Making the sign of the cross

Here's a snippet of the transcription of a fascinating talk given by Dom Cassian Folsom, prior of the Benedictine Monastry of San Benedetto and well known liturgical scholar:

... I had occasion to talk with a young Greek layman, who pointed out to me that Catholics make the sign of the cross backwards. That's not the most ecumenical way to put it! But there's something behind what he said. You know how the Byzantine tradition makes the sign of the cross: with the thumb, forefinger and middle finger held together and the last two fingers held together against the palm.
The three fingers symbolize the Trinity, and the two fingers symbolized the double nature of Christ: divine and human. Making the sign of the cross then, becomes a mini-catechesis, a self-reminder of the most basic mysteries of our faith.
But the way of holding your fingers is not the only difference. The eastern tradition makes the sign of the cross from right to left, whereas we make it from left to right. Why?
It's interesting to note that in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III (contemporary with St. Francis of Assisi) instructed the faithful on the meaning of the sign of the cross in these words: "The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) he passed to the Gentiles (left)."
Note that Pope Innocent is describing what the custom was in the West. In the 13th century the East and the West still made the sign of the cross in the same way. The pope goes on to say: "Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this - picture the priest facing the people for the blessing - when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right."
So the people, imitating the blessing of the priest, began to sign themselves from left to right. Be that as it may, centuries have gone by since then, and we in the West make the sign of the cross from left to right, with the palm open.

The whole, very interesting transcript is here

The new English translation: day 2

The new English translation: day 1

Nada, nothing, zilch, zip.

Same old, same old lame duck 1973 ICEL version.

How disappointing.

New blog

If you don't laugh, you'll cry!

Extra-Ordinary Monkeys

Harriett the Horrid, and Horrid Hymns

Damian Thompson has this piece on his blog today.

Here's a taster:

There was no way the organisers of the papal visit could have protected Pope Benedict XVI from a “courtesy call” by the Acting Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman. That detail was confirmed today and I guess it’s just one of those things. The poor man.

Also confirmed today: the music for the Hyde Park Vigil on Saturday September 18 – and it’s a victory for the cloth-eared philistines of the Bishops’ Conference.

Everything from from the awful "Shine, Jesus, Shine" to (Protestant) Taizé "chant" with precious little in between.

How Tantum Ergo managed to slip in we'll never know!

And as for the Holy Father being subjected to that poisonous creature Harperson...

When norms are optional?

There is a very interesting post on the A Minor Friar blog on the all too common malady of the norms for the liturgy being ignored and optional elements becoming, in effect, the norms.

Brother Charles writes:

.... the use of illicit matter for Mass is praised as 'greater attention to symbol.' The use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion while clerics are readily available is praised as 'inclusive.' Elements which are normative on certain days, like the Gloria or the Creed, are omitted according to personal taste. ...*snip*...

On the other hand, while it's o.k. and even praised to ignore norms, it's not o.k. to question certain options. In some cases, one may not even raise a question about how certain options seem to have hardened into unassailable norms; e.g. the offering of Mass versus populum or in translation, or of replacing the actual texts of the Mass with songs and metrical hymns. These options for the celebration of Mass have become such de facto norms that a lot of people, including priests, don't remember that they are options and might not even believe you when you tell them. ...

 The whole post is worth a read - you can find it here.

New English translation?

That the bones you have crushed may thrill blog has a lovely piece on the Heretics Catholics for a Changing Church new (dreamland) translation of the Mass.

It's a must read but here is a brief taster:

Controversial aspects of the new translation include the replacement of the phrase 'God our Father' with 'Daddy', 'Lord' with 'O Lordy, Lordy' and 'we ask this through Christ our Lord' with 'for Chrissakes'.

Have a look, it's a hoot!

We've waited long enough

The new English translation of the Roman Missal has finally been passed by the American bishops.

Even after all this time there are liturgical dinosaurs who are trying to hold up the implementation of the translation. Dinosaurs like Bishop Trautman who thinks words like "ineffable", "consubstantial" and "oblatgion" are TOOOO HAAAARD for normal people to understand.

Then we have dinosaurs like Fr Ryan and America Magazine who want us "just wait" and are running a petition to that effect. How much longer should we wait? Another 35 years Father?

