Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

Speaking Truth To Power

Posted on 29 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

salome-with-the-head-of-saint-john-the-baptist-onorio-marinari We celebrate liturgically the births of Our Lord (25 December), His Blessed Mother (8 September) and the prophet who was more than a prophet, the greatest man ever born of a woman (Matthew 11:9-11; Luke 7:28), St John the Baptist (+24 June 28-29). On 29 August we celebrate the Beheading of St John, murdered by a feckless politician, the pusillanimous Tetrarch Herod. John was imprisoned because he denounced Herod’s illicit, sinful “marriage”. Herod then had John killed because, blinded by lust for his niece, he was too craven to back down from a rash offer he blurted in his lechery.

St Augustine of Hippo (+430) in s. 380 reflects on how John was martyred for Christ because he was murdered for the Truth. England’s own Venerable Bede (+735) preached, “St John gave his life for [Christ]. He was not ordered to deny Jesus Christ, but was ordered to keep silent about the Truth”.

Speaking the truth to power, and to wider society, about sexual mores, about illicit and immoral unions, can earn you a close haircut. In the Church, asking too many questions about objectively confusing problems can earn you a … shave.

And yet, the “greatest man ever born of a woman” bore witness to the Truth. It is the right thing to do. The lives of martyrs are no less examples for imitation today than they were when they were fresh models to our ancient forebears in the Faith.

In 2012, Benedict XVI taught about the martyrdom of the Baptist in a General Audience. He said,

“Celebrating the martyrdom of St John the Baptist reminds us too, Christians of this time, that with love for Christ, for his words and for the Truth, we cannot stoop to compromises. The Truth is Truth; there are no compromises. Christian life demands, so to speak, the ‘martyrdom’ of daily fidelity to the Gospel, the courage, that is, to let Christ grow within us and let him be the One who guides our thought and our actions. However, this can happen in our life only if we have a solid relationship with God.”

Speaking of speaking truth to power, to paraphrase Edmund Burke (+1797), in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. United in prayer and our Faith, we must together bear witness to the Truth in our troubling times, as martyrs and confessors did in theirs.

You might momentarily be deceived into thinking that this is a portrait of a certain writer at the Fishwrap, prone to swoons. Instead, however, it is

Herodias with the Head of Saint John the Baptist

The ecstatic adulteress is in the very act of mutilating with a pin the tongue that named her sin.

Francesco del Cairo (1598–1674)

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged beheading of John the Baptist, St. John the Baptist
3 Comments

Eyewitness account of struggle over post-Conciliar liturgical reform, which “reversed” centuries

Posted on 29 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I think that some day many more people will know about the life and work of the late French Archbp. Marcel Lefebvre. He, a Holy Ghost Father, was a great missionary in Africa whose influence is still strongly felt there. He was also a bishop at the Second Vatican Council, about which he writes in his memoirs.

Oh yes, he also founded the SSPX.

At One Peter Five there is a post about Lefebvre’s view of a powerful influence on Popes John XXIII and Paul VI.

Here is a bit of the post about the liturgical reform with my emphases and comments:

[…]

I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. [Annibale at the gate] One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini [to] explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. [litotes] Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?

It had not been spoken of at the Council. [The Council Fathers had mandated a few points, but the Consilium (a committee entrusted with the reform) went waaaaay beyond the mandates.] What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.

Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it’s not possible!”

He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention. [Keep in mind that Bugnini had been given the heave-ho by the Sacred Congregation for Rites from his position at the Lateran University. From that point onward, he had it out for just about everyone and everything. And the 1955 changes to Holy Week was just the warm-up. Who he was and what he was about was clear.]

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?”

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn’t think of that,” he said! [I wonder.]

Afterwards another arose and said: “Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church.” Well, this is what he replied: “We can always add something.” Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, now I heard it myself. [Remember what Joseph Ratzinger said: an artificial creation. No wonder such a shock slammed the Church and wounded her for these many decades.]

Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided [at] that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting.”

So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It’s not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy.”

Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: “Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants.” It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope’s office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.

Does not such a professed sense of powerlessness (and paralysis) – as described here with reference to Cardinal Cicognani – remind us of our own current situation, where we are told my high-ranking prelates and even prefects of congregations that they cannot do anything about the revolutionary things that are happening in the Vatican? Here it might be worthwhile to add another example given by Archbishop Lefebvre:

A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be given for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal [Benno Walter] Gut – a Swiss – who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: “I’m going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say.”

