Guéranger: The Mystery of Septuagesima

Super flumina Babylonis a8 (Philippe de Monte) and Quomodo cantabimus a8 (William Byrd), performed by the Cardinall's Musick (dir. Andrew Carwood and editions prepared by David Skinner), from The Byrd Edition 3: Early Latin Church Music, Propers for Epiphany, 1999


From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

THE MYSTERY OF SEPTUAGESIMA

The season upon which we are now entering is expressive of several profound mysteries. But these mysteries belong not only to the three weeks which are preparatory to Lent: they continue throughout the whole period of time which separates us from the great feast of Easter.

The number seven is the basis of all these mysteries. We have already seen how the holy Church came to introduce the season of Septuagesima into her calendar. Let us now meditate on the doctrine hidden under the symbols of her liturgy. And first, let us listen to St. Augustine, who thus gives us the clue to the whole of our season's mysteries. "There are two times," says the holy Doctor: "one which is now, and is spent in the temptations and tribulations of this life; the other which shall be then, and shall be spent in eternal security and joy. In figure of these, we celebrate two periods: the time before Easter, and the time after Easter. That which is before Easter signifies the sorrow of this present life; that which is after Easter, the blessedness of our future state... Hence it is that we spend the first in fasting and prayer; and in the second we give up our fasting, and give ourselves to praise."

The Church, the interpreter of the sacred Scriptures, often speaks to us of two places, which correspond with these two times of St. Augustine. These two places are Babylon and Jerusalem. Babylon is the image of this world of sin, in the midst whereof the Christian has to spend his years of probation; Jerusalem is the heavenly country, where he is to repose after all his trials. The people of Israel, whose whole history is but one great type of the human race, was banished from Jerusalem and kept in bondage in Babylon.

Now, this captivity, which kept the Israelites exiles from Sion, lasted seventy years; and it is to express this mystery, as Alcuin, Amalarius, Ivo of Chartres, and all the great liturgists tell us, that the Church fixed the number of seventy for the days of expiation. It is true, there are but sixty-three days between Seputagesima and Easter; but the Church, according to the style so continually used in the sacred Scriptures, uses the round number instead of the literal and precise one.

The duration of the world itself, according to the ancient Christian tradition, is divided into seven ages. The human race must pass through seven ages before the dawning of the day of eternal life. The first age included the time from the creation of Adam to Noah; the second begins with Noah and the renovation of the earth by the deluge, and ends with the vocation of Abraham; the third opens with this formation of God's chosen people, and continues as far as Moses, through whom God gave the Law; the fourth consists of the period between Moses and David, in whom the house of Juda received the kingly power; the fifth is formed of the years which passed between David's reign and the captivity of Babylon, inclusively; the sixth dates from the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, and takes us on as far as the birth of our Saviour. Then, finally, comes the seventh age; it starts with the rising of this merciful Redeemer, the Sun of justice, and is to continue till the dread coming of the Judge of the living and the dead. These are the seven great divisions of time; after which, eternity.

In order to console us in the midst of the combats, which so thickly beset our path, the Church, like a beacon shining amidst the darkness of this our earthly abode, shows us another seven, which is to succeed the one we are now preparing to pass through. After the Septuagisma of mourning, we shall have the bright Easter with its seven weeks of gladness, foreshadowing the happiness and bliss of heaven. After having fasted with our Jesus, and suffered with Him, the day will come when we shall rise together with Him, and our hearts shall follow Him to the highest heavens; and then after a brief interval, we shall feel the Holy Ghost descending upon us, with His seven Gifts. The celebration of all these wondrous joys will take us seven weeks, as the great liturgists observe in their interpretation of the rites of the Church. The seven joyous weeks from Easter to Pentecost will not be too long for the future glad mysteries, which, after all, will be but figures of a still gladder future, the future of eternity.

Having heard these sweet whispers of hope, let us now bravely face the realities brought before us by our dear mother the Church. We are sojourners upon this earth; we are exiles and captives in Babylon, that city which plots our ruin. If we love our country, if we long to return to it, we must be proof against the lying allurements of this strange land, and refuse the cup she proffers us, and with which she maddens so many of our fellow captives. She invites us to join in her feasts and her songs; but we must unstring our harps, and hang them on the willows that grow on her river's bank, till the signal be given for our return to Jerusalem. She will ask us to sing to her the melodies of our dear Sion: but how shall we, who are so far from home, have heart to "sing the song of the Lord in a strange land"? No, there must be sign that we are content to be in bondage, or we shall deserve to be slaves for ever.

These are the sentiments wherewith the Church would inspire us during the penitential season which we are now beginning. She wishes us to reflect on the dangers that beset us; dangers which arise from ourselves and from creatures. During the rest of the year she loves to hear us chant the song of heaven, the sweet Alleluia; but now, she bids us close our lips to this word of joy, because we are in Babylon. We are pilgrims absent from our Lord: let us keep our glad hymn for the day of His return. We are sinners, and have but too often held fellowship with the world of God's enemies; let us become purified by repentance, for it is written that "praise is unseemly in the mouth of a sinner."

The leading features, then, of Septuagesima, is the total suspension of the Alleluia, which is not to be heard upon the earth until the arrival of that happy day, when, having suffered death with our Jesus, and having been buried together with Him, we shall rise again with Him to a new life.

The sweet hymn of the angels, Gloria in excelsis Deo, which we have sung every Sunday since the birth of our Saviour in Bethlehem, is also taken from us; it is only on the feasts of the saints which may be kept during the week that we shall be allowed to repeat it. The night Office of the Sunday is to lose also, from now till Easter, its magnificent Ambrosian hymn, the Te Deum; and at the end of the holy Sacrifice, the deacon will no longer dismiss the faithful with his solemn Ite, Missa est, but will simply invite them to continue their prayers in silence, and bless the Lord, the God mercy, who bears with us, notwithstanding all our sins.

After the Gradual of the Mass, instead of the thrice repeated Alleluia, which prepared our hearts to listen to the voice of God in the holy Gospel, we shall hear but a mournful and protracted chant, called, on that account, the Tract.

That the eye, too, may teach us that the season we are entering on is one of mourning, the Church will vest her ministers (both on Sundays and on the day during the week which are not feasts of saints) in the sombre purple. Until Ash Wednesday, however, she permits the deacon to wear his dalmatic, and the subdeacon his tunic; but from that day forward, they must lay aside these vestments of joy, for Lent will then have begun, and our holy mother will inspire us with the deep spirit of penance, by suppressing everything of that glad pomp, which she loves, at other seasons, to bring into the sanctuary of her God.

The Crucifixion by Simon Vouet, circa 1620

Guéranger: The History of Septuagesima

From

The Liturgical Year

by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

THE HISTORY OF SEPTUAGESIMA

The season of Septuagesima comprises the three weeks immediately preceding Lent. It forms one of the principal divisions of the liturgical year, and is itself divided into three parts, each part corresponding to a week: the first is called Septuagesima; the second Sexagesima; the third, Quinquagesima.

All three are named from their numerical reference to Lent, which, in the language of the Church, is called Quadragesima, that is, Forty, because the great feast of Easter is prepared for by the holy exercises of forty days. The words Quinquagesima, Sexagesima, and Septuagesima, tell us of the same great solemnity as looming in the distance, and as being the great object towards which the Church would have us now begin to turn all our thoughts, and desires, and devotion.

Now, the feast of Easter must be prepared for by forty days of recollectedness and penance. Those forty days are one of the principal seasons of the liturgical year, and one of the most powerful means employed by the Church for exciting in the hearts of her children the spirit of their Christian vocation. It is of the utmost importance that such a season of grace should produce its work in our souls—the renovation of the whole spiritual life. The Church, therefore, has instituted a preparation for the holy time of Lent. She gives us the three weeks of Septuagesima, during which she withdraws us, as much as may be, from the noisy distractions of the world, in order that our hearts may be more readily impressed by the solemn warning she is to give us at the commencement of Lent by marking our foreheads with ashes.