Now we have a chance to respond. Please add your name to the petition "We've Waited Long Enough".

Interesting (and rather sad) NY Times piece

The original can be found by clicking here. The parts in bold are my emphasis.

LATIN MASS APPEAL

By KENNETH J. WOLFE

Published: November 28, 2009

WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.

All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”

Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.

Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.

The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.

Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our ... Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)

How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.

Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.

But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.

But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change. Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors. And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy.

Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.

At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.

Thought for the day

For the correct formation of the liturgical conscience, it is important to stop condemning the liturgical form as it was known up to 1970. Those, who at this moment defend the validity of the traditional liturgy or its continued use, are treated like lepers: all tolerance for them ceases to exist. In the whole history of the Church we have never before seen such intolerance manifested! This stance shows a contempt and scorn for the whole history of the Church.

How can we ever trust the Church, with such a point of departure? I have never been able to understand why so many bishops, with no plausible reason, have given themselves over to this law of intolerance and thereby work against the needed reconciliation within the Church.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: "God and the world" (2002)

St Nicholas of Chardonnet, Paris

Video of the sung Low Mass offered on the Last Sunday after Pentecost

Orignal video by protradition

Solemn High Mass on EWTN

EWTN will be showing, live, a solemn high Mass on Saturday 21 November. Broadcast time is 13h00 GMT.

The blurb from EWTN reads: "From the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament, A Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite for the Feast of The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary"

Friday thought

Statistically, most Catholics today come nowhere near the Liturgy, and even when they occasionally do, there is the serious risk of their being infected with what one might term 'spiritual food poisoning' from the diet of poor translations, gross informality, trite music, and any number of abuses.... with which they may be confronted.

Dom Alcuin Reid: "Do we need a New Liturgical Movement?" UK CIEL Conference, London 2004

Thought for the day

"The great problem of contemporary liturgical life (apathy towards worship, boredom, lack of vitality and participation) stems from the fact that the celebration has sometimes lost its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of adoration. We often encounter an inflation of words, explanations and comments, homilies too long and poorly prepared, which leaves little room for the mystery being celebrated.

Serious mistakes have sometimes been made in certain places: the location of the altar, tabernacle, and celebrants' chairs, overpowering illumination, excessive removal of ornamentation, etc.

The fact that the celebrants and faithful constantly face each other closes the liturgy in on itself. On the other hand a sound celebration which takes into account the pre-eminence of the altar, the discretion of the celebrants' ministry, the orientation of everyone towards the Lord and the adoration of His presence signified in the symbols and realized by the sacrament, confers on the liturgy that contemplative atmosphere without which it risks being a tiresome religious disquisition, a useless community distraction, a sort of rigmarole.

Wherever tradition has left stupendous altars placed against the apse, this arrangement could be respected by dividing the celebration into a face-to-face between the celebrants and the community for the Liturgy of the Word and a common orientation towards the altar from the time of the offertory to the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer. This solution is preferable to setting up a second, portable altar in the shape of a chest or small table.

The urgent need for the Church's liturgy today is to arrange everything so as to foster in the greatest possible way the contemplative adoration of the Lord , who reveals himself to His people in Word and Sacrament, and whose humble unobtrusive servants are the celebrants."

Rev M Thurian "The Liturgy and Contemplation" in L'Osservatore Romano, English edition (24 July 1996)

The above was written just prior to the death of Rev Max Thurian. Rev Thurian was subprior of the (Protestant) Taizé community and served as one of the Protestant advisors to Pope Paul VI's Consilium which composed the Novus Ordo.  In 1988 he become a Catholic and was ordained to the priesthood. As a celebrated convert and member of the International Theological Commission the article caused quite a stir.

The Catholic Herald Part 1

In yesterday's Herald there was a very interesting "letter" and "reply" on the state of our liturgy. You can read the whole feature here.

One thing that really drew my attention was this (my emphasis):

That said, I would agree with you that we need to "re-sacrificialise", in your invented but useful word, our common or garden usage of the rite of Paul VI - if not, in some respects, the rite itself. But to my mind the single greatest contribution we can make to that end is to press - judiciously and with respect - for the celebration of the Mass versus orientem, the Liturgy "turned towards the Lord".