As we spoke I said: “Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief”

At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, “See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly.”

Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: “Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said “one” he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I’m not certain it is asked of me (don’t forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: ‘Holy Father, do not do this; do not sign this decree.’ I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here.”

This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told: you are a dissident and [a] disobedient rebel.

Scripta manent.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Annibale Bugnini, Archbp. Lefebvre, BUGNINICARE, liturgical reform
32 Comments

ASK FATHER: Civil divorce but stay together as married couple?

Posted on 29 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I (think) I have a tough question (“hagan lío”?):

Can a man and a woman, who validly embraced the Sacrament of Marriage 10 years ago and who STILL WANT to carry on living as husband and wife their indissoluble Catholic Marriage (which has already been blessed with three children) – can this couple get a civil divorce (excuse the pleonasm)?

“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.”

Is not the Sacrament of Marriage a (indissoluble) “thing of God”. And is not civil marriage a (dissoluble) thing of Caesar?

If husband and wife have become unhappy, uncomfortable with their country’s civil law consequences for their civil marriage (namely the laws of succession ‘mortis causa’), can the couple get a civil divorce (while still remaining commited to a happy and indissoluble Catholic Marriage)? Would obtaining a civil divorce be – in any case – a grave sin?

GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE: by Fr. Tim Ferguson

Interesting question. The Church expects us to be good, law-abiding citizens. Matthew 22:21 (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”) is often cited as Our Lord’s command to be obedient to the legitimate civil authority in those areas where civil authority exercises legitimate authority. Even in the early Church, operating within the Roman Empire, which was hardly operating under Christian principles, the Fathers of the Church urged the faithful to be obedient to civil laws, as long as those laws did not violate the moral law or the demands of the Gospel.

Ideally, the Church and the State work together for the good of citizens, and there are clear lines between the Church’s realm and the State’s realm. Our history shows that, in reality, those lines often get blurred, often to the detriment of the Church (see, for example, Henry VIII of England, Joseph II of Austria, Otto von Bismarck of Germany)

The Church, which has been given authority over marriage, recognizes that the civil authorities have legitimate interest in marriage. Marriage is good for society. Stable commitments between one man and one woman provide many benefits to the civil order, not the least of which is the procreation and upbringing of adorable future taxpayers. Without surrendering her authority over marriage, the Church prefers to cooperate with the civil authority, and leaves to the civil government the regulation of certain aspects of marriage. Thus, in most countries around the world, a marriage in Church requires the possession of a civil marriage license. Some countries (for example France and Mexico) do not recognize the Church’s role in marriage. In these places, lamentably, couples are forced to go through two ceremonies – a civil one, and then an ecclesiastical one. This is not ideal, and we should never rest comfortably with situations like this – the Church should strive as much as possible to keep a good relationship with the State for many reasons.

When it comes to divorce, the Church does not recognize the right of the State to “end” marriage. Only the death of one of the spouses or, in certain extreme circumstances, the intervention of the Holy Father (exercising his authority as Vicar of Christ) can end marriage. That said, the Church is not naive, and recognizes divorce as a reality. While it does not end marriage, it does have certain effects on the lives of the faithful, and the Church leaves to the civil courts such matters as the division of assets, the custody of children, and so forth. Divorce is a bad thing. Choosing divorce when there are other options is a sinful thing – gravely sinful, considering the gravity of marriage. There are circumstances, such as spousal abuse (which no one should be forced to endure), that make choosing divorce a legitimate, and non-sinful option. Ideally, this is done after consultation with one’s pastor. The Church has a canonical process for seeking the bishop’s permission to separate and pursue a civil divorce. While some try to claim that this canonical process is mandatory, and filing for divorce without the bishop’s permission is wrong and sinful, this is not the teaching of the Church.

In recognizing the State’s legitimate interests in marriage, the Church also knows that sometimes, the State errs. In times past, some civil authorities had laws that restricted the real freedom that people have in choosing marital partners. In some places, persons of different “races” were not allowed to marry each other. In some places, slaves and free men were not allowed to marry. In some places, nobility were not allowed to marry common folk, or were required to obtain permission to marry. The Church has rejected those prohibitions and has authorized secret marriages not recognized by the civil authority because of the illegitimacy of these civil restrictions.