This prelude to the holy season of Lent was not known in the early ages of Christianity: its institution would seem to have originated in the Greek Church. Besides the six Sundays of Lent, on which by universal custom the faithful never fasted, the practice of this Church prohibited fasting on the Saturdays likewise; consequently their Lent was short by twelve days of the forty spent by our Saviour doing penance in the desert. To make up the deficiency, they were obliged to begin their Lent so many days earlier, as we will show in our next volume.

The Church of Rome had no such motive for anticipating the season of those privations which belong to Lent; for, from the earliest antiquity, she kept the Saturdays in Lent (and as often during the rest of the year as circumstances might require) as fasting days. At the close of the sixth century, St. Gregory the Great alludes, in one of his homilies, to the fast of Lent being less than forty days, owing to the Sundays which come during that holy season. “There are,” he says, “from this day (the first Sunday of Lent) to the joyous feast of Easter, six weeks, that is forty-two days. As we do not fast on the six Sundays, there are but thirty-six fasting days… which we offer to God as the tithe of our year.”

It was, therefore, after the pontificate of St. Gregory, that the last four days of Quinquagesima week were added to Lent, in order that the number of fasting days might be exactly forty. As early, however, as the ninth century, the custom of beginning Lent on Ash Wednesday was of obligation in the whole Latin Church. All the manuscript copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary, which bear that date, entitle this Wednesday In capite jejunii, that is to say, the beginning of the fast; and Amalarius, who gives us every detail of the liturgy of the ninth century, tells us that it was, even then, the rule to begin the fast four days before the first Sunday of Lent. We find the practice confirmed by two Councils, held in that century. But, out of respect for the form of divine service drawn up by St. Gregory, the Church does not make any important change in the Office of these four days. Up to the Vespers of Saturday, when alone she begins the lenten rite, she observes the rubrics prescribed for Quinquagesima week.

Peter of Blois, who lived in the twelfth century, tells us what was the practice in his days. He says: “All religious begin the fast of Lent at Septuagesima; the Greeks, at Sexagesima; the clergy, at Quinquagesima; and the rest of Christians, who form the Church militant on earth, begin their Lent on the Wednesday following Quinquagesima.” The secular clergy, as we learn from these words, were bound to begin the lenten fast somewhat before the laity; though it was only by two days—that is, on Monday, as we gather from the Life of St. Ulric, bishop of Augsburg, written in the tenth century. The Council of Clermont, in 1095, at which Pope Urban II presided, has a decree sanctioning the obligation of the clergy to begin abstinence from flesh-meat at Quinquagesima. This Sunday was called, indeed, Dominica carnis privii, and carnis privium sacerdotum, that is, priests’ carnival Sunday; but the term is to be understood in the sense of the announcement being made, on that Sunday, of the abstinence having to begin on the following day. We shall find, further on, that a like usage was observed in the Greek Church on the three Sundays preceding Lent. This law, which obliged the clergy to these two additional days of abstinence, was in force in the thirteenth century, as we learn from the Council held at Angers, which threatens with suspension all priests who neglect to begin Lent on the Monday of Quinquagesima week.

This usage, however, soon became obsolete; and in the fifteenth century, the secular clergy, and even the monks themselves, began the lenten fast, like the rest of the faithful, on Ash Wednesday.

There can be no doubt that the original motive for the anticipation—which, after several modifications, was limited to the four days immediately preceding Lent—was to remove from the Greeks the pretext of taking scandal at the Latins, who did not fast fully forty days. Ratramnus, in is Controversy with the Greeks, clearly implies it. But the Latin Church did not think it necessary to carry her condescension farther, by imitating the Greek ante-lenten usages, which originated, as we have already said, in the eastern custom of not fasting on Saturdays.*

Thus it was that the Roman Church, by this anticipation of Lent by four days, gave the exact number of forty days to the holy season, which she had instituted in imitation of the forty days spent by our Saviour in the desert. Whilst faithful to her ancient practice of looking on the Saturday as a day appropriate for penitential exercises, she gladly borrowed from the Greek Church the custom of preparing for Lent, by giving the liturgy of the three preceding weeks a tone of holy mournfulness. Even as early as the beginning of the ninth century, as we learn from Amalarius, the Alleluia and Gloria in excelsis were suspended in the Septuagesima Offices. The monks conformed to the custom, although the Rule of St. Benedict prescribed otherwise. Finally, in the second half of the eleventh century, Pope Alexander II enacted that the total suspension of the Alleluia should be everywhere observed, beginning with the Vespers of the Saturday preceding Septuagesima Sunday. This Pope was but renewing a rule already sanctioned, in that same century, by Pope Leo IX, and inserted in the body of Canon Law.

Thus was the present important period of the liturgical year, after various changes, established in the cycle of the Church. It has been there upwards of a thousand years. Its name, Septuagesima (seventy), expresses, as we have already remarked, a numerical relation to Quadragesima (the forty days); although, in reality, there are not seventy but only sixty-three days from Septuagesima Sunday to Easter. We will speak of the mystery of the name in the following chapter. The first Sunday of Lent being called Quadragesima (forty), each of the three previous Sundays has a name expressive of an additional ten; the nearest to Lent, Quinquagesima (fifty); the middle one, Sexagesima (sixty); the third, Septuagesima (seventy).

As the season of Septuagesima depends upon the time of the Easter celebration, it comes sooner or later according to the changes of that great feast. January 18 and February 22 are called the “Septuagesima keys,” because the Sunday, which is called Septuagesima, cannot be earlier in the year than the first, nor later than the second, of these two days.

_______________________________________

*The Gallican liturgy had retained several usages of the oriental Churches, to which it owed, in part, its origin; hence, it was not without some difficulty that the custom of fasting and abstaining on Saturdays was introduced into Gaul. Until such time as the Churches of that country had adopted the Roman custom, in that point of discipline, they were necessitated to anticipate the fast of Lent. The first Council of Orleans, held in the early part of the sixth century, enjoins the faithful to observe, before Easter, Quadragesima (as the Latins call Lent), and not Quinquagesima, “in order,” says the Council, “That unity of custom may be maintained.” Towards the close of the same century, the fourth Council held in the same city, repeats the same prohibition, and explains the intentions of making such an enactment, by ordering that the Saturdays during Lent should be observed as days of fasting. Previously to this, that is, in the years 511 and 541, the first and second Councils of Orange had combated the same abuse, by also withdrawing from the faithful the obligation of commencing the fast at Quinquagesima. The introduction of the Roman liturgy into France, which was brought about the by the zeal of Pepin and Charlemagne, finally established in that country the custom of keeping the Saturday as a day of penance; and as we have just seen, the beginning Lent on Quinquagesima was not observed excepting by the clergy. In the thirteenth century, the only Church in the patriarchate of the west, which began Lent earlier than the Church of Rome, was that of Poland: its Lent opened on the Monday of Septuagesima, which was owing to the rite of the Greek Church being so much used in Poland. The custom was abolished, even for that country, by Pope Innocent IV in the year 1248.

(Images of the beautiful vestments in this post, courtesy Michele Quigley, who restored them.)

Septuagesima: Three Weeks of Preparation for the Lenten Fast

The Fall of Man by Cornelis van Haarlem, 1592

The three Sundays preceding Ash Wednesday are called Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima, meaning seventieth, sixtieth and fiftieth, respectively. They correspond to the name of Lent (Quadragesima, which in Latin means fortieth).

The season that begins with Septuagesima has unfortunately been eliminated from the new calendar, but at great expense to the Church. The meaning and symbolism of these three weeks preceding the great fast of Lent presents to the Christian soul the very reason for the Lenten fast. There is a natural flow to the old liturgical calendar that we follow in connection to the Traditional Latin Mass. From the humble joy and rejoicing of Christmas, through the season of awe and wonderment of Epiphany and the season following, we now come to the recognition of our condition that necessitated the purpose of the Incarnation, namely the suffering, death, and Resurrection of the God/Man.

