Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 262
» Latest member: aasonlittle2854
» Forum threads: 6,310
» Forum posts: 11,812

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 348 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 344 Guest(s)
Facebook, Google, Yandex

Latest Threads
Infanticide is real, Cath...
Forum: Against the Children
Last Post: Stone
1 minute ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 159
Our Fr. Hewko's Sermons:...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 12:47 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 56
New Cardinals: Mostly Unk...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:13 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:10 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 452
Feast of the Holy Rosary ...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:07 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 16,505
Daily offering of the Ble...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:03 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,901
Twentieth Sunday after Pe...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:01 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 12,538
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:58 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 4,017
Fr. Hewko: Autumn Rosary...
Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
Last Post: Deus Vult
10-05-2024, 09:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 88

 
  St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for the First Week of Lent
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 08:32 AM - Forum: Lent - Replies (6)

Monday -- First Week of Lent

Morning Meditation

GOD IS MERCIFUL, YET MANY ARE LOST EVERY DAY.


[Image: dlJRLWta]


God is merciful! Yes; the mercy of God is infinite; but with all that mercy, how many are lost every day! I come to heal the contrite of heart! God heals those sinners who have a good will. He pardons their sins, but He cannot pardon their determination to go on sinning.

I.

The sinner says: But God is merciful. I reply: Who denies it? The mercy of God is infinite; but with all that mercy, how many are lost every day! I come to heal the contrite of heart. (Is. lxi. 1). God heals those who have a good will. He pardons sin; but He cannot pardon the determination to sin. The sinner will reply: But I am young. You are young: but God does not count years, but sins. And this reckoning of sins is not the same for all. In one, God pardons a hundred sins, in another a thousand, another He casts into hell after the second sin. How many has the Lord sent there at the first sin! St. Gregory relates that a child of five years old was cast into hell for uttering a blasphemy. The Blessed Virgin revealed to that great servant of God, Benedicta of Florence, that a girl of twelve years old was condemned for her first sin. Another child of eight years sinned, and after his first sin, died and was lost. We are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew, that the Lord immediately cursed the fig-tree the first time that He found it without fruit, and it withered: May no fruit grow on thee forever! (Matt. xxi. 19). Another time God said: For three crimes of Damascus, and for four, I will not convert it. (Amos i. 3). Some presumptuous man may perhaps ask the reason of God why He pardons three and not four sins. In this we must adore the Divine judgments of God, and say with the Apostle: O the depth of the riches, of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! (Rom. xi. 33). St. Augustine says: "He well knows whom He pardons and whom He does not pardon; when He shows mercy to any one, it is gratuitous on His part; and when He denies it, He denies it justly."

The obstinate sinner will reply: But I have so often offended God, and He has pardoned me; I hope, therefore, He will pardon me this other sin. But I say: And because God has not hitherto punished you, is it always to be thus? The measure will be filled up, and the chastisement will come. Samson, continuing his wanton conduct with Dalila, hoped nevertheless to escape from the hands of the Philistines, as he had done before; I will go out as I did before and shake myself. (Jud. xvi. 20). But that last time he was taken, and lost his life. Say not, I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? Say not, says the Lord, I have committed so many sins, and God has never punished me: For the Most High is a patient rewarder. (Ecclus. v. 4). That is, the time will come when He will repay all; and the greater His mercy has been, so much the greater will be the punishment.

When I am tempted, O my merciful God, I will instantly and always have recourse to Thee. Hitherto I have trusted in my promises and my resolutions, and I have neglected to recommend myself to Thee in my temptations; and this has been my ruin. No; from this day henceforth Thou shalt be my hope and my strength; and thus shall I be able to accomplish all things. Give me the grace, then, through Thy merits, O my Jesus, to recommend myself always to Thee, and to implore Thy aid in my necessities. I love Thee, O my Sovereign Good, amiable above all that is amiable, and Thee only will I love; but Thou must help me. And thou also, O Mary my Mother, thou must help me by thy intercession; keep me under the mantle of thy protection, and grant that I may always call upon thee when I am tempted; thy name shall be my defence.

II.

St. Chrysostom says, that we ought to fear more when God bears with the obstinate sinner than when He punishes him: "There is more cause to fear when He forbears than when He quickly punishes"; because, according to St. Gregory, God punishes more rigorously those whom He waits for with most patience, if they remain ungrateful: "Whom He waits for the longer He the more severely condemns." Often, adds the Saint, do those whom He has borne with for a long time die suddenly at last, without having time to be converted: "Often those who have been borne with a long time are snatched away by sudden death, so that it is not permitted them to shed a tear before they die." Especially, the greater the light which God has given you has been, the greater will be your blindness and obstinacy in sin: For it had been better for them (said St. Peter) not to have known the way of justice, than after they had known it, to turn back. (2 Peter ii. 21). And St. Paul said, that it is impossible (morally speaking) for a soul that sins after being enlightened to be again converted: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift ... and are fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance. (Heb. vi. 4, 6).

Terrible, indeed, is what the Lord says against those who are deaf to His calls: Because I have called and you have refused ... I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. (Prov. i. 24, 26). Take notice of those two words, I also; they signify that as the sinner has mocked God, confessing, promising, and yet always betraying Him, so the Lord will mock him at the hour of death. Moreover, the Wise Man says: As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly. (Prov. xxvi. 11). So he who relapses into the sins he has detested in Confession, becomes odious to God.

Behold me, O my God, at Thy feet. I am that loathsome sinner who so often returned to feed upon the forbidden fruit which I had before detested. I do not deserve mercy, O my Redeemer; but the Blood Thou hast shed for me encourages and compels me to hope for it. How often have I offended Thee, and Thou hast pardoned me! I have promised never again to offend Thee; and yet I have returned to the vomit, and Thou hast again pardoned me. Do I wait, then, for Thee to send me straight to hell--or to give me over to my sins which would be a greater punishment than hell? No, my God, I will amend; and that I may be faithful to Thee, I will place all my trust in Thee.


Spiritual Reading

SAY NOT: "I HAVE SINNED AND WHAT EVIL HATH BEFALLEN ME?"

If God chastised sinners the moment they insult Him, we should not see Him so much despised. But, because He does not instantly punish their transgressions, and because, through mercy, He restrains His anger and waits for their return, they are encouraged to continue to offend Him. For, because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear. (Eccles. viii. 11). But it is necessary to be persuaded that, though God bears with us, He does not wait, nor bear with us forever. Expecting, as on former occasions, to escape from the snares of the Philistines, Samson continued to allow himself to be deluded by Dalila. I will go out as I did before, and shake myself. (Jud. xvi. 20). But the Lord was departed from him. Samson was at last taken by his enemies, and lost his life. The Lord warns you not to say: I have committed so many sins, and God has not chastised me. Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the Most High is a patient rewarder. (Ecclus. v. 4). God has patience for a certain term, after which He punishes all your sins; the first and the last. And the greater has been His patience, the more severe His vengeance.

Hence according to St. John Chrysostom, God is more to be feared when He bears with sinners than when He instantly punishes their sins. And why? Because, says St. Gregory, they to whom God has shown most mercy, shall, if they do not cease to offend Him, be chastised with the greatest rigour. The Saint adds that God often punishes such sinners with a sudden death, and does not allow them time for repentance. And the greater the light God gives certain sinners for their correction, the greater is their blindness and obstinacy in sin. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than, after they had known it, to turn back. (2 Pet. ii. 21). Miserable the sinners who, after having been enlightened, return to the vomit. St. Paul says, that it is morally impossible for them to be again converted. For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated--have tasted also the heavenly gifts, ... and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance. (Heb. vi. 4).

Listen, then, to the admonition of the Lord: My son, hast thou sinned? Do so no more, but for thy former sins pray that they may be forgiven thee. (Ecclus. xxi. 1). My child, add not sins to those which you have already committed, but be careful to pray for the pardon of your past transgressions; otherwise, if you commit another mortal sin, the door of the Divine Mercy may be closed against you, and your soul may be lost forever. When, then, the devil tempts you again to yield to sin, say to yourself: If God pardons me no more, what shall become of me for all eternity? Should the devil, in reply, say: "Fear not, God is merciful," answer him by saying: What certainty or what probability have I, that, if I return again to sin, God will show me mercy or grant me pardon? Behold the threat of the Lord against all who despise His calls: Behold I have called and you refused ... I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. (Prov. i. 24). Mark the words I also; they mean that, as you have mocked the Lord by betraying Him again after your Confession and promises of amendment, so He will mock you at the hour of death. I will laugh and will mock. But God is not mocked. (Gal. vi. 7).

O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against loss; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you carefully avoid all danger of falling into it; and, for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a brutal pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to Confession after I commit this sin!" And when, I ask, are you to go to Confession? You say: "Tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for Confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as He has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? "Are you sure of a whole day," says St. Augustine, "and you cannot be sure of an hour?" You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: "I will go for Confession tomorrow!" Listen to the words of St. Gregory: "He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners." God has promised pardon to all who repent; but He has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult Him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, but perhaps He will not. But, should He not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost forever.

Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No; you would not. How, then, does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you risk your soul, Heaven and God? Tell me: Do you believe that Heaven, Hell, Eternity, are Truths of Faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost forever? Oh, what temerity, what folly, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an Eternity of torment with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "No one," says St. Augustine, "wishes to fall sick with the hope of getting well." No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. O folly! which, in conformity with the Divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof. (Is. xlvii. 10). You have sinned, trusting rashly in the Divine mercy; the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes.

What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after reading this, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost.


Evening Meditation

REFLECTIONS AND AFFECTIONS ON THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST

I.


Now behold our loving Jesus already on the point of being sacrificed on the altar of the Cross for our salvation, in that blessed night which preceded His Passion. Let us hear Him saying to His Disciples at the last supper that He takes with them, With desire have I desired to eat this pasch with you. (Luke xxii. 15). St. Laurence Justinian, considering these words, asserts that they were all words of love: "With desire have I desired; this is the voice of love." As if our loving Redeemer had said, O men, know that this night, in which My Passion will begin, has been the time most longed after by Me during the whole of My life; because I shall now make known to you, through My sufferings and My bitter death, how much I love you, and will thereby oblige you to love Me, in the strongest way it is possible for Me to do. A certain author says that in the Passion of Jesus Christ the Divine Omnipotence united itself to Love, --Love sought to love man to the utmost extent that Omnipotence could arrive at; and Omnipotence sought to satisfy Love as far as its desire could reach.

