the Jews by slaying him (James)."  [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 56]    

I suppose we ought to be careful what we ask for.  Our earthly fate notwithstanding, we are always able to have a moment of Transfiguration in the proper reception of Holy Communion, which is far more than a mere vision of something of Christ’s divine shining through our humanity.  The Eucharist is not only the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, it is for us a "pledge of future glory, containing in Itself all delight", as St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) wrote for the feast of Corpus Christi, and which we all sing whenever there is Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.  A good reception of Communion is an even greater encounter with the Lord, than a Transfiguration.  It opens up the way to a bright future for us.  On that note, Gregory of Nazianzus (+389) ties us all into the mystery of the Transfiguration, saying:

He was bright as the lightning on the mountain and became more luminous than the sun, initiating us into the mystery of the future.  [Oration 3.19, On the Son]

Before I forget, as I did yesterday, 9 October was the feast of St. Abraham, partriarch of the Old Testment.  Here is the entry in the newest edition of the Martyrologium Romanum with a translation:

3. Commemoratio sancti Abrahae, patriarchae et omnium credentium patris, qui, Domino vocante, ab urbe Ur Chaldaeorum, patria sua, egressus est et per terram erravit eidem et semini eius a Deo promissam.  Item totam fidem suam in Deo manifestavit, cvm, sperans contra spem, unigenitum Isaac ei iam seni a Domino datum ex uxore sterili in sacrificum offerre non renuit.  ...  The commemoration of Saint Abraham, patriarch and father of all believers, who, since the Lord was calling him, went froth from the city of Ur of the Chaldeans, his home land, and wandered through the land promised by God to him and to his seed.  He manfiested his complete faith in God when, hoping against hope, he did not refrain from offering in sacrifice his only-begotten son Isaac, given by the Lord to him, an old man, from his sterile wife.

 

Nothing is impossible with God.

For the Fathers, Abraham is a great "type" or foreshadowing figure.  Some, such as St. Ambrose (+397) for example, and St. Jerome (+420) took his journey from Ur to the Promissed Land to exemplify the journey of purification necessary for union with God.  For Origen, his obedience in offering up Isaac as faith in the resurrection.   Others see Abraham and Isaac, ascending the hill for the sacrifice, as, together, a foreshadowing of Christ the Priest who is also Victim.  

A propos the limbo debate these days, the "bosom of Abraham" is considered sometimes as an intermediate place between heaven and hell where the just are consoled while awaiting the final resurrection (this is what Tertullian thought) or the refuge of eternal peace (Ambrose, De obitu Valent. 72).