Yet, the Church recognizes that some restrictions the State puts on marriage are legitimate, and is reluctant to intervene. Only the bishop can permit secret marriages, and usually, the bishop is reluctant to do so if the restrictions put on by the State are legitimate. For example, an older couple, both widowed, wants to get married, but does not want to do so civilly because doing so would lessen or eliminate their respective pensions. The Church would be reluctant to grant permission for a secret marriage because pension law is something that the State has legitimate authority over. If the civil law is unduly harsh, the solution is to work to change the law, not to try and get the Church involved in circumventing the law. Laws regarding pensions, property, taxes, inheritance – these are all things over which the State has legitimate authority, and the Church respects that authority. If the laws are unjust, the Church urges the faithful (especially the lay faithful, since this is their proper sphere of activity) to work to change the laws and be good, law-abiding citizens, only engaging in civil disobedience in extreme cases.

So, getting to the point – can a Catholic married couple seek a civil divorce while remaining in their hearts and minds (and bed and board) still married because the inheritance laws of the State seem onerous? No.

[The moderation queue is ON.]

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, HONORED GUESTS, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged divorce, marriage, sacrament of matrimony
22 Comments

Help @TeamRubicon help in Hurricane Harvey

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the past I have posted about an organization called TEAM RUBICON.

Team Rubicon is made up of present and former first responders, former military, doctors, experts in many fields as a fast response team which swoops in as fast as possible when disasters of all kinds strike.

Hurricane Harvey has them ramping up.

Perhaps my bestest friend ever let me know about a donation just made to Team Rubicon. HERE

May I recommend this good organization? Read their story.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged Team Rubicon
3 Comments

“Dunkirk on the Bayou” – Houston parish flooded – VIDEO

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A priest friend of mine in Houston sent the following about his parish:

Dry so far. A nearby creek is close to overflowing, so that could be trouble. About 800 made it to Mass over the weekend, 10% of our usual attendance. [800 is 10%?] We continue with regular Masses and confessions, and a few are able to attend. Since I don’t have a boat to pitch in with Dunkirk on the Bayou (as I’m calling it), and even if I did, the Mass is the most powerful weapon we have. Oremus pro invicem!

Father also sent me this video about the really sad situation of another Houston parish.

https://www.facebook.com/ignatiusloyolacc/videos/1425309677579546/

PRAYERS, please! Both for my priest friend’s parish and for that parish that is so badly struck.

Posted in Mail from priests, Semper Paratus, Urgent Prayer Requests | Tagged Archd. Houston
11 Comments

Watching Texas, etc. Dear readers… plan for disasters.

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have just tuned in for the first time in several days with any real attention to the news.

I see that about an hour and a half ago as I write, N. Korea launched a missile over Japan.

My prayers go out to the people of S. Texas. Wow.

Many times I have urged readers to have a plan for natural disasters and the need to bug out fast, especially if you have children and others who depend on you. The need to bug out might come in the form of an angry ex-boyfriend.

Everyone, make plans. Make sure you have enough food, a way to secure and purify water, defend yourselves. Be sure to have documents and anything of that nature that can’t be replaced. Perhaps digitize important information and precious photos and keep them on something like an Ironkey 1GB Secure Flash USB Drive. US HERE – UK HERE For your mobile phones, perhaps a small unit that can power your handheld even my solar. A big option is like the JuiceBox, but it is heavy. Smaller could be like this power-bank. US HERE – UK HERE Consider any medications you might need. A hand held radio, such as a radio (get your HAM licence!) could make a huge different when cellular coms are down. US HERE – UK HERE.

Just think about what you need and what might happen. Where will you meet if you are separated? How will you move yourselves? What can you quickly grab and carry? What will really cause dangerous suffering if you lack it?

Look. Terrible things can strike suddenly. However, I hope never to read an email that any of you were seriously hurt or killed in some problem for which you could have prepared for ahead of time with relative ease.

And so, the most important thing, examine not just your material lives frequently, but also frequently your spiritual lives and …

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Semper Paratus, Si vis pacem para bellum!, TEOTWAWKI | Tagged bug out bag, disaster
7 Comments

What is the best translation of St. Augustine’s “Confessions”?

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

What I call: “The biography of Augustine Pope Benedict would have wanted to write.”

On this glorious feast of St. Augustine, allow me to repost an answer to a question I get fairly often and answer off the blog:

QUAERITUR:

What is the best translation of St. Augustine’s Confessions?