O Sovereign God! Thou hast given Thyself entirely to me; and how, then, shall I not love Thee with my whole self? I believe, --yes, I believe Thou hast died for me; and how can I, then, love Thee so little as constantly to forget Thee, and all that Thou hast suffered for me? And why, Lord, when I think on Thy Passion, am I not quite inflamed with Thy love, and do not, then, become entirely Thine, like so many holy souls who, after meditating on Thy sufferings, have remained the happy prey of Thy love, and have given themselves entirely to Thee?


II.

The spouse in the Canticles said that whenever her Spouse introduced her into the sacred cellar of His Passion, she saw herself so assaulted on all sides by Divine love, that, all languishing with love, she was constrained to seek relief for her wounded heart: The king brought me into the cellar of wine, he set in order charity in me. Stay me up with flowers, compass me about with apples; because I languish with love. (Cant. ii 4, 5). And how is it possible for a soul to enter upon the meditation of the Passion of Jesus Christ without being wounded, as by so many darts of love, by those sufferings and agonies which so greatly afflicted the Body and Soul of our loving Lord, and without being sweetly constrained to love Him Who loved her so much? O Immaculate Lamb, thus lacerated, covered with Blood, and disfigured, as I behold Thee on this Cross, how beautiful and how worthy of love dost Thou appear to me! Yes, because all these wounds that I behold in Thee are so many signs and proofs of the great love Thou bearest to me. Oh, if all men did but contemplate Thee often in that state in which Thou wert one day made a spectacle to all Jerusalem, who could help being seized with Thy love? O my beloved Lord, accept me to love Thee, since I give Thee all my senses and all my will. And how can I refuse Thee anything, if Thou hast not refused me Thy Blood, Thy life, and all Thyself?

Print this item

  Anne Catherine Emmerich: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 06:30 AM - Forum: Lenten Devotions - Replies (78)

The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ
From the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich
London, Burns and Lambert [1862]
Taken from here

[Image: QXBp]



PREFACE TO THE FRENCH TRANSLATION
BY THE ABBÉ DE CAZALÈS.

THE writer of this Preface was travelling in Germany, when he chanced to meet with a book, entitled, The History of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, from, the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, which appeared to him both interesting and edifying. Its style was unpretending, its ideas simple, its tone unassuming, its sentiments unexaggerated, and its every sentence expressive of the most complete and entire submission to the Church. Yet, at the same time, it would have been difficult anywhere to meet with a more touching and life-like paraphrase of the Gospel narrative. He thought that a book possessing such qualities deserved to be known on this side the Rhine, and that there could be no reason why it should not be valued for its own sake, independent of the somewhat singular source whence it emanated.

Still, the translator has by no means disguised to himself that this work is written, in the first place, for Christians; that is to say, for men who have the right to be very diffident in giving credence to particulars concerning facts which are articles of faith; and although he is aware that St. Bonaventure and many others, in their paraphrases of the Gospel history, have mixed up traditional details with those given in the sacred text, even these examples have not wholly reassured him. St. Bonaventure professed only to give a paraphrase, whereas these revelations appear to be something more. It is certain that the holy maiden herself gave them no higher title than that of dreams, and that the transcriber of her narratives treats as blasphemous the idea of regarding them 6in any degree as equivalent to a fifth Gospel; still it is evident that the confessors who exhorted Sister Emmerich to relate what she saw, the celebrated poet who passed four years near her couch, eagerly transcribing all he heard her say, and the German Bishops, who encouraged the publication of his book, considered it as something more than a paraphrase. Some explanations are needful on this head.

The writings of many Saints introduce us into a now, and, if I may be allowed the expression, a miraculous world. In all ages there have been revelations about the past, the present, the future, and even concerning things absolutely inaccessible to the human intellect. In the present day men are inclined to regard these revelations as simple hallucinations, or as caused by a sickly condition of body.

The Church, according to the testimony of her most approved writers, recognises three descriptions of ecstasy; of which the first is simply natural, and entirely brought about by certain physical tendencies and a highly imaginative mind; the second divine or angelic, arising from intercourse held with the supernatural world; and the third produced by infernal agency.1 Lest we should here write a book instead of a preface, we will not enter into any development of this doctrine, which appears to us highly philosophical, and without which no satisfactory explanation can be given on the subject of the soul of man and its various states.

The Church directs certain means to be employed to ascertain by what spirit these ecstasies are produced, according to the maxim of St. John: ‘Try the spirits, if they be of God.’ When circumstances or events claiming to be supernatural have been properly examined according to certain rules, the Church has in all ages made a selection from them

Many persons who have been habitually in a state of ecstasy have been canonised, and their books approved. 7But this approbation has seldom amounted to more than a declaration that these books contained nothing contrary to faith, and that they were likely to promote a spirit of piety among the faithful. For the Church is only founded on the word of Christ and on the revelations made to the Apostles. Whatever may since have been revealed to certain saints possesses purely a relative value, the reality of which may even be disputed—it being one of the admirable characteristics of the Church, that, though inflexibly one in dogma, she allows entire liberty to the human mind in all besides. Thus, we may believe private revelations, above all, when those persons to whom they were made have been raised by the Church to the rank of Saints publicly honoured, invoked, and venerated; but, even in these cases, we may, without ceasing to be perfectly orthodox, dispute their authenticity and divine origin. It is the place of reason to dispute and to select as it sees best.

With regard to the rule for discerning between the good and the evil spirit, it is no other, according to all theologians, than that of the Gospel. A fructibus eorum, cognoscetis eos. By their fruits you shall know them. It must be examined in the first place whether the person who professes to have revelations mistrusts what passes within himself; whether he would prefer a more common path; whether far from boasting of the extraordinary graces which he receives, he seeks to hide them, and only makes them known through obedience; and, finally, whether he is continually advancing in humility, mortification, and charity. Next, the revelations themselves must be very closely examined into; it must be seen whether there is anything in them contrary to faith; whether they are conformable to Scripture and Apostolical tradition; and whether they are related in a headstrong spirit, or in a spirit of entire submission to the Church.

Whoever reads the life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, and her book, will be satisfied that no fault can be found in any of these respects either with herself or with her revelations. Her book resembles in many points the writings of a great number of saints, and her life also bears the 8most striking similitude to theirs. To be convinced of this fact, we need but study the writings or what is related of Saints Francis of Assissium, Bernard, Bridget, Hildegarde, Catherine of Genoa, Catherine of Sienna, Ignatius, John of the Cross, Teresa, and an immense number of other holy persons who are less known.. So much being conceded, it is clear that in considering Sister Emmerich to have been inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, we are not ascribing more merit to her book than is allowed by the Church to all those of the same class. They are all edifying, and may serve to promote piety, which is their sole object. We must not exaggerate their importance by holding as an absolute fact that they proceed from divine inspiration, a favour so great that its existence in any particular case should not be credited save with the utmost circumspection.

With regard, however, to our present publication, it may be urged that, considering the superior talents of the transcriber of Sister Emmerich’s narrations, the language and expressions which he has made use of may not always have been identical with those which she employed. We have no hesitation whatever in allowing the force of this argument. Most fully do we believe in the entire sincerity of M. Clèment Brentano, because we both know and love him, and, besides, his exemplary piety and the retired life which he leads, secluded from a world in which it would depend but on himself to hold the highest place, are guarantees amply sufficient to satisfy any impartial mind of his sincerity. A poem such as he might publish, if he only pleased, would cause him to be ranked at once among the most eminent of the German poets, whereas the office which he has taken upon himself of secretary to a poor visionary has brought him nothing but contemptuous raillery. Nevertheless, we have no intention to assert that in giving the conversations and discourses of Sister Emmerich that order and coherency in which they were greatly wanting, and writing them down in his own way, he may not unwittingly have arranged, explained, and embellished them. But this would not have the 9effect of destroying the originality of the recital, or impugning either the sincerity of the nun, or that of the writer.

The translator professes to be unable to understand how any man can write for mere writing’s sake, and without considering the probable effects which his work will produce. This book, such as it is, appears to him to be at once unusually edifying, and highly poetical. It is perfectly clear that it has, properly speaking, no literary pretensions whatever. Neither the uneducated maiden whose visions are here related, nor the excellent Christian writer who has published them in so entire a spirit of literary disinterestedness, ever had the remotest idea of such a thing. And yet there are not, in our opinion, many highly worked-up compositions calculated to produce an effect in any degree comparable to that which will be brought about by the perusal of this unpretending little work. It is our hope that it will make a strong impression even upon worldlings, and that in many hearts it will prepare the way for better ideas,—perhaps even for a lasting change of life.

In the next place, we are not sorry to call public attention in some degree to all that class of phenomena which preceded the foundation of the Church, which has since been perpetuated uninterruptedly, and which too many Christians are disposed to reject altogether, either through ignorance and want of reflection, or purely through human respect. This is a field which has hitherto been but little explored historically, psychologically, and physiologically; and it would be well if reflecting minds were to bestow upon it a careful and attentive investigation. To our Christian readers we must remark that this work has received the approval of ecclesiastical authorities. It has been prepared for the press under the superintendence of the two late Bishops of Ratisbonne, Sailer and Wittman. These names are but little known in France; but in Germany they are identical with learning, piety, ardent charity, and a life wholly devoted to the maintenance and propagation of the Catholic faith. Many French priests have 10given their opinion that the translation of a book of this character could not but tend to nourish piety, without, however, countenancing that weakness of spirit which is disposed to lend more importance in some respects to private than to general revelations, and consequently to substitute matters which we are simply permitted to believe, in the place of those which are of faith.

We feel convinced that no one will take offence at certain details given on the subject of the outrages which were suffered by our divine Lord during the course of his passion. Our readers will remember the words of the psalmist: ‘I am a worm and no man; the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people;’ and those of the apostle: ‘Tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.’ Did we stand in need of a precedent, we should request our readers to remember how plainly and crudely Bossuet describes the same scenes in the most eloquent of his four sermons on the Passion of our Lord. On the other hand, there have been so many grand platonic or rhetorical sentences in the books published of late years, concerning that abstract entity, on which the writers have been pleased to bestow the Christian title of the Word, or Logos, that it may be eminently useful to show the Man-God, the Word made flesh, in all the reality of his life on earth, of his humiliation, and of his sufferings. It must be evident that the cause of truth, and still more that of edification, will not be the losers.


1See, on this head, the work of Cardinal Bona, De Descretione Spirituum.

Print this item

  LFSPN - The Arian Heresy
Posted by: Stone - 02-25-2023, 07:43 AM - Forum: LFSPN - No Replies

The Arian Heresy
October 2022


Print this item

  St. Alphonsus Liguori's The Stations of the Cross
Posted by: Stone - 02-24-2023, 07:50 PM - Forum: Lenten Devotions - No Replies

The Stations of the Cross by St. Alphonsus Liguori


Print this item

  Abp. Viganò: We must do penance for our sins this Lent and beg God to protect His Church
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 06:02 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Abp. Viganò: We must do penance for our sins this Lent and beg God to protect His Church

From Passion Week until the Easter Vigil, the crosses and sacred images in the churches are veiled, to remind us of our unworthiness as sinners and the silence of God, a silence that Our Lord also experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross.

