ArchbishopLefebvre.com
Links
  • Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Who is he?
    • In his own words
  • Sermons
    • Sunday Sermons
  • Letters
    • Archbishop Lefebvre >
      • To Friends and Benefactors
      • Other Letters
    • Bishop Williamson >
      • Friends and Benefactors
      • Eleison Comments >
        • Italiano
        • Espanol
      • To SSPX Priests
  • Blog
  • Books
    • E-Books
    • Free Catholic Books
    • Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Bibles
    • Blessed Sacrament
    • Children Books
    • Childrens Saints
    • DVDs
    • Hell
    • Purgatory
    • Our Lady
    • Sacred Heart
    • Missals
    • Missale Romanum
    • Summa Theologica
    • Saints
  • Catholic Faith
    • Catechisms
    • Catholic Art
    • Chant
    • Dogmas of the Catholic Church
    • Encyclicals
    • Sermons
    • History >
      • HughesVol1index
    • Liturgy
    • Sacraments
    • Prayers >
      • Blessings
    • Way of the Cross
  • SSPX Crisis
    • sspx Archbishop Lefebvre
    • monks nuns
    • SSPX Bishop Fellay
    • SSPX Bishop Tissier
    • ex-sspx Bishop Williamson
    • ex-sspx chazal
    • sspx couture
    • sspx fox
    • ex-sspx fuchs
    • ex-sspx girouard
    • ex-sspx hewko
    • sspx laisney
    • sspx ockerse
    • ex-sspx pfeiffer
    • sspx themann
    • Fr. Ringrose
  • Links
    • Other Sites
    • Donate
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • You Tube
  • TradCat Items
    • Beeswax Candles
    • Chapel Veils
    • Prayer Cards - Our Lady
    • Prayer Cards - Espanol
    • Protected Scapulars
    • Scapulars
    • Unbreakable Rosaries
  • Crisis in Church
    • Declaration of the 2006 Chapter (SSPX)
    • Fr Hewko to SSPX Superiors
    • History of the Archbishop and Rome
    • Vatican II more important than Nicea!
    • The Archbishop and Religious Liberty
    • The right to resist an abuse of power
    • How Are Catholics To Respond To The Present Crisis

Changes to Holy Saturday 1952 -56

4/19/2014

 
Picture
HOLY SATURDAY

1. (OHS 1956): A blessing of the Paschal candle is introduced using a candle that has to be carried by the deacon during the entire ceremony.

Commentary: When this reform came into effect all the Paschal candlesticks in Christendom were rendered useless for Holy Saturday itself, even though some dated back to the dawn of Christianity. Under the pretext of returning to the sources, such liturgical masterpieces from antiquity became unusable museum pieces. The three-fold chanting of “lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”] no longer has a liturgical reason to exist.

(MR 1952): The new fire and the grains of incense are blessed outside the church, but not the candle; the fire is passed to a reed, a kind of pole with three candles at the top, which are lit during the procession, successively with each invocation of “lumen Christi”; hence the three-fold invocation, one for each candle as it is lit. With one of these candles was lit the Paschal candle, which remained from the beginning of the ceremony on the Paschal candlestick. (In many early Christian churches, the height of the candlestick required the ambo to be built to the same height so that the candle could be reached.) [See the picture below. CAP.] The fire (the light of the Resurrection) was brought in on the reed with its triple candle (the Holy Trinity) to the great Easter candle (the Risen Christ), in order to symbolize the Resurrection as the work of the Most Holy Trinity.


Ambo and Paschal candelabrum
2. (OHS 1956): The fabrication of placing the Easter candle in the center of the sanctuary after a procession with it in a church that is progressively lit up at every invocation of “Lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”]; and at every invocation all genuflect toward the candle [sic!]; at the third invocation, the lights in the entire church are lit.

Commentary: After the fabrication of a procession with the candle, it was decided to have it placed in the center of the sanctuary, where it becomes the reference point of the prayers, just as it was during the procession; it becomes more important than the altar and the cross, a strange novelty that shifts the orientation of prayer in successive stages.