It depends a little on who you are and why you are reading this magnificent work.

The Confessions is usually the only work most people are exposed to when it comes to the Doctor of Grace.

The best translation – for most people – is probably by Dame Maria Boulding, OSB, who was at Stanbrook Abbey. She captures the aspect of prayer in The Confessions without, for the most part, sacrificing accuracy of translation in the process.

The Confessions is, of course, an extended prayer.

You can quibble about some of her choices, of course. All translations limp. For example, Augustine says in Book X that he was “loved and feared” (amari et timeri – 10.36.59) by his people. (Get it Your Excellencies? Fathers?) She choose to say “loved and esteemed” (or something woolly like that), which does not get at what Augustine really said.

By the way, I wrote about that “amari et timeri” HERE. I even have a mini PODCAzT with the Latin.

Boulding’s is better – for most people – than Pine-Coffin‘s. (I am not making up his name.) His translation is good but it is in a style of English many people are no longer used to. Pinecoffin, however, sometimes hits it out of the park. For example, when Augustine is talking about his profligate youth in Carthage, P. renders “amans vias meas et non tuas, amans fugitivam libertatem” (3.3.5) as “I loved my own way, not yours, but it was a truant’s freedom that I loved”. Not precise, but dead on. “A truant’s freedom”. Wonderful.

Chadwick‘s… no thanks.

Boulding’s translation is also quite affordable. The paperback is only $9 and the Kindle version is only $8. UK Link HERE.

And speaking of The Confessions…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Patristiblogging | Tagged St. Augustine, The Confessions
12 Comments

ASK FATHER: Recitation of Office completely silently? Prepare, Fathers, to wince!

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have seen a tendency for people who have a duty to say the Office attempt to satisfy their obligation without mouthing the words with air passing through the lips. Has the liturgical law changed? I’m pressure sure [I’m pretty sure that that’s “pretty sure”] the older manuals like Prummer [insert reverent head bow here] said each syllable must be uttered for the perfect satisfaction of the obligation.

So the question is must the Office be performed as vocal prayer rather than interior mental prayer?

For the perfect satisfaction of the obligation?

We are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists. Let’s look it up.

Let me just say that most diocesan priests and bishops – 99.99% I would guess – might be a little horrified to read the whole section De attentione et devotione in recitandis Horis in…

Sabbetti-Barrett (see my note at the very end of the post):

Pronuntiatio debet esse vocalis, integra et continuata. Et 1°. quidem debet esse vocalis, nam Officum recitari debet voce, et quidem distincta; non autem sufficit, ut sola mente legatur, aut tantum oculis percurratur; nec satis est, se recitetur gutture vel intra dentes, aut syncopando, linguave titubante abbreviando; nam id quod praecipitur est oratio propriae vocalis; oratio autem non censetur proprie vocalis, nisi voce distincta fiat;2°. debet esse integra, ad integritatem autem pertinent Pater, Ave Credo in principio et fine Horarum, prout in Rubricis adnotatur, non autem orationes Aperi Domine et Sacrosanctae, quae solum ex consilio recitantur; 3°. debet esse continuata; se proinde quaecumque notabilis interruptio intra unam Horam, si absque ulla causa fiat, culpa non caret; sed peccatum veniale non excidit. Cf. S. Alphons. n. 166.

So, yes, the Office must be recited, pronounced, since it is vocal prayer (cf. CCC 2700 ff.).

Also,

580 QUAER. 1°. An recitans Officium debeat se audire, ut possit dici vocaliter orare?

Resp. Neg., quia oratio vocalis dicitur per oppositionem ad mentalem, et vere habetur quoties verba vere pronuntiantur, utut a nemine audiantur; ac proinde sufficit, si recitans conscius sibi sit se verba pronuntiare. – Cf. S. Alphons. n. 163.

Deeply drilling Prümmer (1953) says (vol. 2, #370): “Ad plene satisfaciendum praecepto ecclesiastico Officium divinum recitari debet: 1. debito ordine, loco, situ, tempore; 2. integre; 3. continue; 4. vocaliter; 5. cum attentione et intentione.”

Notice that “plene“!