[Image: Vigano-810x500.jpg]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Thu Feb 23, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — The following is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s Ash Wednesday sermon.

IN CINERE ET CILICIO

Sermon on Ash Wednesday, in capite jejunii. 

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, 

here Ninivitis, in cinere et cilicio pænitentibus, 

indulgentiæ tuæ remedia præstitisti: 

grants propitius; ut sic eos imitemur habitu, 

quatenus veniæ prosequamur obtentu.



- Or. IV in benedictione Cinerum

There is only one thing that moves the Lord to compassion before the multitude of our sins: penance. A penance that is sincere, that exteriorly confirms true repentance for sins committed, the intention not to do them again, the will to repair them, and above all pain for having offended the divine Majesty by them. In cinere et cilicio, with ashes and hairshirt, that is, with that shaggy and pungent cloth that originally hails from Cilicia, woven of goat’s hair or horsehair, which was used as a garment by Roman soldiers, and which represents the spiritual and material dress of the penitent. 

The divine Liturgy of this day was formerly reserved for public sinners, on whom a period of penance was imposed until Holy Thursday, when the Bishop gave them absolution.

Quote:Ecce ejicimini vos hodie a liminibus sanctæ matris Ecclesiæ propter peccata, et scelera vestra, sicut Adam primus homo ejectus est de paradiso propter transgressionem suam.

We cast you out of the enclosure of holy mother Church because of your sins and crimes, just as the first man Adam was cast out of Paradise because of his transgression. (Pont. Rom., De expulsione publice Pœnitentium).

This is what the Bishop commanded in the moving rite described in the Roman Pontifical, before exhorting them not to despair of the Lord’s mercy, committing themselves with fasting, prayer, pilgrimages, almsgiving and other good works to obtain the fruits of true penance. After this paternal and severe warning, penitents kneeling barefoot in the churchyard watched as the doors of the Cathedral, where the Bishop celebrated the divine Mysteries, were closed. Forty days later, on Holy Thursday, they would return to those doors with the same robes cast off, on their knees, holding an unlit candle in their hands. State in silentio: audientes audite, the Archdeacon would have ordered them. And he would continue, addressing the Bishop on behalf of the public penitents, recalling their works of reparation. Lavant aquæ, lavant lachrimæ. Then three times the Bishop would sing the antiphon Venite and welcome them into the church, where they would throw themselves with emotion at his feet, prostrati et flentes. At this point the Archdeacon would have said:

Quote:Restore in them, Apostolic Pontiff, what the seductions of the devil have corrupted; by the merits of your prayers and by the grace of reconciliation, bring these men close to God, so that those who were previously ashamed of their sins may now rejoice in pleasing the Lord in the land of the living, after defeating the author of their own ruin (Pont. Rom., De reconciliatione Pœnitentium).

I wanted to reflect on this most ancient rite – which I urge you to read and meditate on for your edification – in order to make you understand how the Church’s just severity is never separated from her maternal mercy, following the Lord’s example. If she were to deny that there are faults to be expiated, she would be failing in justice; if she were to delude sinners that they could merit forgiveness without sincere repentance, she would offend God’s mercy and lack charity. And yet she does not cease to remind us that we are children of wrath, because of Adam’s sin, our own sins, the sins of our brothers and sisters, and the public sins of nations, which are so abhorrent today. Holy Church reminds us of the penance of Adam and Eve, the redemption begun in that same paradise with the curse of the Serpent and the proclamation of the protoevangelium: I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your seed and her seed: she will crush your head, and you will threaten her heel (Gen 3:15). Holy Church shows us the many occasions on which under the Old Law, our fathers sinned yet again, and once again obtained mercy from God thanks to penance: the example of the inhabitants of Nineveh is also recalled in the prayers and texts of the blessing of the Holy Ashes. She shows us – especially in the liturgy of Lent, Passion Week and Holy Week – the obedience of the Son of God to the Father’s will, in order to accomplish the wonderful work of the Redemption accomplished on the wood of the Cross. She proposes to us the example of the penitent saints, she points out to us the need for repentance and conversion, she instructs us with the admirable pedagogy of the sacred rites to understand the gravity of sin, the enormity of the offense against the divine Majesty, and the infinity of the merits of the Sacrifice of Our Lord that is renewed on our altars. 

That door that closes slowly and heavily on its hinges in front of the penitents, leaving them far from the altar, is not deaf cruelty, but rather the suffering severity of a mother who does not cease to pray for them, who awaits them confident of seeing them repentant and aware of the supreme Good of which their faults have deprived them. For the same reason, from Passion Week until the Easter Vigil, the crosses and sacred images in the churches are veiled, to remind us of our unworthiness as sinners and the silence of God, a silence that Our Lord also experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross, and which mystics likewise experienced in the spiritual torments of the Dark Night. 

Where has all this gone? Why, at the very moment when the world most needed to be called to fidelity to Christ, was the Church’s liturgy stripped of its most pedagogically effective symbols? Why was the rite of expulsion of public penitents abolished, and along with it the rite of their reconciliation? And again: why do Pastors no longer speak to us of original sin, of the way of the Cross, of the necessity of penance? Why is divine justice silenced or denied, while God’s mercy is distorted and nullified, as if we were entitled to it apart from our contrition? Why do we hear that absolution should not be denied to anyone, when repentance – as the Council of Trent teaches – is an inseparable matter of the Sacrament, together with the confession of one’s sins and the satisfaction of penance? Why be silent about the importance of meditating on Death, the inevitability of Judgment, and the reality of Hell for the damned and Heaven for the elect? 

Because a Luciferian pride has led to the construction of an idol in place of the true God.

What could be more comforting than knowing that our innumerable infidelities, even the most serious, can be forgiven if only we humbly recognize ourselves as guilty and in need of the mercy of God, who gave His only begotten Son to save us and make us blessed for eternity? 

It is the Mysterium iniquitatis, dear children. The mystery of iniquity: how it is permitted by God in order to temper us and make us worthy of eternal reward; how it can appear triumphant in its obscene arrogance, while the Good works in silence and without clamor; how it manages to seduce men with false promises, making them forget the horror of sin, the monstrosity of making us responsible for every suffering suffered by the Savior, for every time he was spat on, every beating he received, every scourge of the whip, every wound, every thorn, every drop of His precious Blood, every tear, and above all for every spiritual pain caused to the Man-God by our ingratitude. Responsible too for every suffering of His Most Holy Mother, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by sharp swords, uniting Her to the Passion of Her divine Son. 

Quote:Forty more days, and Nineveh will be destroyed! (Jon 3:2), announces the prophet Jonah. The Ninevites believed God, proclaimed a fast, and clothed themselves in sackcloth, all of them, from the greatest to the smallest. And when the news had reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, took off his cloak, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat on ashes.

Then, by decree of the king and his great officers, an order of this kind was made known in Nineveh: ‘Men and animals, herds and flocks, let them taste nothing; do not go to pasture and do not drink water; let men and animals cover themselves with sackcloth and cry out to God with strength; Let each one be converted from his wickedness and from the violence wrought by his hands. Perhaps God will change his mind, repent, and extinguish his burning wrath, so that we may not perish’ (Jon 3:5-9).

Forty more days: this warning also applies to us, perhaps more than it was true for the Ninevites. It applies to this corrupt and rebellious world, which has taken away the royal crown from Christ to make Satan reign, he who is murderous from the beginning. It applies to nations that were once Catholic, where the horror of abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulation, and the perversion of morals cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It applies to the Church, infested with false shepherds and mercenaries who have become servants and accomplices of the Prince of this world, and who consider as enemies the faithful entrusted to them. It applies to each of us, who in the face of this universal subversion believe that we can escape the fight by seeking shelter in the comfortable prospect of God’s miraculous intervention, or by pretending to be able to live together with His enemies, accepting their blackmail as long as they leave us our small spaces in which to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

Forty more days: this is the time that separates us from the feared “pontifical” document with which the authority of Peter, instituted to preserve the unity of the Faith in the bond of Charity, will again be used to accuse of schism those who do not want to bend to new, illicit restrictions of what for two thousand years has been the most precious treasure of the Church and the most terrible bulwark against heretics: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and he who tears the seamless garment of Christ by spreading heresies and scandals will seek to banish from the sacred enclosure those who remain faithful to the Lord.

Forty more days: this is the propitious time in which each of us, in the secret of his room, will be able to pray, fast, do penance, give alms and do good works to atone for our sins, to make reparation for the public sins of nations, and to implore the divine Majesty not to abandon His inheritance, the Holy Church, to the opprobrium of being dominated by the nations (Jon 2:12). 

With these dispositions, dear children, it will not be necessary to remind you of the law of abstinence and fasting, because you know how to accumulate those spiritual treasures that no earthly power can take away from you, which will be the best preparation for the celebration of Easter that awaits us at the end of our Lenten journey. 

In cinere et cilicio: may the ashes be a sign of the vanity of the world, of the illusory nature of its promises, of the inexorability of temporal death; may the pungent hairshirt that the soldiers used for their garments spur us to the good fight, as the concluding prayer of the Blessing of the Ashes exhorts us: Concede nobis, Domine, præsidia militiæ christianæ sanctis inchoare jejuniis: ut contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiæ muniamur auxiliis. Grant us, Lord, that we may begin with holy fasting this campaign of Christian service, so that, as we take up battle against spiritual evils, we may be armed with weapons of self-restraint. 

And so may it be.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

22 February 2023

Feria IV Cinerum

Print this item

  Francis Drops Invocation of Our Lady
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 09:03 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Despite Steroids: Francis Drops Invocation of Our Lady


gloria.tv | February 23, 2023

Since his return from South Sudan, Francis has suppressed the final invocation of the Angelus: "Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei genetrix. Ut digni efficiámur promissionibus Christi” - Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Specola (InfoVaticana.com, February 20) comments, “Let us hope that Francis' constant request that we pray for him does not exclude the intercession of Our Mary.”

He adds, “We know that things are not going well, and that Francis is still undergoing delicate steroid treatment at the Gemelli. His abnormal obesity indicates that the side effects are there, and they are very serious.”