In the Roman Breviary, Matins from Septuagesima provides these words from St. Augustine:

"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” In this sentence, by the word “world”, the Apostle signifieth all mankind. Thus then did the matter stand―All of doomed humanity lay in misery, (or rather was blundering on, and plunging from bad to worse), together with that part of the Angels which had sinned, until both together should suffer the condign punishment of their vile treason.

Septuagesima teaches us something very important about our exile and the reasons for it that properly prepares us for Lent. Septuagesima teaches us to fully realize our “vile treason” and invites us to reflect on human misery, suffering and anguish. All these things are very real, very poignant, and often the catalyst for religious seeking. The problem of suffering looms large on the horizon of human experience.

These three weeks provide a traditional focus for this problem of suffering, the problem of our fall and exile. As the collect for Septuagesima makes clear, we “are justly afflicted for our sins.” And the collect goes on to express that only through God’s mercy can we be delivered. The collect for Sexagesima makes this latter point even clearer: “O God, Who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do”. The exhortation of the these three weeks is to distrust the self, and trust in God alone, who gives us the strength to endure trial, tribulation, tragedy and all the pains of this veil of tears. We know that it is our treason that brought about this condition, and we know it is only the mercy of God that can release us from the bonds of our sins.

These three weeks prepare us to make a true Christian fast, one that depends on the graces from God because we realize that on our own we can accomplish nothing. This is lost in the new calendar, unfortunately. Modern Catholics enter into the Lenten fast unprepared, and as a result enter it with the impression that the fast is a human act, one that can mend the soul from human ability alone. This Pelagian attitude is rampant in the Church today. It diminishes the role of grace, the absolute Sovereignty of Christ, and ultimately, it diminishes the Divinity of Our Blessed Lord. Only He can enrich our Lenten fast. Only He, the Absolute Monarch, can release us from our exile in hoc lacrymarum valle. Only He, Jesus Christ, can save us.

Christ Taking Leave of His Mother by Lorenzo Lotto, 1521

____________________

It is also at this time that we "bury" the alleluia. It will not be heard again until Easter. The word alleluia means, "All hail to Him Who Is". This sweet and wonderful word, that has inspired the greatest Mass setting of all time is "buried" not because we fail to recognize Him Who Is, or that we fail to give Him fitting praise. It is put aside for awhile because, as Ecclesiastes states, "all things have their season." The alleluia belongs to seasons of joy and triumph. We now enter into a solemn season "when our tears of sorrow must flow."

This tenth century hymn, courtesy Fisheaters, explains it well:

Alleluia, song of sweetness,
voice of joy that cannot die;
alleluia is the anthem
ever raised by choirs on high;
in the house of God abiding
thus they sing eternally.

Alleluia thou resoundest,
true Jerusalem and free;
alleluia, joyful mother,
all thy children sing with thee;
but by Babylon's sad waters
mourning exiles now are we.

Alleluia cannot always
be our song while here below;
alleluia our transgressions
make us for awhile forgo;
for the solemn time is coming
when our tears for sin must flow.

Therefore in our hymns we pray Thee,
grant us, blessed Trinity,
at the last to keep Thine Easter,
in our home beyond the sky,
there to Thee for ever singing
alleluia joyfully.

Guéranger: The Burying of the Alleluia

Ecce Homo by Juan de Valdés Leal, 1659

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

SATURDAY BEFORE SEPTUAGESIMA

Suspension of the "Alleluia"

The calendar of the liturgical year will soon bring us to the commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Redeemer; we are but nine weeks from these great solemnities. It is time for the Christian to be preparing his soul for a fresh visit from his Saviour; a visit even more sacred and more important than that He so mercifully paid us at His Birth.

Our holy mother the Church knows how necessary it is for her to rouse our hearts from their lethargy, and give them an active tendency towards the things of God. On this day, the eve of Septuagesima, she uses a powerful means for infusing her own spirit into the minds of her children. She takes the song of heaven away from us: she forbids our further uttering that Alleluia, which is so dear to us, as giving us a fellowship with the choirs of angels, who are for ever repeating it. How is it that we poor mortals, sinners, and exiles on earth, have dared to become so familiar with this hymn of a better land? It is true, our Emmanuel, who established peace between God and men, brought it us from heaven on the glad night of His Birth; and we have had the courage to repeat it after the angels, and shall chant it with renewed enthusiasm when we reach our Easter. But to sing the Alleluia worthily, we must have our hearts set on the country whence it came. It is not a mere word, nor a profane unmeaning melody; it is the song that recalls the land we are banished from, it is the sweet sigh of the soul longing to be at home.

The word Alleluia signifies praise of God: but it says much more than this, and says it as no other word or words could. The Church is not going to interrupt her giving praise to God during these nine weeks. She will replace this heaven-lent word by a formula also expressive of praise: Laus tibi, Domine, Rex æternæ gloriæ! Praise be to Thee, O Lord, King of eternal glory! But this is the language of earth; whereas Alleluia was sent us from heaven. "Alleluia," says the devout Abbot Rupert, "is like a stranger amidst our other words. Its mysterious beauty is as though a drop of heaven's overflowing joy had fallen down on our earth. The patriarchs and prophets relished it, and then the Holy Ghost put it on the lips of the apostles, from whom it flowed even to us. It signifies the eternal feast of the angels and saints, which consists in their endless praise of God, and in the ceaselessly singing their ever new admiration of the beauty of the God on whose Face they are to gaze for everlasting ages. This mortal life of ours can in no wise attain such bliss as this. But, to know where it is to be found, and to have a foretaste of it by the happiness of hope, and to hunger and thirst for what we thus taste, this is the perfection of saints here below. For this reason, the world Alleluia has not been translated; it has been left in its original Hebrew, as a stranger to tell us that there is a joy in his native land, which could not dwell in ours: he has come among us to signify, rather than to express that joy."

During this season of Septuagesima, we have to gain a clear knowledge of the miseries of our banishment, under pain of being left for ever in this tyrant Babylon. It was, therefore, necessary that we should be put on our guard against the allurements of our place of exile. It is with this view that the Church, taking pity on our blindness and our dangers, gives us this solemn warning. By taking from us our Alleluia, she virtually tells us that that our lips must first be cleansed, before they again be permitted to utter this word of the angels and saints; and that our hearts, defiled as they are by sin and attachment to earthly things, must be purified by repentance. She is going to put before our eyes the sad spectacle of the fall of our first parents, that dire event whence came all our woes, and our need of Redemption. This tender mother weeps over us, and would have us weep with her.

Let us, then, comply with the law she thus imposes upon us. If spiritual joy is thus taken away from us, what are we to think of the frivolous amusements of the world? And if vanities and follies are insults to the spirit of Septuagesima, would not sin be an intolerable outrage on that same spirit? We have been too long the slaves of this tyrant. Our Saviour is soon to appear, bearing His cross; and His sacrifice is to restore fallen man to all his rights. Surely, we can never allow that precious Blood to fall uselessly on our souls, as the morning dew that rains on the parched sands of the desert! Let us with humble hearts confess that we are sinners, and, like the publican of the Gospel, who dared not so much as to raise up his eyes, let us acknowledge that it is only right that we should be forbidden, at least for a few weeks, those divine songs of joy, with which our guilty lips had become too familiar; and that we should interrupt those sentiments of presumptuous confidence which prevented our hearts from having the holy fear of God.