In the explanation in #375 he says:

“Immo est consuetudo haud laudabilis ita proferendi aut potius sibilandi verba Officii in recitatione privata, ut circumstantes inde molestiam patiantur. Clericus mentaliter tantum Officium legens aut solis oculis percurrens non satisfacit suae obligationi; saltem si non habet speciale privilegium.”

If you don’t say your Office vocally, and just do it mentally, according to Prümmer you don’t fulfill your obligation. HOWEVER, he goes on to say that Leo X (of happy memory) gave the Friars Minor this privilege. And also in #376,

“Propter auctoritatem S. Alphonsi, cuius sententias quilibet confessarius in praxi sequi potest, nisi Curia Romana expresse aliud statuerit, non auderem quidem peccati mortalis reum declarare clericum regularem, qui totum Officium mentaliter tantum dixerit, sed haud pauci auctores docent, privilegium istud a Leone X concessum hodie iam non existere.”

Something in the back of my mind tells me that that privilege was rescinded by Gregory V.

HENCE: Recitation of the Office should be aloud, since it is official and mainly vocal prayer. This is why of yore and even now priests move their lips when saying their Office.

I guess it could be possible to fulfill your obligation mentally, but only with permission from proper authority. I imagine that that could be the diocesan bishop for diocesan priests. After all, Sacrosanctum Concilium 101 says that the “ordinary” can give clerics permission to use the vernacular for the office. More HERE. One might argue that while Latin may not be of the essence of the Office, vocal prayer is.

However, even when you don’t read aloud, there is a measure of subvocalization going on when reading.

That said, I am of the opinion that a priest imperfectly fulfills his obligation even when not moving his lips, only reading silently. I don’t know if that is a venial sin or not. I suppose a great deal depends on the training the priest had about the nature of the Office. I suspect that none of this is explained in seminaries, even from the point of view of historical interest.

In the instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours there is an explanation that biographical notes about saints are not for reading aloud. That implies that the rest is read aloud. Also, there is a paragraph at 103 says that “even when a psalm is recited and not sung or is said silently in private, its musical character should govern its use”. But that seems to be about Psalms in general rather in about their specific recitation in the Office.

It seems to be that even in the lax days of the Liturgy of the Hours, the obligation of true vocal recitation remains as it did before.

If that is the case, we are in serious trouble as a Church and so is the whole world: the official prayer of the Church which clerics and religious should be offering for the sake of the whole People of God … isn’t being offered in a satisfactory way.

See my SAVE THE LITURGY – SAVE THE WORLD Manifesto.

And then there’s this!

When I read these manuals, especially the sections that pertain to clerical life, liturgy, etc., I am always left simultaneously edified and humiliated.

I am edified at the amazing ideals which are proposed according to law and reason.

I am humiliated in that in many respects I don’t come up to scratch.

I must rededicate myself – confess those faults which I think may be mortal – and then amend and improve.

So… I am now going to back away from this question and quietly, indeed silently and not even moving my lips, go back to my To Do List.

The moderation queue is ON (especially for those who want to provide translations of the Latin – which would be a great service to non-Latin reading bishops and priests out there). If sound, I’ll integrate them into the post.

UPDATE: Not satisfied… I found also this.

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Note Liturgiae Horarum Interpretationes (Not 9 (1973) 150)

Query: When a person recites the liturgy of the hours do the readings have to be pronounced or simply read?

Reply: It is enough to simply read them. The conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy says nothing about an obligation to oral recitation when a person says the office alone, although there was a difference of opinion on this among the conciliar Fathers. They decreed a reform of the breviary not for the purpose of shortening the time of prayer but of giving all who celebrate the liturgy of the hours a better time for prayer…Sometimes a surer guarantee for this objective of the liturgy of the hours in individual recitation may be to omit the oral recitation of each word, especially in the case of the readings.
Found on page 1098 of Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979. Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts. The Liturgical Press, 1982

With this explanation:

I find in this a contradiction, especially in light of the expression of Paul VI about Christ’s voice echoing in us.

This is such a different approach. It seems simply to sweep aside the characteristic liturgical prayer as vocal prayer. NB: A priest cannot simply think the words of consecration or the forms of the other sacraments.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged breviary, manual theology, Office, Prümmer, Sabetti-Barrett, Save The Liturgy Save The World, Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist
17 Comments

ASK FATHER: 1965 Missal at Fontgombault

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I read this over at Tradinews [in French… my trans]:

When the Abbey of Fontgombault and the communities that were founded from it took up again the celebration of the traditional liturgy, they obtained permission from the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to celebrate the conventual Mass according to a rite very close to the 1965 Missal (private Masses still being celebrated according to the 1962 Missal).