Print this item

  New desecration in a church in Castellón
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 08:57 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence - No Replies

New desecration in a church in Castellón

[Image: Diseno-sin-titulo-2023-02-22T163403.243.png.webp]

Parish church of Santa María de Segorbe Parish Church of Santa María de Segorbe

By Infovaticana [computer translated from the Spanish] | February 23, 2023


It is the second desecration suffered by a church in the diocese of Castellón in less than a month. The proliferation of news like these shows that the devil is unleashed.

The Bishop of Castellón, Monsignor Casimiro López Llorente, has reported « with deep pain » that « a serious desecration of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist took place on February 20 in the parish church of Santa María de Segorbe ». The assailants and authors of the desecration have also stolen the money raised at Misa.

« In the course of a robbery, carried out at night, several objects have been stolen, and, what is more serious, the Tabernacle has been opened and the Holy Eucharists have been spilled, deposited in the ciborium and in the virile of custody », reads the bishop's statement.

Casimiro López regrets that « in less than a month we have to regret a new desecration of the Eucharist in our Diocese. The previous took place on January 24 in the parish church of San Francisco de Asís de Castellón de la Plana. I ask the entire diocesan community and especially the parish priests and other church leaders to take extreme security measures to prevent robberies and, above all, the desecrations of the Blessed Sacrament ».

The bishop stresses that « what happened is a sacrilegious act against the greatest treasure that we Catholics have: the Most Holy Eucharist, the real and permanent presence of Jesus Christ among us ». For this reason, in order to repair this new sacrilegious act, Monsignor Casimiro will celebrate a Holy Mass of redress in the Church of Santa María de Segorbe, on Sunday, March 5, at 12:00 pm, « to which I invite all Catholics from the Diocese of Segorbe-Castellón -priests, religious and laity-, accompanying the faithful of this parish at this painful moment in their local history ».

The prelate also takes advantage in the statement to ask priests that in all parish churches, chapels and temples open to worship, acts of redress and reparation are carried out either with the celebration of Holy Mass or with the prolonged exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

« I again urge all faithful Catholics to take advantage of what happened to renew our Eucharistic faith and devotion. Behind this event hides a call to conversion addressed to each one of us. Let us make this grievance an opportunity for redress. May this offense be an occasion to arouse and manifest our love for Jesus Christ, present in the Eucharist. », concludes the communiqué of the Bishop of Castellón.

Print this item

  Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 09:23 AM - Forum: Sedevacantism - No Replies

The following was taken from the TIA website. While The Catacombs does not support every position taken by TIA with regard to the crisis in the Church, they post many good articles. From a recent Q&A there:



Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?


TIA,

I have enjoyed your website with its erudite commentary and faithful support of Catholic tradition for years. Keep up the good work.

Question: There is an article recently published in sfero (Social italiano) titled, Benedict XVI signaled the impeded see by his resignation at the Roman “hora vicesima” – “the twentieth hour”. The article asserts that the late Pope Benedict was coerced by the Cardinals, but he pulled a fast one and resigned only the administrative responsibilities as Bishop of Rome. And isn't that what the anti-pope Bergoglio calls himself?

The article claims Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and remained the only pope until the end of his life: He renounced the ministerium, the exercise of power, ironically just as Benedict VIII did – exactly 1000 years earlier in 1013.

The article is by Andrea Cionci, and appears somewhat compelling providing a clear roadmap in the historical subterfuge by traitorous co-religious to remove, even murder the true Pope in office. I also recall the he had asked for prayers at the start of his pontificate to protect him from the “wolves” who were out to get him.

So is the "Moose on the table"? Is the Church "Sede Vacant"?

I realize that the Church has had numerous anti-popes; the question begs itself: Should we now await for a proper enclave to elect a new, legitimate pope? I wonder. Is this an “Interregnum” or is the present situation an all out “Sede Vacant” situation? What makes matters worse are all the Cardinals who are cronies of Bergoglio. Catholic prophecies talk about a pope who will be forced to leave Rome and die a cruel death in exile. I do not think that is Bergoglio.

N.F.



TIA responds:

N.F.,

Thank you for your kind words and for your question.

It should be enough to clarify your doubts to state the following points:

  1. We do not give credit to the theory which imagines that Benedict XVI was coerced to abdicate by a group of Cardinals. He himself denied this possibility several times. His secretary, Arch. Georg Ganswein, who knew him quite well, also has denied it.
  2. In order to continue to sustain this theory after Benedict XVI's formal denial, one must imagine that he was also obliged to deny it later. Now then, this is tantamount to admitting that either he lost his mental faculties, that is, he did not know what he was talking when he denied the coercion, or to imagine that those Cardinals continued to exercise that same pressure over him until he died. If this last possibility were accepted, then any document he wrote after his abdication and any verbal declaration he made should also be denied for the same reason. Since he had many opportunities to let other persons know about this supposed pressure and never did, this hypothesis lacks common sense.
  3. Besides, on this topic the motto applies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, "what is freely asserted is freely dismissed," or paraphrased, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
  4. We also do not give credit to the theory that pretends Pope Francis was not duly elected while Pope Benedict XVI was. Both Popes were elected by the College of Cardinals obeying the same rules established for the Papal Election.
  5. We do not think the Seat of Peter is vacant. We sustain that since the death of Pius XII it has been usurped by partisans of Progressivism.
  6. We do not consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope. However, he may be an Anti-Christ, to use the words of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”

We hope these considerations answer your questions.

Print this item

  Ebook: The Admirable Life of the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph - Taken from the Mystical City of God
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:32 AM - Forum: Resources Online - No Replies

Ebook:

The Admirable Life of the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph
Taken from The Mystical City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda


† † †


St. Joseph, an Undervalued Saint
by Venerable Mary of Agreda - taken from here

[Image: A041_Joseph.jpg]

St. Joseph as royal, in the Jesuit Church in Quito, Ecuador


The following are words of Our Lady to Ven. Mary of Agreda reported in her famous book Mystical City of God:

My daughter, although you have described my spouse, Saint Joseph, as the most noble among the Princes and Saints of the heavenly Jerusalem, still you cannot properly manifest his eminent sanctity, nor can any mortal know it fully before he arrives at the vision of the Divinity. Then all will be filled with wonder and praise as the Lord will make them capable of understanding this truth.

On the last day, when all men shall be judged, the damned will bitterly bewail their sins, which prevented them from appreciating this powerful means of salvation and availing themselves, as they easily could have, of this intercessor to gain the friendship of the Just Judge.

The whole human race has much undervalued the privileges and prerogatives conceded to my blessed spouse and they do not realize what his intercession with God is able to do. I assure you, my dear child, that he is a greatly favored personage in the divine presence and has immense power to stay the arms of the divine vengeance.

I desire that you be very thankful to Divine Goodness for vouchsafing you so much light and knowledge regarding this mystery, and also for the favor which I am making you by revealing this. From now on, during the rest of your mortal life, see that you advance in devotion and in hearty love for my spouse, and that you thank the Lord for having thus favored him with such high privileges and for having given me such great joy in the knowledge of all his excellences.

In all your necessities you must avail yourself of his intercession. You should encourage many to venerate him and see that your own religious daughters distinguish themselves in their devotion to him. Whatever my spouse asks of the Lord in Heaven is granted upon the earth, and on his intercession depend many and extraordinary favors for men, if they do not make themselves unworthy of receiving them.

All these privileges were to be a reward for the amiable perfection of this wonderful Saint and for his great virtues; for the divine clemency is favorably drawn forth by them and looks upon Saint Joseph with generous liberality, ready to shower down its marvelous mercies upon all those who avail themselves of his intercession.



-Taken from The Mystical City of God, Washington, New Jersey: AMI Press, 1971, vol. 3, p. 167

Print this item

  St. Thomas Aquinas on Fasting
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:21 AM - Forum: Lent - Replies (1)

St. Thomas Aquinas on Fasting
Taken from here.

[Image: St.+Thomas+Aquinas+%25282%2529.jpg]

The Temptation of St. Thomas Aquinas


From the Summa Theologica (II, 2, Q 147, Art 1) of St. Thomas Aquinas writes the following words on Fasting.  Yesterday was Ash Wednesday and the start of the Great Fast.  Please join me in fasting for 40 days in observance of the traditional Lenten fast that took place for over a thousand years up until the Vatican Council in 1969.

Quote:Fasting is practiced for a threefold purpose:
  • First, in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh, wherefore the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 6:5-6): "In fasting, in chastity," since fasting is the guardian of chastity. For, according to Jerome, "Venus is cold when Ceres and Bacchus are not there," that is to say, lust is cooled by abstinence in meat and drink.
  • Secondly, we have recourse to fasting in order that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things: hence it is related (Daniel 10) of Daniel that he received a revelation from God after fasting for three weeks.
  • Thirdly, in order to satisfy for sins: wherefore it is written (Joel 2:12): "Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning." The same is declared by Augustine in a sermon: "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity."

Print this item

  Ash Wednesday: Antiphona - Immutemur habitu in cinere
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:14 AM - Forum: Lent - No Replies

Ash Wednesday: Antiphona - Immutemur habitu in cinere




Each year, Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent and is always 46 days before Easter Sunday. Lent is a 40-day season (not counting Sundays) marked by repentance, fasting, reflection, and ultimately celebration. The 40-day period represents Christ’s time of temptation in the wilderness, where he fasted and where Satan tempted him. Lent asks believers to set aside a time each year for similar fasting, marking an intentional season of focus on Christ’s life, ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection.

For fifteenth-century Christians, frequent meditation was necessary to condition and re-form the soul.In general, the goal of contemplation was to bring peace to the soul and direct it towards salvation. Devotional aids provided material for reconstructing one’s soul for the purpose of attaining Heaven instead of damnation.

This chant was performed by Chœur Saint-Michel

Chant text in Latin:
Immutemur habitu, in cinere et cilicio,
ieiunemus, et ploremus ante Dominum,
quia multum misericors est dimittere peccata nostra Deus noster.

Print this item

  Vatican: Observe a Lenten 'Gas Fast' to avoid consumption of fossil fuels
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:10 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Lenten Tweet: What Are They Smoking in the Vatican?


gloria.tv | February 22, 2023


L’Osservatore Romano, the official daily of the decadent Vatican tweeted on February 20:

Quote:During Lent, Catholics are called to observe a gas fast to avoid fuelling the war and against the consumption of fossil fuels.

On the contrary, experts hope that the Vatican will drastically increase the consumption of common-sense enhancers during Lent.

Print this item

  Pope intervenes again to restrict celebration of Latin Mass
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:05 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Pope intervenes again to restrict celebration of Latin Mass


AP NEWS [emphasis mine] | February 21, 2023


ROME (AP) — Pope Francis has intervened for the third time to crack down on the celebration of the old Latin Mass, a sign of continued friction with Catholic traditionalists.