That indifference for the liturgy of the Church, which is the strongest indication of a weak faith, and which now reigns so universally in the world, is the reason why so many, even practical Catholics, can witness this yearly suspension of the Alleluia, without profiting by the lesson it conveys. A passing remark, or a chance thought, is the most they give to it, for they care for no other devotions but such as are private; the spirit of the Church, in her various season, is quite beneath their notice. If these lines should meet their eye, we would beg of them to reflect for the moment that the Church is their mother; that her authority is the highest on earth; that her wisdom enables her to know what is best for her children. Why, then, keep aloof from her spirit, as though there were some other to be found, that could better lead them to their God? Why be indifferent in this present instance? Why deem of no interest to piety this suspension of the Alleluia, which she, the Church, considers as one of the principal and most solemn incidents in her liturgical year? Perhaps we shall be doing them a service, by showing them how keenly this interruption of the word of heavenly joy was felt by the Christians of those ages, when faith was the grand ruling principle, not only with society at large, but with each individual.

The farewell to Alleluia, in the Middle Ages, varied in the different Churches. Here, it was an affectionate enthusiasm, speaking the beauty of the celestial word; there, it was a heart-felt regret at the departure of the much-loved companion of all their prayers.

We begin with two antiphons, which would seem to be of Roman origin. We find them in the Antiphonarium of Saint Corenelius of Compiégne, published by Dom Denys de Sainte Marthe. They are a farewell to Alleluia made by our Catholic forefathers in the ninth century; they express, too, the hope of its coming back, as soon as the Resurrection of Jesus shall have brightened up the firmament of the Church.

ANT. Angelus Domini bonus comitetur tecum, Alleluia, et bene disponat itineri tuo, ut iterum cum gaudio revertaris ad nos, Alleluia, Alleluia.

ANT. May the good angel of the Lord accompany thee, Alleluia, and give thee a good journey, that thou mayst come back to us in joy, Alleluia, Alleluia.

ANT. Alleluia, mane apud nos hodie, et crastina proficisceris, Alleluia; et dum ortus fuerit dies, ambulabis vias tuas, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

ANT. Alleluia, abide with us to-day, and to-morrow thou shalt set forth, Alleluia; and when the day shall have risen, thou shalt proceed on thy way, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

The Gothic Church of Spain thus saluted the Alleluia, on the eve of its interruption. We merely make a selection from what is almost a complete Office.

Hymn

Alleluia piis edite laudibus,
Cives ætherei, psallite unanimiter
Alleluia perenne.
Hinc vos perpetui luminis accolæ,

Ad summum resonate hymniferis choris
Alleluia perenne.
Vos urbs eximia suscipiet Dei,
Quæ lætis resonans cantibus, excitat
Alleluia perenne.
Almum sidereæjam patriæ decus
Victores capite, quo canere possitis
Alleluia perenne.
Illic Regis honour vocibus inclytis

Jocundum reboat carmine perpetim
Alleluia perenne.
Hoc fessis requies, hoc cibus, hoc potus
Oblectans reduces, haustibus affluens
Alleluia perenne.

Te suavisonis Conditor affatim
Rerum carminibus, laudeque pangimus
Alleluia perenne.
Te Christe clebrat gloria vocibus
Nostris, omnipotens, ac tibi dicimus
Alleluia perenne:
Alleluia perenne. Amen.

Felici reditu guadia sumite,
Reddentes Domino glorificum melos,
Alleluia perenne.


Citizens of heaven! give forth Alleluia in your holy canticles; sing with one voice your eternal Alleluia.

Inhabitants of light everlasting! make heaven reound, as ye sing to the great God, in your hymning choirs, the eternal Alleluia.

The glorious city of God will receive you, the city which echoes with songs of joy, and awakens the eternal Alleluia.

Ye have conquered; go, take the fair beauty of the starry land, wherein ye may chant the eternal Alleluia.

'Tis there the glory of the King is proclaimed with sweetest voices singing ever their joyous, their eternal Alleluia.

This is the rest to the wearied; this is the food and drink giving delight to exiles reaching home; and this is their cup of overflowing nectar: the eternal Alleluia.

We, too, O God, Creator of all things! in sweetest hymns we praise thee, singing our eternal Alleluia.

To thee, Jesus almighty! our voices give glory: to thee we say: Eternal Alleluia! Eternal Alleluia! Amen.

Be glad on the day of its happy return; and return to your Lord with your melody of glory, the eternal Alleluia.

Capitulum

Alleluia in cœlo perpetuarur, et in terra cantatur. Ibi conat jugiter: hic sauviter. Illic feliciter, hic concorditer: illic ineffabiliter, hic instanter. Illic sine syllabis: hic nodulis. Illic ab angelis, hic a populis, quam Christo Domino nascente in laude et confessione nimis ejus, non solum in cœlicolæ cecinerunt: dum gloriam in excelsis Deo, et pacem in terra bonæ voluntatis hominibus nuntiaverunt. Quæsumus ergo, Domine, ut quorum ministeria nitimur imitari laudando, eorum mereamur consortium beatæ vitæ vivendo.


Alleluia is in heaven and on earth. There, unceasingly; here, faithfully. There, everlastingly; here, sweetly. There, happily; here, concordantly. There, ineffably; here, heartily. There, it needs no syllables; here, it needs our melodies. there, it has angels for its chanters; here, it has men. When Christ our Lord was born, the heavenly host gave him exceeding praise and honour, singing Alleluia both in heaven and on earth, and proclaiming glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to men of good-will. Therefore do we beseech thee, O Lord, that as we strive to imitate the angels in their ministry of praise, we may live in such manner as to deserve to be their companions in eternal life.

Anthem

Ibis, Alleluia. Prosperum iter habebis Alleluia; et iterum cum gaudio revertaris ad nos, Alleluia. In manibus enim suis portabunt te: ne unquam offendas ad lapidem pdem tuum. Et iterum cum gaudio revertaris ad nos, Alleluia.


Thou shalt go, Alleluia; thy journey shall be prosperous, Alleluia; and again come back to us with joy, Alleluia. For they shall bear thee up in their hands, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And again come back to us with joy, Alleluia.

Benediction

Alleluia, nomen pium, atque jocundum, dilatetur ad laudem Dei in ora omnium populorum.
R. Amen.


May Alleluia, that sacred and joyful word, resound to God's praise from the lips of all people.
R. Amen.


Sit in vocibus credentium clara, quæ in angelorum ostenditur concentibus gloriosa.
R. Amen.


May this word, which expresses glory as chanted by the choirs of angels, be sweet as sung by the voices of believers.
R. Amen.


Et, quæ in æternis civibus sine sonorum strepitu enitet, in vestris cordibus effectu planiore fructificet.
R. Amen.


And may that which noiselessly gleams in the citizens of heaven, yield fruit in your hearts by ever growing love.
R. Amen.


Angelus Domini bonus comitetur tecum, Alleluia; et omnia bona præparet itineri tuo. Et iterum cum gaudio revertaris ad nos. Alleluia.


May the Lord's good angel go with thee, Alleluia; and prepare all good things for thy journey. And again come back to us with joy, Alleluia.

The Churches of Germany, in the Middle Ages, expressed their farewell to the Alleluia in the following fine sequence, which is to be found in all their missals up to the fifteenth century.

Sequence

Cantemus cuncti melodum nunc Alleluia.
In laudibus æterni regis, hæc plebs resultet Alleluia.

Hoc denique cœlestes chori cantent in altum Alleluia.

Hoc beatorum per prata Paradisiaca psallat concentus Alleluia.

Quin et astrorum micantia luminaria jubilent altum Alleluia.

Nubium cursus, ventorum volatus, fulgurm coruscatio et tonitruum sonitus, dulce consonent simul Alleluia.

Fluctus et undæ, imber et procellæ, saltus, nemora, pangant Alleluia.

Hinc variæ volucres Cratorem laudibus concinite cum Alleluia.

Ast illic respondeant voces altæ diversarum bestiarum Alleluia

Istinc montium celsi vertices sonent Alleluia.

Hinc vallium porfunditates saltent Alleluia.