(MR 1952): The candle remains unlit on its candelabrum, often (according to a rubricist I consulted, this should be "always". CAP) at the Gospel side; the deacon and subdeacon go up to it with the reed to light it during the singing of the praeconium [i.e., “Exsultet”]; until the singing of the “Exsultet,” the only candles lit from the “fire of the Resurrection” are those on the reed.


The singing of the Exultet
3. (OHS 1956): A twisting of the symbolism of the “Exsultet” and of its nature as a diaconal blessing.

Commentary: Some reformers wished to do away with this ceremony, but the love which the singing of the “Exsultet” was always enjoyed resulted in others opposing any change in the text: “the Commission, however, considers it opportune to preserve the traditional text, given that the passages to be eliminated are few and of little importance.”  The result was the nth pastiche of a traditional chant wedded to a rite now totally altered. Thus it happened that one of the most significant moments of the liturgical cycle became a theater-piece of astonishing incoherence.

In effect, the actions spoken of during the singing of the “Exsultet” have already been performed about a half-hour before in the narthex. For the grains of incense there is sung: “Suscipe, Pater, incensi hujus sacrificium vespertinum” [“Accept, Father, the evening sacrifice of this incense”],  but they have already been inserted into the candle for a good while. The lighting of the candle with the light of the Resurrection is elaborated with the words: “Sed jam columnae hujus praeconia novimus quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit” [“But now we know the tidings of this column which the flickering fire lights to the honor of God”],  but the candle has long been lit by then and a goodly amount of wax consumed. There is no longer any logic. The symbolism of the light is twisted even further when the order of lighting all the lights—the symbol of the Resurrection—is triumphantly chanted: “Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosae hujus lampadis apis mater eduxit” [“For it is nourished by the flowing wax which the Mother bee has drawn out unto the substance of this precious Light”],  but it is sung in a church which for quite some time has been totally illuminated by the candles lit from the new fire.

This reformed symbolism is incomprehensible for the simple reason that it is not symbolic: the words being proclaimed have no relation to the reality of the rite. Furthermore, the singing of the Easter proclamation, in union with the actions that accompany it, constitutes the diaconal blessing par excellence. After the reform, the candle is blessed outside the church with holy water, but it was desired to retain a part of the ancient blessing since it had great esthetic beauty; unfortunately, this approach reduces the liturgy to theater.

(MR 1952): The singing of the “Exsultet” begins with the candle unlit; the grains of incense are fixed in it when the chant speaks of the incense; the candle is lit by the deacon and the lights in the church are lit when the chant makes mention of these actions. These actions, in union with the chant, make up the blessing.

4. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the unbelievable practice of dividing the litanies in two, in the midst of which the baptismal water is blessed.

Commentary: This decision is simply extravagant and incoherent. Never was it known that an impetratory prayer was split into two parts. The introduction of the baptismal rites in the middle is of an even greater incoherence.

(MR 1952): After the blessing of the baptismal font is finished, the litanies are sung before the beginning of Mass.

5. (OHS 1956): Introduction of placing the baptismal water in a basin in the middle of the sanctuary, with the celebrant turned towards the faithful, his back to the altar.


Commentary: Basically, it was decided to substitute the baptismal font with a pot placed in the middle of the sanctuary. This choice was dictated, once again, by the obsession that all the rites should be carried out with the “sacred ministers facing the people,” but with their back towards God; the faithful, by this logic, become the “true actors of the celebration …. The Commission was receptive to the aspirations poured out by the people of God …. The Church was open to the ferment of renovation.”  These reckless decisions, founded on a pastoral populism that the people never requested, ended by destroying the entire sacred edifice, from its origins until the present.