Francis reasserted in a new legal decree published Tuesday that the Holy See must approve new celebrations of the old rite by signing off on bishops’ decisions to designate additional parish churches for the Latin Mass or to let newly ordained priests celebrate it.

The decree states that the Vatican’s liturgy office, headed by British Cardinal Arthur Roche, is responsible for evaluating such requests on behalf of the Holy See and that all requests from bishops must go there.


For weeks, Catholic traditionalist blogs and websites have reported a further crackdown on the old Latin Mass was in the works, following Francis’ remarkable decision in 2021 to reimpose restrictions on its celebration that were relaxed in 2007 by then-Pope Benedict XVI.

Francis said at the time that he was acting to preserve church unity, saying the spread of the Tridentine Mass had become a source of division and been exploited by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1960s meetings that modernized the church and its liturgy.

Roche’s office followed up a few months later to double down on the Vatican’s position with a series of questions and answers that made clear that celebrating some sacraments according to the old rite was forbidden.

The new decree doesn’t restrict the celebration further but merely repeats what was previously declared. Its insistence on Roche’s authority in the process appeared aimed primarily at quashing traditionalist claims that the cardinal had exceeded his mandate. Francis signed off on the decree Monday during a private audience with Roche.

Francis’ crackdown on the old Mass outraged his conservative and traditionalist critics, many of whom have also attacked him for his focus on the environment, social justice and migrants.

Francis says he preaches the Gospel and what Jesus taught, and has defended the restrictions by saying they actually reflect Benedict’s original goal while curbing the way his 2007 concession was exploited for ideological ends.

Joseph Shaw, chairman of the Latin Mass Society in Britain, which promotes the old Mass, called the new document “grave” since it confirmed that bishops need explicit permission from Roche’s office to use parish churches for Tridentine Masses.

In a series of tweets, Shaw noted that when the office has been asked for such permissions to date, the office “has typically been restricting the number of locations and giving the permission for only two years.”

He said that would lead to uneven access to the old Mass, where it would be easy to find alternative locations in some places but impossible in others.

Print this item

  St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for Quinquagesima Week
Posted by: Stone - 02-21-2023, 07:23 AM - Forum: Lent - Replies (6)

Monday after Quinquagesima

[Image: QSZwaWQ9QXBp]

Morning Meditation

JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT GIVES AUDIENCE TO ALL

St. Teresa says that all are not allowed to speak to their king; the most that can be hoped for is to communicate with him through a third person. And even if anyone at length succeeds in speaking with a king, how many difficulties has he had to overcome before he could do so! To converse with Thee, O King of Glory, no third person is needed. Thou art always ready in the Sacrament of the Altar to grant audience to all. In this Sacrament Thou grantest audience to all, night and day -- whenever we please.

I.

Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament gives audience to all. St. Teresa says, that in this world all cannot speak with their sovereign; the poor can hardly hope to do so, or even to make their wants known through some third person: but with this King of Heaven no third person is necessary, -- all, both high and low, may speak to Him, for He remains face to face with us in this Sacrament. It is for this reason that Jesus is called the Flower of the field and the lily of the valleys. (Cant. ii. 1). Garden-flowers are shut in and carefully preserved; but the flowers of the fields are open to all. Cardinal Hugo comments on these words, saying, "because I show Myself to be found by all."

Any one may, then, speak to Jesus in this Sacrament at any hour of the day. St. Peter Chrysologus, describing the birth of our Redeemer in the stable of Bethlehem, says, that kings are not always giving audience; it often happens that a person goes to speak to the prince, and the guards send him away, saying that it is not the hour for admission, and he must come again. But our Lord was pleased to be born in an open cave, without a door, and without guards, that He might receive all, at all hours. There is no attendant to say, "It is not the hour." And it is the same with Jesus in His Most Holy Sacrament: the churches are always open, and everyone may go and speak to the King of Heaven whenever he pleases; and Jesus wills that we should there address Him with the utmost confidence. It is for this that He has concealed Himself beneath the form of bread. If He were to appear on our Altars on a throne of light, as He will appear at the Last Judgment, which of us would have courage to approach Him? But because Our Lord wishes us to speak to Him, says St. Teresa, and to seek graces of Him with confidence and without fear, He has hidden His majesty under the species of bread: He wishes that we should treat with Him "as one friend with another," as Thomas a Kempis expresses it.

To converse with Thee, O King of Glory, no third person is needed: Thou art always ready in the Sacrament of the Altar to give audience to all. Whoever desires Thee always finds Thee there and converses with Thee face to face. Since, then, my Jesus, Thou art enclosed in this Tabernacle to receive the supplications of miserable creatures who come to seek an audience of Thee, listen this day to the petition addressed to Thee by the most ungrateful sinner on earth. I come repentant to Thy feet. Change me from a great rebel such as I have hitherto been to Thee, into a great lover of Thee. Thou canst do it. I love Thee, my Jesus, above all things. I love Thee more than my life, my God, my Love, my All!


II.

When the soul remains at the foot of the Altar, Jesus seems to address her in the words of the Canticle: Arise. my love, my beautiful one, and come. (Cant. ii. 10). "Soul arise," He says, "and fear not; approach, come near to Me. My friend: you are not now My enemy for you love Me, and are sorry for having offended Me. My beautiful one: you are no longer hideous in My eyes. My grace has made you beautiful. And come: come here, tell Me whatever you wish; I am on the altar for this very purpose." How delighted you would be if a king were to call you into his presence, and say to you "Tell me, what do you want, what do you wish? I love you and wish to benefit you." Jesus Christ, the King of Heaven, says this to all who visit Him: Come to me all you that labour and are burdened, and I will refresh you. (Matt. xi. 28). Come all you who are poor, sick, or afflicted, I can and will enrich you, hear you, and comfort you. I remain for this purpose on your altars: I myself that spoke: behold I am here. (Is. lii. 6).

My beloved Jesus, since Thou remainest on our Altar to hear the petitions of wretched creatures who have recourse to Thee, hear now the prayer which I, miserable sinner, make to Thee. O Lamb of God sacrificed and put to death on the Cross, Thou seest in me a soul redeemed with Thy Blood; forgive me the insults I have offered Thee, and help me by Thy grace to lose Thee no more. Give me, dear Jesus, a share in the grief Thou didst feel in the Garden of Gethsemani for my sins! Oh, that I had never offended Thee, my God! If I were to die in sin, my beloved Lord, I could love Thee no more; but Thou hast waited for me expressly that I may love Thee; I thank Thee for the time Thou grantest me, and since I now can love Thee, I will do so. Grant me the great grace of loving Thee, but of loving Thee so as to make me forget all, to think only of pleasing Thy most loving Heart. My Jesus, Thou hast expended Thy whole life for me; grant that I may use for Thee at least the remainder of my life. I hope for all graces through the merits of Thy Passion. I hope also in thy intercession, O Mary! Thou knowest that I love thee. Have pity upon me.


Spiritual Reading

VISITING JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

Let us be careful to profit by the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Our hearts should remain with Him to burn continually, and with greater splendour than the lights and lamps that adorn the Altar. But, alas! the ingratitude of men towards Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament made Him complain to His servant, St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, to whom He showed His Divine Heart burning with flames of love for men. Jesus said to her: "Behold this Heart that has loved men so tenderly, and has reserved nothing, but has consumed itself in order to show its love for men; yet in return I receive nothing but ingratitude and contempt from the greater number of men in this Sacrament. But what displeases Me most is, that some of these ungrateful ones are hearts consecrated to Me." In these last words Jesus spoke of those who dwell in the same house with Him, and yet draw but little profit from His Presence. If He were to come into your church once a year, and to remain only for a single day, surely all would contend with one another in paying homage to Him, and in remaining in His loving company; and will you leave Him alone, and seldom visit Him because in order to see you more frequently in His Presence, He, in His goodness, remains continually with you?

If you have hitherto been negligent in visiting Jesus in the Tabernacle, I entreat you henceforth to avail yourself of the great treasure that you have in the most Holy Sacrament. Sister Anne of the Cross, who had been Countess of Feria, and a Spanish lady of high rank, after being a widow for twenty-four years entered the Order of St. Clare, in Montilla. She procured a cell, from which she had a view of the Altar of the Blessed Sacrament, and there she generally remained day and night. Being asked how she was employed during so many hours that she spent before the Blessed Sacrament, she replied: "I would remain there for all eternity. How am I employed before Jesus in the Blessed Eucharist? I thank Him, I love Him, I ask His graces." Behold an excellent means of drawing great fruit from your visits to the Blessed Sacrament.

First, thank Jesus Christ. How thankful you are to relatives that come from a distance to visit you! And will you not thank Jesus Christ Who descends from Heaven, not only to visit you, but also to remain always with you? First of all in your Visit, enliven your Faith and adore your Spouse in the Sacrament: thank His great goodness in coming to remain on the Altar for the love of you.

Secondly, love Jesus. St. Philip Neri, when he saw the most holy Viaticum brought into his room, was all on fire with holy love, and exclaimed: "Behold my Love! Behold my Love!" Do you say the same when you remain before the Holy Tabernacle. Consider that your Jesus, shut up in that prison of love, is burning with love for you. To St. Catherine of Sienna He appeared one day in the Blesesed Sacrament in the form of a fiery furnace, and the Saint was astonished that the flames that issued from it had not filled the hearts of all men with the fire of Divine love. If, when you remain in His Presence, you wish to please Him, repeat acts of love, offering yourself to Him in a special manner.

Thirdly, ask Jesus for His grace. Blessed Henry Suso used to say that it is in the Holy Sacrament that Jesus hears most readily the prayers of those who visit Him, and that it is there He dispenses His graces most abundantly. The Venerable Father Balthasar Alvarez once saw Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament with His hands full of graces, but found no one to whom He could impart them, because there was no one to ask them. You say that you cannot remain in the Presence of Jesus Christ, because you know not what to do before Him, or what to say. O God! And why do you not employ yourself in asking the graces of which you stand in need? Beg of Jesus to give you strength to resist temptations, to correct the faults into which you always relapse, to rescue you from the passion that keeps you in chains, and hinders you from giving yourself entirely to God. Entreat Him to give you aid to suffer all insults and contradictions in peace, to increase in your heart His Divine love, and entreat Him particularly to make you live always united with His holy will. When you feel disturbed on account of having committed any fault, go instantly to the Holy Sacrament to ask pardon, and then calm your mind. When you receive any offence, or when you meet a heavy cross, go and offer it to Jesus Christ and ask His aid to embrace it with resignation. Oh! if we all acted in this manner and knew how to avail ourselves of the Presence of Jesus, we should all become Saints. Let it be our care to become Saints by adopting this practice.