Tu quoque maris jubilans abysse, dic Alleluia.

Nunc omne genus humanum laudans exultet Alleluia.

Et Creatori grates frequentans consonet Alleluia.

Hoc denique nomen audire jugiter delectatur Alleluia.

Hoc etiam carmen cœleste comprobat ipse Christus Alleluia.

Nunc vos socii cantate lætantes: Alleluia.

Et vos pueruli respondete semper: Alleluia.

Nunc omnes canite simul, Alleluia Domino, Alleluia Christo, Pneumatique Alleluia.

Laus Trinitati æternæ in baptismo Domini quæ clarificatur: hinc canamus Alleluia.


Let us all now sing the melodious Alleluia.

In praise of the eternal King, let this assembly give forth Alleluia.

And let the heavenly choirs loudly chant Alleluia.

Let the choir of the blessed sing in the land of paradise, Alleluia.

Nay, let the bright stars hymn one loud Alleluia.

Fleet clouds, swift winds, flashing lightning, and pealing thunder, let all unite in a sweet Alleluia.

Waves and billows, showers and storms, tempest and calm, heat, cold, snow, frost woods and groves, let them tell their Alleluia.

And ye countless birds, sing the praises of your Maker with an Alleluia.

To which let the loud-voiced beasts respond another Alleluia.

Let the high mountain-tops ring with Alleluia.

And the deep valleys echo Alleluia.

Thou, too, deep jubilant sea, say Alleluia;

And thou, boundless earth, Alleluia!

Now let the whole race of men say its praiseful Alleluia,

And oft to its Creator give this canticle of thanks, Alleluia!

He loves to hear this word eternally repeated, Alleluia;

And Jesus too applauds the song, the heavenly Alleluia.

Do you, then, brethren, be glad, and sing: Alleluia!

And you, little children, never fail to respond: Alleluia!

Let all, then, sing together: Alleluia to the Lord; Alleluia to Christ; and to the Holy Ghost, Alleluia!

Praise be to the eternal Trinity, whose glory was declared at the baptism of our Lord! Sing we, then, Alleluia!

The Churches of France, in the thirteenth century, and long even after that, used to sing at Vespers of the Saturday before Septuagesmia the following beautiful hymn:

Hymn

Alleluia dulce carmen,
Vox perennis gaudii,

Alleluia laus suavis
Est choris cœlestibus,

Quam canut Dei manentes
In domo per sæcula.

Alleluia læta mater
Concivis Jerusalem:

Alleluia vox tuorum
Cvium gaudentium:

Exsules nos flere cogunt
Babylonis flumina.

Alleluia non meremur
In perenne psallere;

Alleluia vox reatus
Cogi intermittere;

Tempus instat quo peracta
Lugeamus crimina.

Unde laudando precamur
Te beata Trinitas,

Ut tuum nobis videre
Pascha des in æthere,

Quo tibi læti canamus
Alleluia perpetim.

Amen.


The sweet alleluia-song, the word of endless joy, is the melody of heaven's choir, chanted by them that dwell for ever in the house of God.

O joyful mother, O Jerusalem our city, Alleluia is the language of thy happy citizens. The rivers of Babylon, where we poor exiles live, force us to weep.

We are unworthy to sing a ceaseless Alleluia. Our sins bid us interrupt our Alleluia. The time is at hand when it behoves us to bewail our cirmes.

We, therefore, beseech thee whilst we praise thee, O blessed Trinity! that thou grant us to come to that Easter of heaven, where we shall sing to thee our joyful everlasting Alleluia.

Amen.

In the present form of the liturgy, the farewell to Alleluia is more simple. The Church, at the conclusion of today's Vespers, repeats the mysterious word four times:

Benedicamus Domino, Alleluia, Alleluia.

Deo gratias, Alleluia, Alleluia.


Let us bless the Lord, Alleluia, Alleluia.

Thanks be to God, Alleluia, Alleluia.

This song of heaven, then, is taken from us. It will return, when the triumph of Jesus' Resurrection is proclaimed upon our earth.

TradNews Roundup

*OK, I'm going to express an unpopular opinion: I think this is a blessing in disguise. First, traditionalists were always made to feel like second class citizens to the "real mission" of the mission, which, per the novus ordo establishment, is to be a tourist attraction. Second, the mission has always limited the liturgical schedule, because, of course, the novus ordo establishment has indeed turn the mission into a tourist attraction. And, third, why fight over a novus ordo altar? There are better churches that have escaped the sledgehammer, and would make a better home for the TLM. That being said, my heartfelt condolences to those who are being uprooted; being uprooted and shuffled around has been the lot of traditionalists ever since the cataclysm of the new order. However, do not despair; those who have usurped our churches will not endure.

*St. Rose Philippine Duchesne Catholic Church, Kansas City: a new home for the TLM.

*Archbishop Di Noia sends a letter to the SSPX priests, outlining a possible direction for the future. The average Traditionalist, however, has a good memory.

*The Diocese of Bridgeport omitted so much regarding the suspension of the deviant, meth-dealing priest, who was one of the highest ranking prelates in the diocese, that it borders on outright mendacity.

*A clarification regarding a misunderstanding that made it appear that Bishop Fellay endorsed the novus ordo.

*Justice Scalia makes a statement at Obama's inauguration.

*Hollande is a racist and a bigot.

*Princeton professor predicts persecution and legal oppression of Catholics and the Catholic Church is coming soon due to redefining marriage and sexual morality.

*If the liberal media hadn't loved Cardinal Roger so much, and had actually bothered to look, the LA Times could have done this expose ten years ago. As it stands, the time release of what we all knew then, will go now without the righteous indignation and castigation that Roger deserves for his complicity in covering up the perversions of his liberal friends.

*The Holy Father continues to hammer on about charities, stating that they should avoid any partnership with organizations that even indirectly support actions that are contrary to the faith. At the risk of sounding like a wise guy, good luck with that, Your Holiness.

Religious Tolerance and Ecumenism

My position is this, as applied to Religious Tolerance (and this piggy backs my previous post):

1. When dealing with other Christian sects, other than the Orthodox, we must view this as a matter of CATECHESIS. It is rehabilitating a heresy, namely Protestantism. This also encompasses the continued catechesis of Catholics (faithful and dissenting) as well.

2. When dealing with the Orthodox, we must be ECUMENICAL. While they are in schism (let's not forget the excommunications were lifted), they are an authentic Church with apostolic succession. Insofar as this is the case, the manner by which we deal with them as a matter of rehabilitation is a very precise form of catechesis. It isn't about rehabilitating a heresy (in all cases), but rather it is about reuniting a Church to which has split.

3. EVANGELIZATION is how we must deal with the non-Christian, including the Jews.

The understanding of Religious tolerance has almost been completely usurped by the idea of "ecumenism," which in my view is not consistent with tradition and is the second major spur of the hermeneutic of rupture.

We must return to proper definitions. The Church operates off of definitions, so we must properly define those things which are applied. Improper and incorrect definitions lead to error and ecumenism, as defined by Vatican Council II assumes that all other ecclesial communions and non-Christian faith traditions are Churches. That is simply not the case.

A Pastoral Aspect of Vatican Council II and Whiny Teens

In a continuing conversation, the following was said:

Parents know all to well when their children try to talk them to death in order to get what they want. The children will keep the dialogue and conversation going until the parent is worn down and finally gives in. That might mean that a teenage girl will start dating boys at the age of 14 rather than the age of 21 the parents desire or a 6th grader will get not only an iPad but an iPhone and internet connections and you know the rest! 

[...] 

On the left it is all about continuing the dialogue about who can minister, opening the ordained life to females and making the divine institution of the hierarchical Church into the marshmallow of democratized principles that puts every single teaching of the Church to a vote and the so called "sense of the faithful" meaning not fidelity to the Church but what they happen to believe at any given point in time.  