I have just learned of a letter sent by the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” on 26 March 1997 (No. 40/97) to an Australian bishop in which the Commission indicates that the indult granted to Fontgombault Abbey can also apply to the celebration of any Pontifical, Solemn or Sung Mass.

I’ll remind you that there are 8 modifications to the 1962 Missal that were granted to Fontgombault Abbey:

[…]

Since I have no natural talent for canon law, I always like to consult an expert before doing stupid things. [A sound practice.] The possibilities mentioned in the article for the most part don’t appeal to me anyway, apart from maybe inserting some short form of universal prayer in certain sung pilgrimage Masses at the shrine I’m caring for. Only, I wondered, since this indult dates back to 1995, does it still apply after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum? I know some of these rubrics are being used in the liturgy of Le Barroux abbey, would that maybe have to do anything with this?

I, too, consulted a canonist about this.

Since these were privileges granted to Fontgombault, they would only apply at Fontgombault. These privileges retain their force even after Summorum Pontificum, unless there was a private revocation, or subsequent action on the part of the Abbey or the Holy See to alter them.

My canonist concluded:

In short, what was granted to Fontgombault, stays at Fontgombault.

Bottom line: If you are not at Fontgombault, you can’t use the 1965 Missal.

BTW… Fontgombault is truly beautiful. If you ever get the opportunity to visit, I warmly urge you to do so.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged 1965MR, Fontgombault
14 Comments

Reader Feedback and a Lesson about Rash Judgment

Posted on 28 August 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I appreciate the feedback I get from readers through my CONTACT form (always on the top menu). It makes my day and keeps me motivated.

I was just a teenager when I started reading your words of wisdom on the Catholic Online Forum.

I’m in my 30s now, and I attribute my orthodoxy and my weekly confession to God’s grace working through you, Father.

Thanks for that. I became the Wizop of the Catholic Online Form in 1992. That’s a while ago. I’ve been in this internet thing for a while.

And now this:

Knowing well that a positive note can be a good thing for the soul, I just wanted to write a message to thank you for continually helping me (and I presume many others) to “man up” and be courageous in these dark days. Being depressive enough by nature, I feel that I can privately end up whining instead of clinging closer to Christ. Some of your recent posts these past few weeks have stiffened up my spine in a good way.

We have to bolster each other and encourage each other in these seriously confusing and worrisome days in the Church. It seems as if every day we wake up to some new piece of weirdness in the news.

And speaking of encouragement…

Just a quick note to say thank you very much. I went to confession today after quite a time, encouraged by your recent post regarding the Enemy and fathers of a family (myself being one of them). Thank you, dear Father. Thank you very much.

You are welcome! Everyone…

GO TO CONFESSION!

And now an example of example of the worst sort of feedback. This is a useful lesson in how NOT to write… to anyone.

This was sent with a masked identity. I usually dismiss the anonymous stuff as worthless and often don’t read them at all. Of course, if they contain threats that’s another matter. Folks, if you can’t put your name to it, don’t send it. Anyway, this came after I posted a video which imitated the opening credits of the TV show Game Of Thrones and showed Rome “unfolding” itself. HERE Rather cool.

Watching Game of Thrones is mortally sinful. Anyone who watches that show without confessing it will not go to Heaven. I’m deeply, DEEPLY ashamed of you.

First, I repeat: this is a coward.

Second, this is called “rash judgment” and it is a sin against the 8th Commandment.

The censorious accusation was based on … let’s be inclusive without being rash… her leaping to the conclusion that I watch the show.

However, I never said that I watch it or indicated that I do or suggested that I do. I merely said that just about everybody in the cosmos does watch it.

You would have to be really tuned out not to know that there is a show called Game of Thrones. There are books, too. I haven’t read them. But I digress.

Rash judgment is a pernicious sin, especially if it is habitual. To assume bad things about people in an unfounded way is bad enough. To express the rash judgment outwardly is even worse.

Fr. John Hardon (whose Catholic Catechism I used in my own conversion path – see the side bar) wrote:

Rash Judgment is unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made, and in the loss of reputation that a person suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely.

People have the right to a good reputation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. [NB] But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, [all things being equal] let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.