Evening Meditation

A GIFT SURPASSING ALL GIFTS

I.


St. Paul draws attention to the time Jesus chose to make us this gift of the most Holy Sacrament; a gift which surpasses all the other gifts which an Almighty God could make, as St. Clement says: "A gift surpassing all fulness." And St. Augustine says: "Although omnipotent He could give no more." The Apostle remarks that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread and, giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat; this is my body which shall be delivered for you. (1 Cor. xi. 23, 24). In that same night, then, that men were thinking of preparing torments and death for Jesus, our beloved Redeemer thought of leaving them Himself in the Blessed Sacrament; giving us thereby to understand that His love was so great, that, instead of being cooled by so many injuries, it was then more than ever yearning towards us. O most loving Saviour, how couldest Thou have so great love for men as to choose to remain with them on this earth to be their Food, after their having driven Thee away from it with so much ingratitude!


II.

Let us also consider the immense desire Jesus has during all His life for the arrival of that night, in which He had determined to leave us this great pledge of His love. For at the moment of His instituting this most sweet Sacrament, He said, With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you. (Luke xxii. 15), words which reveal to us the ardent desire that He had to unite Himself with us in Communion through the love which He bore us: "This is the voice of most burning charity," says St. Laurence Justinian. And Jesus still retains at the present time the same desire towards all the souls that love Him.

O Lover, too full of love, there are no greater proofs left for Thee to give me in order to persuade me that Thou dost love me. I bless Thy goodness for it. O my Jesus, I beseech Thee, draw me entirely to Thyself. Make me love Thee henceforth with all the affections and tenderness of which I am capable. Let it suffice to others to love Thee with a love only appreciative and predominant, for I know that Thou wilt be satisfied with it; but I shall not be satisfied until I see that I love Thee also with all the tenderness of my heart, more than friend, more than brother, more than father, and more than spouse. And where, indeed, shall I find a friend, a brother, a father, a spouse, who will love me as much as Thou hast loved me, my Creator, my Redeemer, and my God, Who for the love of me hast spent Thy Blood and Thy life; and, not content with that, dost give Thyself entirely to me in this Sacrament of love. I love Thee, then, O my Jesus, with all the affections of my soul: I love Thee more than myself. Oh, help me to love Thee; I ask nothing more of Thee.

Print this item

  How the Novus Ordo Mass Was Made by Yves Chiron
Posted by: Stone - 02-21-2023, 07:12 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments - No Replies

How the Novus Ordo Mass Was Made
by Yves Chiron

[Image: paul_vi_at_vatican_ii_wolleh.jpg]

Paul VI At Vatican II


July 22, 2021

The incremental Vatican II reforms brought about by the September 1964 and May 1967 Instructions opened the way to a general reform of the Mass. They lay the groundwork for it in two transitional phases, as it were. A completely new rite of the Mass was slated for preparation from the very beginning of the Consilium [Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy]. During the fifth plenary session in April 1965 (20 members and 41 experts were in attendance), the possibility of modifying the Canon of the Mass was brought up. As Archbishop Bugnini himself was later to admit, however, a very broad majority of members and consultors was of the opinion that this “venerable document” was not to be touched.

The first complete draft of a new Ordo Missae was ready for the sixth plenary session (October 18–26, 1965). Msgr. Wagner, the relator for the tenth group, presented it. It was the occasion for two “experimentations” that took place in the chapel of the “Maria Bambina” Institute: the first in Italian on October 20, the second in French on October 22. The two celebrations of this “normative” Mass, as it was called, took place behind closed doors in the presence of Consilium members, who were then able to share their impressions in one of the Institute’s meeting rooms. Paul VI had some concerns regarding this reform of the Ordo Missae. On three different occasions (October 25, 1965, December 10, 1965, and March 7, 1966), he had his Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, address official letters to Cardinal Lercaro to recommend prudence and reserving to the Holy See any decision involving “any possible changes proposed for the rite of celebration of the divine sacrifice.”

On June 20, 1966, the revised first draft of the new Mass was presented to Paul VI by Cardinal Lercaro. The pope wanted two important changes:
  • the present anaphora [the Roman Canon] is to be left untouched; two or three other anaphoras should be composed, or sought in existing texts, that could be used during certain defined seasons.
  • the Kyrie should be retained when the Gloria is not said; when the liturgy prescribes the Gloria, however, the Kyrie should be replaced with another penitential prayer.
Consequently, a Consilium subcommission prepared three new anaphoras (or Eucharistic Prayers). Two were new compositions while the third (which became the second Eucharistic Prayer in the new Ordo Missae) was inspired by the anaphora of Saint Hippolytus.

Archbishop Bugnini was later to acknowledge that one of these new Eucharistic Prayers (which became the fourth Eucharistic Prayer) was put together in haste, “a kind of forced labor.” A consultor on that subcommission, Fr. Bouyer, gave the same description (not without humor and irony) for the composition of the second Eucharistic Prayer that he prepared with Dom Botte, the famous Hippolytus specialist. He had to compose it posthaste, within a twenty-four-hour period:

Quote:Between the indiscriminately archeologizing fanatics who wanted to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic Prayer by taking Hippolytus’s Eucharist as is, and those others who could not have cared less about his alleged Apostolic Tradition and wanted a slapdash Mass, Dom Botte and I were commissioned to patch up its text with a view to inserting these elements, which are certainly quite ancient—by the next morning! Luckily, I discovered, if not in a text by Hippolytus himself certainly in one in his style, a felicitous formula on the Holy Ghost that could provide a transition of the Vere Sanctus type to the short epiclesis. For his part Botte produced an intercession worthier of Paul Reboux’s “In the manner of…” than of his actual scholarship. Still, I cannot reread that improbable composition without recalling the Trastevere café terrace where we had to put the finishing touches to our assignment in order to show up with it at the Bronze Gate by the time our masters had set!

Nine new Prefaces were composed at this time, of which eight were retained. Fr Bouyer sees them in a more positive light: “The only element undeserving of criticism in this new missal was the enrichment it received, thanks particularly to the restoration of a good number of splendid prefaces taken over from ancient sacramentaries.”


An Experimental Mass at the Synod of 1967

The new Mass in its completed structure was presented to some 180 cardinals and bishops in a Synod at the Vatican in 1967. This first postconciliar Synod was to deal with several topics: the revision of the code of canon law, doctrinal questions, and the liturgical reform. On October 21, Cardinal Lercaro presented the assembled cardinals and bishops with a report describing the new structure of the Mass and the changes introduced into it, as well as the reform of the Divine Office. On October 24, Fr Bugnini celebrated a “normative” Mass before the Synod Fathers in the Sistine chapel. Paul VI did not attend this celebration because of an “indisposition,” however.

Besides the changes that were already in force since the 1964 and 1967 Instructions (Mass celebrated facing the people in Italian including the Canon, fewer genuflections and signs of the cross, etc.), the “normative” Mass that Fr Bugnini celebrated with a large choir added other new elements: a longer Liturgy of the Word (three readings total), a transformed Offertory, a new Eucharistic Prayer (the third), and a great number of hymns.

During the four general congregations devoted to the liturgy (October 21–25), cardinals and bishops made many comments on this “normative” Mass and on the liturgical reform in general. All told, sixty-three cardinals, bishops, and religious superiors general commented on the subject and a further nineteen submitted written comments. There was a diversity of opinion. “Of sixty-three orators,” Fr Caprile reported, “thirty-six explicitly expressed, in the warmest, most enthusiastic, and unreserved terms,” their agreement with the reform underway and its results. Some bishops even wanted further changes, such as the possibility of receiving communion in the hand, that of using ordinary bread for communion, and the preparation of a specific Mass for youth, etc.

Yet the general tone was more prudent, if not reserved or even critical. The English-speaking bishops met at the English College to define a common position on the “normative” Mass. On October 25, at the Synod, Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, took the floor to accuse the Consilium of technicism and intellectualism and to blame it for lacking pastoral sense. More significant yet, in the sense that they came from the highest authority in the Church after the pope, were the words of Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, who on the very same day asked for an end to liturgical changes “lest the faithful be confused.”

Twice during the debates on the liturgy, the participants were invited to express their opinion through a vote. On October 25, they answered four questions that Paul VI had specifically posed: on the three new Eucharistic Prayers, on two changes in the formula of consecration, and on the possibility of replacing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed with the Apostles’ Creed. Eight more questions were posed on October 27, particularly on the normative Mass and on the Divine Office draft.

Leaving aside a detailed analysis of these twelve votes, it is noteworthy that for half of them (two out of the pope’s four questions and four out of eight of the remainder), the required two-thirds majority was not reached. There were 187 voters; the two-thirds majority was therefore 124. For some of the votes, the tally was far from it, with the non placet (nays) and placet juxta modum (approval on condition of modifications) having a broad margin. For example, regarding the suppression of the phrase Mysterium fidei in the consecration formula, there were only 93 placet. More spectacular yet was the refusal to give unreserved approval to the general structure of the normative Mass: 71 placet; 43 non placet; 62 placet juxta modum; 4 abstentions.

A few months later Fr Bugnini acknowledged to Consilium consultors and members that “the response of the bishops was not unanimous. The votes in the Synod went to some extent contrary to what the Consilium wanted [contro il ‘Consilium’].”


Lercaro’s “Destitution”

This public disavowal of the Consilium’s work was one of the causes that led to Cardinal Lercaro’s destitution. In August 1966, Cardinal Lercaro, who was reaching the age limit of 75 imposed on bishops and curial officials, had presented his resignation to the pope. Paul VI had asked him to continue in his functions as both archbishop of Bologna and president of the Consilium. Nevertheless, Paul VI named one of his close collaborators, Msgr. Poma, as coadjutor in the archdiocese of Bologna in June 1967.

Then, unexpectedly for the cardinal, Paul VI wrote to Lercaro on January 9, 1968 to tell him that he accepted his resignation from the Consilium. The pope sent him a representative on the following 27th, whose mission was to secure the cardinal archbishop’s resignation [from the See of Bologna], which the latter, with a heavy heart, submitted on February 12.

One of Lercaro’s close collaborators, Don Lorenzo Bedeschi, presented this double resignation as a “destitution.” History, in the main, has accepted this view. Diverse reasons led to this double destitution: Cardinal Lercaro’s controversial pastoral policies in Bologna, his links to the Communist municipality (he agreed to being made an “honorary citizen”), his appeal against American bombing in Vietnam. Yet his management of the liturgical reform was also questioned. In 1967 the backlash linked to Casini’s pamphlet and the criticism leveled at the “normative” Mass had brought to light the opposition to the work of the Consilium, whose president he had been since 1964.