[...] 

But how about the ultra-conservatives like the SSPX'ers? They do the same and are quite dogmatic about their positions and that their way is the only way; they are the ones who are faithful and Vatican II corrupted the faith, even a literalist approach to Vatican II.
What they despise the most about Vatican II apart from the liturgical changes is "ecumenism" and more charitable approach to the Jews and other religions and even to non believers all of which Vatican II suggested, not in a dogmatic way but in a pastoral way.

Wow!!!  This is an interesting point of view.  I think that parts of it are right and I am confused by another part.

First, the part which I am confused about.  How can one see the SSPX as being a whiny teenager trying to get what they want?  What EXACTLY, has the SSPX taught which is inconsistent with the tradition of the Church?  How is asking (albeit repeatedly) that the Church clarify changes to doctrine and dogma satisfactorily, whining?  If the Church is infallible, then the truth cannot change and being a champion for that truth does not equate to being a whiny teen.

BTW, they have never, ever, ever claimed that they were the only purveyors of truth.  Not once.  That was done for them by the liberals.

That is the first part.

The second...it is said, "What they despise the most about Vatican II apart from the liturgical changes is "ecumenism" and more charitable approach to the Jews and other religions and even to non believers all of which Vatican II suggested, not in a dogmatic way but in a pastoral way."

I think that I have to take issue with that.  I think that "ecumenism" was re-defined and done so incorrectly during Vatican Council II.  I have spoken about this before, so I won't go into it here, but suffice to say, I will ask the following question;  Is it charitable or pastoral to misapply ecumenism to those which it doesn't apply?  The Jews are not a Church, so there is no way to be ecumenical with them.  We must evangelize them to convert to the only means of salvation, which is inside the Church.  So my question, asked another way is, How does one act in an ecumenical way with a non-Christian group who has no real exposure to Christ?

The issue with the SSPX is not only a pastoral one, I believe that they are being pastoral and compassionate and charitable, by continuing to promote the Catholic faith as defined through the ages.  Bishop Fellay has over and over and over again said that the issues with Vatican Council II are doctrinal insofar as they misapply the consistent tradition of the Church.  This is a pastoral issue.  The dogma and doctrine haven't changed, but the application has.  Interestingly enough, the Holy Father is now saying the same thing.  Hermeneutic of rupture.

So, it isn't like being a whiny teen trying to get his way with regard to the SSPX, but rather it is an elder child trying to impart the knowledge and truth which had always been taught and now has changed, to a greater or lesser degree.

I agree that Vatican Council II must be accepted, but it must be accepted for what it is, not what it isn't; or more precisely, what the liberals want it to be...a defining body of "superdogma."  Vatican Council II was a pastoral Council which was put forth to do two things, bring about changes to the liturgy and promote aggiornamento.  When we recognize that, then we can start talking about Vatican Council II in a very honest and open way.

When and How to Begin the Reform of the Reform

A reader asked at what point should we begin the reform of the reform.  He based this on my last post here and while this could have been addressed in the comboxes, I thought it would be better to flush this out as it's own post.  It is a great question, a valid question and one which I have been formulating for some time now (read: years).  At one point, I firmly believed that if we were to simply "tighten" the Novus Ordo, that was the reform necessary, but that view is obviously short sighted.

As it stands now, I would argue that to go back to the 1951 formulations is not necessary, because the changes which were made to the Missal in the 1962 revisions were no more harmful to the Mass than those revisions which were promulgated in the years following Trent.  I am well aware that some will say that there has long been the agenda that adding Joseph to the Canon would be abusive and that it took a weak pope like John XXIII to allow for it, but honestly there is nothing in the 1962 Missal which is divisive enough to warrant abandoning the '62 Missal for the 1951 formulations.

If one is going to argue about the second confiteor, I would argue this....the second confiteor properly speaking was never part of the Mass to begin with.  The people's communion in the TLM is secondary to the priest's and it is not an integral part of the Mass itself.  That is why there is a second confiteor, right?  So, if the people's communion is a separate act from the Mass, then the formula for reception can be altered without any real "destruction" to the Mass.  This is why in some places the second confiteor is retained and in others it is not.  It is a non-starter.

As for retroactive reforms, I would argue this....if we return to the reforms starting with the '62 Missal, there is nothing saying that everything has to move forward.  If, as David asserts, a move to the pre-'62 Palm Sunday makes more sense, then the Vatican should be open to it.  One of the things that can work to the advantage of the reform of the reform is that Vatican Council II was pastoral.  So, if something is deemed unnecessary  it can be reinterpreted to lessen it's impact without affecting dogma or doctrine.  So, if a move toward a more traditional interpretation of a liturgical act is warranted, then there is nothing prohibiting it, just as if there is a more modern interpretation, or even a mixture of modern and traditional.

The Mass is disciplinary insofar as it can be revised, but the actions of the last 50 years are not revision, but rather they are abusive, not only to the letter of the law, but also to the spirit of the law.  I firmly believe that this did begin before the formation of the Consilium and has not ended yet; but I do believe that the Consilium did not move out of the realm of theoretical until Vatican Council II.  The changes made to Holy Week and following do not shake the Faith of the Church, however, I do believe that the changes following the Council have.  We must re-gain control of the liturgical action.

If we are to gain control again of the liturgical action, I do believe that several things must take place...

1.  We must reform from the last stable application of the Mass (1962 Missal)
2.  We must regain control of liturgical law (and canon law)
3.  We must be open to applying the past as well as looking to the future
4.  We must be very diligent and precise in our actions with regard to rubrics, to music, and to language

This should be our starting point and this should be where we begin from.  To move forward or backward is now a matter of discussion, but there must be an openness to both, IN AN AUTHENTIC way.  The Church is not static, it never has been, so we cannot freeze time.  But we can move judiciously through time and in a manner which is consistent with 2000 years of existence and revelation.

TradNews Roundup

UPDATED: RC reports that Di Noia sent a letter to the SSPX priests outlining a way forward for Rome-SSPX relations.

*It's that time of year again, and I urge you not to buy Girl Scout cookies.

*The most relevant and effective "youth Mass" turns out to be the Traditional Latin Mass.

*We're used to mockery and persecution.

*Thousands march in protest of homsexual "marriage" in France. There's still some kick in the old pony after all. This will hardly affect the plans of the Socialists, though.

*Catholic priests in England fear that same-sex "marriage" will bring back Catholic persecution in the UK.

*The fabric of mainstream American society has changed into a either/or proposition: Either believe in nothing, or believe in Nothing.

*China's population experiment demonstrates the stupidity of Socialism's reconstruction of culture and society. Crime statistics demonstrate the disaster of single parenthood. Thanks to feminism, women aren't women anymore, and men see benefit in getting married to them.

*Virginia's Attorney General suggests that going to jail is the best way for Catholics to demonstrate just how tyrannical the Obama HHS Mandate is.

*Despite DDoS attacks, Kreuz-net is back up and running.

*Judaism and the Church, before and after VCII.

*Archbishop Chaput: A Man for This Season.

*The TLM at the March for Life.

*Sodom has nothing on our godless society!

*That wacky Müller does it again!

We Are Smart Enough to Put the Horse Back in the Barn

I was reading a commentary and the following was said,

The Missa Bossa Nova was written for the vernacular Tridentine Mass of the 1965 missal by Father Peter Sholtes. If you forget the tempo and instruments and focus on the English words, you will find that the first translation of the Latin Mass into English was very faithful to the Latin whereas what we got in 1973 was anything but faithful. Listen closely, the translation is very similar with only minor differences with the revised translation that we've had for the past glorious year.  

I think the single worst thing that happened to the Catholic Mass was not its vernacularization, although the second revised English translation was an absolute disaster, now corrected thanks be to God and not to liturgists.

The single worst thing that happened to the Catholic Mass was the total abandonment of Gregorian Chant, or polyphony or other chants based upon these. But worse yet was the abandonment of no instrumentation when singing and the organ for instruments that are best left to the secular venue, such as those used in the Missa Bossa Nova. Even its name tells you that Catholic spirituality and chant are seriously compromised by the melody, beat and instrumentation used. 

I responded thusly;  "If you forget the tempo and instruments and focus on the English words, you will find that the first translation of the Latin Mass into English was very faithful to the Latin whereas what we got in 1973 was anything but faithful."

But we cannot forget that.  It is that as much as abandonment of the Latin which caused the problems we have today.  It is the absolute disregard for the sacred, in favor of the profane which caused the liturgical malaise that we must combat today.

Some will say that we cannot put the horse back in the barn, my response to that is "WHY NOT?!"  According to the liberals, we are the most educated, the most modern and the most "enlightened" Catholics EVER.  Why can't we figure out a way to put the horse back in the barn?  I believe we can.

The Church spent a goodly number of years prior to 1570 with regional Masses, which is essentially what we have now.  St. Pius V centralized that and for near ye 500 years we had liturgical stability and the Church entered into a renaissance which was a glorious period in history, from a Catholic point of view.

What we need today, is another centralization of the Mass.  The Holy Father should take a lesson from St. Pius V and simply codify the Mass and THEN IMPLEMENT IT!  As I have argued before, the Holy Father (for whatever reason) keeps the liturgical "forcefulness" in a hypothetical vacuum.  He speaks of the glories of the reform of the reform, but does nothing about it.

The re-introduction of the TLM was not a reform of the reform, it was a restoration of a Catholic truth.  And a good one, at that.  But....what has come from it? (That is another post for another time)  A closer translation to the Latin?  That isn't due to the restoration of the TLM, that is a process which has been ongoing since 1975, with the first revision.

A true reform of the reform would be a concrete reform of the Mass, based on the TLM.  Substantive changes upheld by law, not suggestion, with consequences.  And those consequences should be first leveled at the bishops, then moved to the priests.  The process is simple, the implementation is simple and the acceptance would be worldwide and swift.  Catholics won't leave.  Heck, they didn't leave when the drivel that was posted above was force fed to them, they won't leave now.  And if they do, that is on the priests who don't support the Vicar of Christ and the Church.

Bottom line, we can put the horse back in the barn.  We're smart enough to do it.  We just have to be willing to stand up and say ENOUGH!  Sadly, most priests like the freedom to do what they want, because for most priests, obedience is a hypothetical, just like the reform of the reform.  So, enough of Bob Hurd, and Bernadette Farrell.  Enough of Marty and David.  Enough of the St. Louis Jebbies (whoever is left) and Enough of liturgical abuse being passed off as "implementation and forward application."

The Mass should not have been tampered with.  Sacrosanctum Concilium wasn't needed, except by liberal churchmen in bed with the Protties.  And it was forced.  The Mass was reformed in the image of Luther, and Paul VI signed off on it, which makes it valid.

It's time for a second centralization and it is time for a second counter-reformation.  Just like before it must be supported by law, because as we have seen over the last 50 years, suggestion will just be ignored....much like priestly obedience.

Four Points of Discussion with the "Reform of the Reform."

There is a continually growing sentiment within the Church, regarding the so-called "Reform of the Reform" and while I generally agree with it, there is one major exception which must be discussed, but I'll leave that til the end. However, I think that I have to continue to take issue with the overall attitude.

Let me preface this by clearly saying two things. 1. I applaud the efforts of those who have authentically worked to have them applied. It takes some courage to stand up to peers and I think that to an extent, that has been done. And 2. I appreciate the general attitude. I think that it is one which truly, truly embraces Benedict XVI's hypotheses reagarding the "Reform of the Reform." That too takes some courage for the very same reason.

But....

By and large the attitudes and words are just like the Holy Father's. They are mostly hypothetical. It has long been my contention that in order to truly enact the "Reform of the Reform" we cannot embrace the Novus Ordo. Here is why. The liturgical reforms of Vatican Council II were flawed. The Holy Father has said so in so many words, please reference the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture. If we begin from a flawed position, the Church cannot be authentic. We know that this cannot be the case, in the Church there can be no error. The Church must be authentic in all that she does. My first point:

1. The reform of the reform must start from the TLM. That is what the Council Fathers intended.

I believe that in order to properly accomodate the reform of the reform, we must have a pope who is a reformer. Benedict XVI is not. He is an academic. There is nothing wrong with that, but we must understand what he is and accept that. I think that most traddies do, I think that most neo-cons don't.  I think that the neo-cons want to reform the liturgy based upon a reform of the Novus Ordo.  I know that most mainstream conservatives are just trying to "tighten up" the Mass as we have it now, so they love him. I know that most liberals don't care, because they are too busy opposing him at every turn. My second point:

2. There must be a reformer pope.

With the proper "Reform of the Reform," there has to be a theological clarification on many aspects of Church life, not just the liturgy. The Church must re-evaluate Ecumenism and religious tolerance. The churchmen who lead have forgotten what true ecumenism is. The Church must re-evaluate it's position on Ecclesiology, including religious freedom. The Church must re-evaluate it's position on the Magisterium of Vatican Council II. If Vatican Council II is only pastoral, to what end is it binding? Can a purely pastoral statement with no dogma or doctrine attached to it be binding on the faithful? And are those pastoral statements which are contrary to proven and accepted dogma and doctrine binding? Can they be? My third point:

3. The Church must re-evaluate it's positions on a) liturgy, b) Ecclesiology including religious freedom, c) Ecumenism/Religious tolerance, and d) the Magisterium of Vatican Council II.

Finally, I need to say this, and I take major issue with this idea.  There is an idea starting to be circulated that there should be a restoration of the ministry of acolyte, outside of Holy Orders proper, but still a minor order or ministry.  I am not 100% opposed to this idea, but as it is being presented, I do.  Here is why; it has been said:

"As for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, I have no issue with these in principle, but I think they should be installed acolytes and vested for this ministry. [...] I am not opposed to women being included in this ministry."

Under no circumstances can this be acceptable. IF (and it's a HUGE if) women are allowed to be installed into a minor order, where does it stop? This view is contrary to John Paul II's clarification that women are not called to Holy Orders. They speak of this being an ordinary ministry. Women are not capable of being ordinary ministers of anything. That is 100% contrary to Catholic teaching. If  the Church is to allow women to be installed as acolytes, why not ordain them as deacons? If the Church ordains them, why stop at deacon? Shouldn't they then be allowed to be ordained to priesthood? An installed acolyte is an official ministry of the Church and it is an infallible teaching that this is reserved only to men. To do what is being  suggested is to undermine the infallibility of the Church. I do firmly, firmly believe that the ministries of the Church ordinary or extraordinary should be reserved to men only. Why? Because they are DIRECT extensions of the power of the bishop. This includes ushers (porter), readers (lector), servers (acolyte), deacons, and priests.  Incidentally, any pious layman can act as a vested acolyte. However, 99.99999999% of pastors will not utilize a "straw acolyte or subdeacon" for the edification of the Mass. It is one of the few times when the liberals will draw a line in the sand regarding the "clericalization of the laity."

The use of laymen as subdeacons/vested acolytes has been a practice of the Church for centuries. (cf. Ministeria Quaedam) There are provisions made and to be honest, in the Novus Ordo, a layman does most of it already, but in a three piece suit (sometimes in a Havana shirt and bermuda shorts). I boggles my mind why a priest wouldn't just vest the pious layman and utilize him in a way which is most proper to the Church's authentic vision of the liturgy.