One may therefore say that Paul VI attempted to regain control of the liturgical reform in early 1968. Just as he officially accepted the resignation of the Consilium president, he simultaneously asked Cardinal Larraona to resign from the Congregation of Rites. On the same day Cardinal Gut, a Benedictine monk who was already a Consilium member, became its president as well the new prefect of the Congregation of Rites. This double nomination anticipated the fusion of the two organisms, which would occur the following year. Paul VI still had full confidence in Bugnini, however. During the audience that followed Lercaro’s resignation, Paul VI told Bugnini: “Now you alone are left. I urge you to be very patient and very prudent. I assure you once again of my complete confidence.” Fr Bugnini answered: “Holy Father, the reform will continue as long as Your Holiness retains this confidence. As soon as it lessens, the reform will come to a halt.”


Towards the “New Mass”

The Consilium put the “new Mass” project, which had been roundly criticized at the October 1967 Synod, back on the drawing board. We have seen that Paul VI had been unable to attend the first experiment of the “normative” Mass. A report prepared under Fr Bugnini’s direction had been presented to him on December 11, 1967. During an audience on January 4, 1968, he asked Fr Bugnini to organize three new “experimental” celebrations, to take place in his presence in the Matilda chapel on the second floor of the Apostolic Palace.

These three “normative” Masses were all celebrated in the late afternoon by one of Bugnini’s two closest collaborators, each with a different Eucharistic prayer, but in different modes of celebration: on January 11, a read Mass with hymns celebrated by Fr Carlo Braga; on January 12, an “entirely read Mass with participation of the faithful” celebrated by Fr Gottardo Pasqualetti; and on January 13, a sung Mass, once again celebrated by Fr Braga.

Each of the celebrations was attended by about thirty people besides the pope: the cardinal Secretary of State, different members of the Curia, several members of the Consilium, two religious women, and four laymen (two men and two women). These three experimental celebrations in the presence of the pope presented a few differences with the “normative” Mass that had been celebrated before the Synod a few months earlier, in particular by the introduction of a “Sign of Peace” that all in attendance exchanged after the instruction “Give each other the Peace.”

After each of the Masses, the pope welcomed some of the participants along with Fr Bugnini in his private library to share impressions and comments on what had been done in the celebration. On the following January 22, Paul VI provided his own written comments during an audience he granted to Fr Bugnini. The pope made seven suggestions, asking in particular that the Offertory should be given more prominence since it “should be the part of the Mass in which . . . [the faithful’s] activity is more direct and obvious.”

He also asked that the expression Mysterium fidei should be maintained at the end of the formula of consecration, “as a concluding acclamation of the celebrant, to be repeated by the faithful” and that the triple Agnus Dei invocation should be retained. Paul VI once again echoed some “authoritative persons” who asked that the last Gospel at the end of Mass (the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John) should be restored. Lastly, he asked that “the words of consecration . . . not be recited simply as a narrative but with the special, conscious emphasis given them by a celebrant who knows he is speaking and acting ‘in the person of Christ’.”

Also on January 22, Paul VI asked that the schema of the new Mass be sent, after revision, to all the Curia dicastery heads, a number of whom had expressed reservations or criticisms of the Synod “normative” Mass. “We must win them over and make allies of them,” the pope explicitly said, even if this entailed the argument from authority: “You saw, didn’t you, what happened when St. Joseph’s name was introduced into the Canon? First, everyone was against it. Then one fine morning Pope John decided to insert it and made this known; then everyone applauded, even those who had said they were opposed to it.”

The following May 23, Cardinal Gut, prefect of the Congregation of Rites and president of the Consilium, published a decree authorizing the use of the three new Eucharistic Prayers and of eight new Prefaces. They could be used starting on August 15, 1968. Once again, the traditional rite of the Mass was emended on important points before the new rite was completed and promulgated.

On June 2, 1968, the revised draft of the new Ordo Missae was sent, as Paul VI had intended, to fourteen curial cardinals (Congregation prefects and Secretariat presidents). Fr. Bugnini was to report that “of the fourteen cardinals involved, two did not reply, seven sent observations, and five said simply that they had no remarks to make or were ‘very pleased’ with the schema.”

It is noteworthy that the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”), which was to preface the new Ordo Missae, was not sent to these cardinals, not even to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This Institutio, which was made up of eight chapters and put together by a study group directed by Fr Carlo Braga, presented itself as “at once [a] doctrinal, pastoral, and rubrical” treatment of the new Mass. Certain articles of this Institutio would come under criticism, as we shall see.

Paul VI had the revised draft and the cardinals’ responses examined by two of his close collaborators, Msgr. Carlo Colombo, his private theologian, and Bishop Manziana of Crema. Then he read and reread the draft himself, inserting marginal notes and underscoring the text in red and blue pencil, though without seeking to impose his views. On September 22, 1968, he gave the annotated draft back to Fr. Bugnini with the following written remark: “I ask you to take account of these observations, exercising a free and carefully weighed judgment.”

From October 8 to 17, the Consilium’s eleventh plenary session met to work on the Mass, but also on other rites (notably the Blessing of an Abbot and Religious Profession). Paul VI hosted the participants on October 14 and gave a long allocution. Its tone was graver than on any previous occasion. The pope issued several warnings: “Reform of the liturgy must not be taken to be a repudiation of the sacred patrimony of past ages and a reckless welcoming of every conceivable novelty.” He insisted on the “ecclesial and hierarchic character of the liturgy”:

The rites and prayer formularies must not be regarded as a private matter, left up to individuals, a parish, a diocese, or a nation, but as the property of the whole Church, because they express the living voice of its prayer. No one, then, is permitted to change these formularies, to introduce new ones, or to substitute others in their place.

More than this, Paul VI for the first time publicly deplored abuses committed by certain conferences of bishops:

Quote:This results at times even in conferences of bishops going too far on their own initiative in liturgical matters. Another result is arbitrary experimentation in the introduction of rites that are flagrantly in conflict with the norms established by the Church. Anyone can see that this way of acting not only scandalizes the conscience of the faithful but does harm to the orderly accomplishment of liturgical reform, which demands of all concerned prudence, vigilance, and above all discipline.


The Novus Ordo Missae (N.O.M.)

On November 6, 1968, Paul VI, after rereading the new Ordo Missae one more time, gave it his written “approbation.” The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969 was announced in Consistory on the following April 28 and presented to the press on May 2, the publication day of the new Ordo Missae, which was soon called the “new Mass” or the N.O.M. (Novus Ordo Missae). A new missal, soon commonly termed the “Paul VI Missal,” was about to succeed the Roman Missal codified by Saint Pius V.

The rite of the Mass was now “simplified.” In fact, we have seen that between the traditional Missal used on the eve of the Council in 1962 and the 1969 Missal, there had been a succession of transformations: the N.O.M. was not a pure innovation. In some of its formulations, the Institutio Generalis was far more innovative. It is worth noting that this lengthy “General Presentation” was not submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before publication. A number of infelicitous expressions provoked fierce criticism.

The “new Mass” was actually not as new as was claimed. Indeed, considering prior Instructions, it synthesized and made official the changes that had already been taking place: a more communal penitential part of the Mass; more numerous and diverse Sunday readings spread out over a three-year cycle; a restored  “universal prayer”; new Prefaces; a changed Offertory; three new Eucharistic Prayers added to the ancient Roman Canon to be used at the celebrant’s choice; modified words of consecration, identical in all four Eucharistic Prayers; the Pater noster said by the whole congregation, no longer by the priest alone; suppression of many genuflections, signs of the cross, and bows.


The Path to Communion in the Hand

As we have seen, in 1965 Cardinal Lercaro, president of the Consilium, considered “placing the host in the open hands of the faithful” to be a deplorable and fanciful initiative. Neither the 1969 Missal nor the Institutio Generalis provided for the possibility of receiving communion in the hand. Yet the practice had already spread in several countries. The Congregation for Divine Worship therefore published a lengthy Instruction on the topic dated May 29, 1969.

As Jean Madiran was later to point out, this Instruction looks like a composite document. On the one hand, the Instruction uses different arguments (theological, spiritual, and practical) to defend the traditional manner of receiving communion and states that it must remain the norm: “In view of the overall contemporary situation of the Church, this manner of distributing communion must be retained. Not only is it based on a practice handed down over many centuries, but above all it signifies the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”

In support of maintaining this tradition, the same document published the results of a survey conducted among all Latin-rite bishops. Without getting into the detail of the answers given to the three questions, we give here only those given to the first question: “Do you think that a positive response should be given to the request to allow the rite of receiving communion in the hand?”

In favor: 567

Opposed: 1,253

In favor with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

On the basis of the survey’s results, the Instruction prescribed the following: “[Pope Paul VI’s] judgment is not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful. The Apostolic See earnestly urges bishops, priests, and faithful, therefore, to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed.”

Yet in the second part, which is shorter and looks like an add-on, the same text granted to episcopal conferences the possibility of authorizing communion in the hand:

Quote:Wherever the contrary practice, that is, of communion in the hand, has already come into use, the Apostolic See entrusts to the same conferences of bishops the duty and task of evaluating any possible special circumstances. This, however, is with the proviso both that they prevent any possible lack of reverence or false ideas about the Eucharist from being engendered in the attitudes of the people and that they carefully eliminate anything else unacceptable.

Cardinal Oddi reports that, from a concern not to restrict the freedom of episcopal conferences and to respect the diversity of opinions, Paul VI refused to impose a single law in the matter, although he was personally opposed to communion in the hand. In any event, what had been a limited concession in 1969 has become the norm in a great many countries and parishes.

Pierre Lemaire, director of the review Défense du Foyer and of the Éditions Saint-Michel and an activist in defense of the family and of the catechism, voiced a complaint on the subject in Rome. In 1969, during one of his many visits to the Vatican, he was received by Cardinal Seper, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and by Cardinal Wright, new prefect of the Congregation for Clergy. He gave each of them a Pro memoria exposing “the dramatic and catastrophic confusion in which France finds herself” and the “fundamental points” that were introducing a “rupture” between Catholics faithful to the Holy See and the clergy. Pierre Lemaire underscored the “crisis” that the liturgical question had precipitated:

Quote:The aberrant liturgies invading our churches—now as bare as Protestant houses of worship—are having a disastrous effect. Communion in the hand, often distributed in baskets to all takers, represents the nadir of the innumerable profanations spreading in progressive parishes because of the multiplying sacrilegious communions of the “faithful” who never go to confession. In this climate, the new “Ordo Missae” is received not as a step forward but as the herald of further degradations, since the clergy, which is badly formed and badly taught in wayward seminaries, is open to any and all experiments.