We must return to a proper understanding of our roles within the Church. My fourth and final point:

4. The Church must reaffirm it's positioning on ministry and definition of priesthood.

In summation, I think that this discussion can start, but I think that the four major issues which must be discussed, frankly, openly, and honestly:

1.  The reform of the reform must start from the TLM.

2.  There must be a reformer pope.

3.  The Church must re-evaluate it's positions on a) liturgy, b) Ecclesiology including religious freedom, c) Ecumenism/Religious tolerance, and d) the Magisterium of Vatican Council II.

4.  The Church must reaffirm it's positioning on ministry and definition of priesthood.

Once these are addressed, we can start to look at how to have a real conversation on the "Reform of the Reform."

Archbishop Lefebvre Documentary, Official Trailer

Nazis, Gun Control, Cultural Marxism, Traditional Catholicism

Socialism is the secular arm of Satanism. It seeks to destroy the faith through the agency of the state. In the 20^th Century Socialism was the most violent force in the world, and the present crisis in the Church can be attributed in part to the work of that cultural Marxism that ate away at the foundations of morality and right social structure, and Socialist states that sought to restrict the rights of the Church and the faithful.

One of the great disasters of the late 20^th Century was the emasculation of society due to cultural Marxism. One of the ways that social Marxism has emasculated society, among many, was promoting the idea that the individual could be better provided for by the state than by the family, and could be better protected by the state than by the head of the household. Today the traditional Catholic calendar, with the Feast of the Holy Family, reminds us of many central elements that make for a peaceful home. One is that peace is the harmony of order, as St. Augustine put it, and the order of the family ordained by God makes for a peaceful and prosperous home. The husband and father, as head of the household, is the primary provider and protector of the home, and he ought to have at his disposal whatever means necessary for him fulfill these duties.

For this reason, most traditional Catholics that I know also promote free accesses to firearms. While there can be differing opinions on this subject, one thing should be clear: any attempt to take away any God given duty of a husband and father, and give that duty to a government entity without his consent and beyond his control is contrary to the right order of the family and society. This is exactly what cultural Marxism and Socialism are now seeking to do, and one of the ways they are trying to accomplish this goal is by restricting reasonable free access to firearms.

There’s been quite a bit of discussion on the internet about Hitler and gun control, and it needs to be addressed from a traditional Catholic perspective, if for no other reason than the Leftists are attempting to paint those who support reasonable free access to firearms (which would include many traditional Catholics) as Nazis.

The discussion began because certain individuals on the right made a comparison between the current gun-control ideology and Nazi policy regarding gun registration. Is this a valid and sound comparison?

Did Hitler pass gun control or gun registration laws? No, the Nazis that came to power did not create and then enact any new gun control or registration laws. There are many on the Left who use this fact to scoff at pro-gun ownership conservatives for bringing up the comparison, and more radical Leftists have even posited that those in favor of gun rights have more in common with Hitler than the gun-control crowd. However, this is nothing more than misinformation from the Left.

Quite to the contrary, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis didn’t have to pass gun registration laws because gun control laws already existed. The Weimar Republic had passed gun registration laws in order to keep tabs on various Socialist groups that included both Communists and Nazis. When the Nazis came to power, they did nothing to change these gun-control laws, and even added new restrictions in 1938. In fact, the Gestapo and other government agencies, national, local and in occupied territories, used the existing gun registration laws, as well the additional restrictions of 1938, to prevent individuals opposed to the regime from getting firearms, and to help isolate and quash resistance groups and even round up Jewish groups that were believed to be armed. To say the Nazis weren’t pro-gun registration or pro-gun control for tyrannical purposes is ignore the clear historical record.

It has been objected by liberals that these gun-control measures weren’t a central factor of Hitler’s success. That, however, is a rather peripheral consideration. No one on the pro-gun ownership side of the present debate is making the claim that the modern Left’s present political and social success is based solely on gun registration or gun control laws. The contention is that current Leftist ideology about gun control is similar to a policy embraced by a tyrannical dictatorship in the 20^th century. However, the Left goes beyond this obvious and sound comparison with more misinformation.

Alex Seitz-Wald writing for Salon characterizes the conservative camp as saying: “gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power.” However, if one follows that links that Seitz-Wald provides, nowhere does one see anyone on the right making the claim that “gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power.” Frankly, Alex Seitz-Wald is telling a boldfaced lie. No one on the right, it appears, is as stupid as Leftists like Alex Seitz-Wald would like them to be, because no one on the pro-gun side is saying that gun control laws were critical to Hitler’s rise to power. In fact, I would imagine that most people on the pro-gun side of the debate surmise that what was critical for Hitler’s rise to power was basically the same as what was critical to Barack Obama’s rise to power: a stupid and uneducated populace.

Alex Seitz-Wald then goes on to misquote the Harcourt article that is often used as a basis for “debunking” the “Hilter gun control myth”. (To the contrary, Harcourt’s biases aside, his research revealed that the Nazis did indeed use gun registration and control to their advantage.) Seitz-Wald tells us that Harcourt states the 1938 laws passed and enacted by the Nazis did the exact opposite of gun-control. This is, once again, a boldfaced lie. Harcourt says nothing of the sort. Granted Harcourt attempts to bury the reader in minutia to cover over the fact that while the 1938 laws eased certain restrictions for those already allowed to possess firearms by the Nazi Party (members and government officials), and those who already possessed firearm permits (and thus deemed not be a threat), the same law extended restrictions to Jews and made it more difficult for those not possessing permits to get them. Harcourt wants to divert attention from the actual rationale of the 1938 Nazi gun laws—complete restriction from groups the government believed were threats to the Nazi Party and Nazi rule (primarily, but not confined to, the Jews).

At the end of the day the historical evidence demonstrates that the Nazis (and the Communists under Stalin for that matter) were opposed to the free exchange of firearms. Leftists like Alex Seitz-Wald would like his readers to believe that the Nazis and Stalin opened the floodgates and unleashed firearms on their populaces, and thus make the unsound argument that the pro-gun ownership conservatives are more like these tyrants than they are. However, this is not what happened at all, and Seitz-Wald knows very well it wasn’t. The historical record proves that these tyrants controlled who had firearms and who didn’t. They made sure that only their thugs or people they could trust to fight for them had access to firearms. That is the point of the pro-gun ownership side of this debate: the citizens should have free access to the means to defend themselves.

Our modern day Socialists like Alex Seitz-Wald, like the Socialists that came before them in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, believe that the Socialist government and its thugs should be the only entity to possess the means of social order. Traditional Catholicism insists that social order should depend on the order ordained by God, and possessed primarily by the family. The Leftists wish to replace the family as the basic unit of societal order with their inhumane Hegelian utopia, and to do so they must deconstruct the family, which stands opposed to their godless agenda. The promotion and use of gun control laws are yet another method to do just this. By taking away the ability of the family to protect itself, by placing the duty only in the hands of the state, the family is further weakened. If the Left should succeed in restricting, and ultimately denying, the means for what remains of the West’s noble class to protect themselves and their families, those families will, no doubt, face a future not so different than what was faced by those who were denied the same in the previous century.

Please Storm Heaven for NC's Mother!

One of things I love the most about the Traditional Latin Mass Community that I belong to is the fraternal charity and true concern that we have for each other, especially when it comes to keeping each other in our prayers in times of need. I never before experienced how powerful intercessory prayer could be until I converted to traditional Catholicism and became part of a traditional Catholic community.

I know that the traditional Catholic internet "community" isn't the same thing, but it is definitely a place wherein we can extend this fraternal charity and intercessory prayer, and that is why I want to draw the attention of Ars Orandi readers to the request of our friend, New Catholic, of Rorate Cœli, for the health and healing of his mother, MJ.

Wouldn't it be a great thing if all of us were to offer our Rosaries for MJ this weekend? NC has given all of us a lot over the years by his dedication and commitment, and it seems to me to be a rather small thing to return the favor by praying for this intention this weekend.

So I urge you, I beg you, I implore you, please storm heaven for NC, and offer as many Masses and Rosaries and Communions for this intention as you possibly can.

Thank you so much!