The Congregation for Divine Worship

The promulgation of the new Missal did not mean that the implementation of the liturgical reform was at an end; it indicated that the reform was at its height. Paul VI, in a consistory held on April 28, 1969, announced that the venerable Congregation of Rites was to be divided into two Congregations: the Congregation for Divine Worship focusing on the liturgy in particular and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that was to handle beatification and canonization causes.

The Apostolic Constitution Sacra Rituum Congregatio of May 8, 1969 established two new Congregations. The Consilium no longer existed as an autonomous body: it was integrated into the new Congregation for Divine Worship under the title “Special Commission for the Implementation of the Liturgical Reform.” Cardinal Gut was named prefect and Fr Bugnini secretary of this new Congregation. Although his title remained unchanged (“secretary”) and he was not yet given the prelature granting him the title “Monsignor,” Fr. Bugnini was completely integrated into the Curia. He left the old Palazzo Santa Marta buildings to set up with his collaborators on the fourth floor of the nice modern Palazzo dei Congregazioni, at 10 Piazza Pio XII.

He now belonged to a Curia dicastery, which strengthened his authority but at the same time reduced his autonomy. The new Congregation “was to be organized according to the structures and regulations of the other curial departments.” Only seven of the forty Consilium bishops stayed on as members of the new Congregation and the number of consultors was considerably reduced: only nineteen remained.

Cardinal Gut, prefect of this new Congregation, tried to channel the liturgical ferment that had been disrupting the lives of the faithful in many parishes. In an interview sometime after the creation of the Congregation for Divine Worship, he announced that “stricter measures” would be taken. He said: “At present the limits of the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy have been vastly overrun in many areas. Many elements have been introduced, with or without authorization, which go beyond the liturgy schema.” He hoped that this “fever of experimentation [would] soon come to an end” and, surprisingly, he (respectfully) lay part of the blame at the feet of the pope: “These unauthorized initiatives often could no longer be stopped because they had spread too far abroad. In his great goodness and wisdom the Holy Father then gave in, often against his own will.”


The Ottaviani Intervention

The new Ordo Missae was to come into effect on November 30, 1969, the first Sunday of Advent. Even before this date, however, the severest doctrinal critiques proliferated, some with the support of eminent authorities. They aimed both at the Ordo Missae and at the Institutio Generalis prefacing it. Even a review so attached to romanità as La Pensée catholique published, under collective authorships (“a group of theologians” and “a group of canonists”), two lengthy critiques of the new Ordo Missae. The group of theologians lamented that the new Mass “completely disregards the doctrine of the Council of Trent on the Mass: incruens sacrificium” and deemed that it “is not in conformity with the tradition of the Roman Church.”

The most glaring opposition came from a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. This Short Critical Study, which is dated to the feast of Corpus Christi (June 5, 1969) but was only published a few months later, was unsigned at the time. The letter that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI to introduce the Study indicates that it was composed by “a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls.” It later transpired that a laywoman, the Italian writer Cristina Campo (1923–1977), and the Dominican theologian Michel Guérard des Lauriers, professor at the Dominican-run Pontifical University Angelicum, had an essential role in writing this document.

The Short Critical Study began by questioning the definition of the Mass that the Institutio Generalis presented at chapter 3, §7: “The Lord’s supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” The term “supper” was taken up again at §§8, 48, 55, and 56. The Short Critical Study deplored this in the following terms:

None of this in the very least implies:

The Real Presence.

The reality of the Sacrifice.

The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates.

The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”


The Short Critical Study spoke in scholastic categories when it also regretted that the “ends or purposes” of the Mass (ultimate, ordinary, immanent) did not appear clearly. It also questioned the formulas of consecration and the place of the priest in the new rite: a “minimized, changed, and falsified” role.

This relentless critique ended in a total rejection of the “new Mass” which “due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division—a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith.” Two cardinals, Bacci and Ottaviani, who no longer had any official functions in the Curia, agreed to present this Short Critical Study to the pope. They did so in a letter accompanying the document. In this letter, dated September 25, 1969, the two cardinals judged that “the Novus Ordo Missae—considering the new elements susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted—represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass.” In consequence, they were asking for the new rite of the Mass to be “abrogated.”

Although other cardinals and bishops had been approached to sign this plea, none made up their mind to take that step. Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, thought that this Study was “more Bacci’s doing than Ottaviani’s” and that Cardinal Ottaviani gave his signature when the text had already been printed. Cardinal Siri added that he himself “would not have added his signature if he’d been asked.” Generally speaking, Cardinal Siri’s views on the liturgical reform were simple:

Quote:The Council did not ask for any such revolution. The liturgical reform was done, the pope approved it, and that’s enough: I take the position of obedience, which is always owed to the pope. If he had asked me, I think I might have made some observations—several. But once a law has been approved, there is only one thing left to do: obey.

The Short Critical Study came to Paul VI’s knowledge in September 1969; the press began to trumpet the story in the following month. The pope sent the Study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for review. Cardinal Seper, the Congregation prefect, gave his answer by November 12: “The pamphlet Breve esame . . . contains many superficial, exaggerated, inaccurate, biased, and false statements.”

Jean Madiran had been the first in France to publish the letter of Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani. He was also the first to publish the French version of the Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. On the other hand, in 1970 Pierre Lemaire published as a supplement to Défense du Foyer 111 a small brochure under the sober title Note doctrinale sur le Nouvel Ordo Missae (“Doctrinal Note on the New Ordo Missae”). This forty-four-page brochure was commissioned, as the text says, “by the Knights of Our Lady,” an organization to which Pierre Lemaire belonged. In fact, the main writer of this “Note” was Dom Gérard md, the Order’s chaplain and a monk at the abbey of Saint Wandrille where he taught Sacred Scripture.

The Doctrinal Note, while it did express some criticisms regarding the translation of the new Ordo Missae then circulating in France, came to the defense of the new Mass’s orthodoxy. The Doctrinal Note also expressed the opinion that “Cardinal Ottaviani cannot have given his approval to the Short Critical Study; they probably refrained from reading it to him.”

Dom Lafond’s study had been sent to different authorities for review before being published by Pierre Lemaire along with excerpts of the responses they had sent in. Cardinal Journet had praised these “solid, luminous, balanced pages.” Fr Louis Bouyer, a renowned theologian and liturgical specialist, found the work “quite good.” Msgr Agustoni, Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary, praised what he called “a serious, deep, serene work accomplished in the eye of the storm.”

Then, the following month, Pierre Lemaire published a letter from Cardinal Ottaviani that caused a sensation. This letter, which was addressed to Dom Lafond to thank him for the Note doctrinale, was in near complete counterpoint to the Short Critical Study published a few months before. In this letter Cardinal Ottaviani characterized Dom Lafond’s Note doctrinale as “remarkable for its objectivity and its dignity of expression.” He also deplored the publicity that had been given to his letter to Paul VI: “I regret that my name has been abused in a direction I did not want through the publication of a letter addressed to the Holy Father, without my having authorized anyone to publish it.”

Above all, Cardinal Ottaviani expressed his satisfaction with the allocutions Paul VI had given in general audience on November 19 and 26, 1969, and judged that henceforth “no one can be scandalized anymore,” even though “there is need for prudent and intelligent catechesis to remove a few legitimate perplexities that the text may arouse.”


Paul VI’s Corrections and Rectifications

To Jean Madiran, the letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Lafond seemed to be a provocation against the truth. A lively polemic ensued. Jean Madiran published a brochure in response to the Note doctrinale, its author, and Pierre Lemaire who had published it. He also questioned the authenticity of the letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to Pierre Lafond. This he did in highly polemical terms, judging that, in this whole business, Dom Lafond and Pierre Lemaire had been “duped and manipulated.”

In reality and according to diverse well-known attestations, one may consider that Cardinal Ottaviani had most certainly first approved the Short Critical Study, of which he was not the author. Then, a few months later, he gave his approval to Dom Lafond’s Note doctrinale. His position regarding the “new Mass” (which he went on to celebrate) had changed because in the meantime Paul VI had provided corrections and rectifications of no small import. Indeed, at the time neither the enthusiastic partisans of the new Mass and of the liturgical reform nor its most determined adversaries paid sufficient attention to what the pope did and said to rectify and correct the texts he had first approved and promulgated.

On the one hand, there were the allocutions given during the general audiences on November 19 and 26, 1969, two Wednesdays in a row. They were entirely devoted to the new Mass. Paul VI had explained the reasons for the changes in the rite and reaffirmed that it substantially “is and will remain the Mass it always has been”: a sacrifice offered by the priest “in a different mode, that is, unbloodily and sacramentally, as his perpetual memorial until his final coming.”

He acknowledged that abandoning Latin was a “great sacrifice,” necessary for a better “understanding of prayer.” He also asserted: “Finally, close examination will reveal that the fundamental plan of the Mass in its theological and spiritual import remains what it always has been.” The phrase “close examination” is worth noting: it acknowledged that continuity between the “old” Mass and the “new” was not obvious or immediately apparent. There were also the important corrections to the Institutio Generalis. Under the pressure of the moment, so to speak, Cardinal Gut and Fr Bugnini published a “Declaration” to specify that the Institutio “is not to be considered as a doctrinal or dogmatic document but as a pastoral and ritual instruction describing the celebration and each of its parts.”

Then there were the additions and corrections made to many articles of the Instructio itself. These are easy to pick out in a synoptic comparison of the 1969 editio typica and the 1970 editio typica. In the first place a lengthy, fifteen-paragraph Proemium (“Preamble”) had been added; it repeated the traditional Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and notably cited the definitions of the Council of Trent several times. The chapters of the Instructio themselves had been corrected in several points by addition or by a different formulation. The famous §7 which, in the 1969 edition, gave a more than incomplete definition of the Mass, was corrected to yield a more complete and more theologically accurate definition. While it defined it again as a gathering and memorial—“At Mass or the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord”—the new text defined it as a sacrifice also, and insisted on transubstantiation and the Real Presence: “For at the celebration of the Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the Cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the Eucharistic elements.”

The typical edition of the Missale Romanum published in Rome in 1970 also included substantial corrections, even though its structure remained unchanged. In fact, within a few months, the text of the new Ordo Missae as well as that of the Institutio Generalis had undergone revisions that were not merely marginal changes. These did not satisfy those who had for several months been multiplying criticisms on both form and substance. On the other hand, some were convinced and changed their views; for instance, Fr Luc Lefèvre retracted his initial critical stance and, in an editorial in La Pensée catholique, affirmed: “All the ambiguities have definitively and officially been set aside, then. Bene. Recte. Optime.”



EDITORIAL NOTE: This essay is excerpted from Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy. Copyright ©Angelico Press, 2020. Reprinted by arrangement with Angelico Press. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Print this item