At one time, the baptismal font was outside the church or, in succeeding ages, inside the walls of the edifice but close to the main door, since, according to Catholic theology, Baptism is the door, the “janua Sacramentorum” [“the door to the Sacraments”]. It is the Sacrament that makes those still outside the Church members of the Church. As such, it was symbolized in these liturgical customs. The catechumen receives [in Baptism] the character that makes him a member of the Church; therefore, he is to be received at the entrance, washed in the baptismal water, and thus acquire the right to enter into the nave as a new member of the Church, as one of the faithful. But, as a member of the faithful, he enters only the nave and not the sanctuary, wherein are the clergy, who are composed of those with the ministerial priesthood or who stand in relation to it. This traditional distinction was insisted on because the so-called “common” priesthood of the baptized is distinct from the ministerial priesthood and is distinct essentially, not superficially. They are two different things, not degrees of one single essence.

With the mandated changes, however, not only the baptized (as was already done on Holy Thursday) but even the non-baptized are summoned into the sanctuary, a place set aside for the clergy. One who is still “prey to the demon,” because still with Original Sin, is treated just like one who has received Holy Orders and enters into the sanctuary even though still a catechumen. The traditional symbolism, consequently, is completely massacred.

(MR 1952): The blessing of the baptismal water is given at the baptismal font, outside the church or near the entrance. Any catechumens are received at the entrance of the church, given Baptism, and then bid enter the nave, but not the sanctuary, as is logical, neither before nor after their Baptism.

6. (OHS 1956): Alteration of the symbolism of the chant “Sicut cervus” [“Like the hart that yearns”] of Psalm 41.


Commentary: After the creation of a baptistery inside the sanctuary, one is confronted with the problem of carrying away the baptismal water to some other location. It was decided, accordingly, to contrive a ceremony for carrying the water to the font after blessing it in front of the faithful and especially after conferring any baptisms as there might be. The transport of the baptismal water is accomplished while “Sicut cervus” is sung, i.e. that part of Psalm 41 which speaks of the thirst of the deer after it has fled from the bite of the serpent and which can only be slaked by drinking the water of salvation. At any rate, insufficient attention was paid to the fact that the deer’s thirst is sated by the waters of Baptism after the bite of the infernal serpent; for if Baptism has already been conferred, then the deer no longer thirsts, since, figuratively speaking, it has already drunk! The symbolism is changed and thus turned on its head.

(MR 1952): At the end of the singing of the prophecies, the celebrant goes to the baptismal font, to continue with the blessing of the water and to the conferral of Baptism as necessary; meanwhile, the “Sicut cervus” is sung. (127) The chant precedes, as is logical, the conferral of Baptism.

7. (OHS 1956): Creation ex nihilo of the “Renewal of Baptismal Promises.”


Commentary: One is, in a certain sense, proceeding blind when devising pastoral creations that have no true foundation in the history of the liturgy. Pursuing the notion that the Sacraments ought to be re-enlivened in the conscience, the reformers thought up the renewal of the baptismal promises. This became a kind of “examination of conscience” concerning the Sacrament received in the past. A similar tendency was observed in the twenties of the last century. In a veiled polemic with the provision of St. Pius X concerning the communion of children, the singular practice of a “solemn communion” or “profession of faith” was introduced; children of around thirteen years had to “remake” their first communion, in a kind of examination of conscience on the Sacrament already received several years before. This practice—although without calling into question the Catholic doctrine of “ex opere operato” [“from the work performed”]—emphasized the subjective element of the Sacrament over the objective. The new practice eventually ended up obscuring and overshadowing the Sacrament of Confirmation. A similar approach will be encountered in 1969 with the introduction on Holy Thursday of the “renewal of priestly promises.” With this latter practice is introduced a linkage between sacramental Holy Orders and a sentimental, emotional order, between the efficacy of the Sacrament and an examination of conscience, something rarely encountered in tradition.

The substrate of these innovations—which have no foundation either in Scripture or in the practice of the Church—seems to be a weakened conviction of the efficacy of the Sacraments. Although not in itself a plainly erroneous innovation, it appears nonetheless to lean towards theories of Lutheran provenance, which, while denying that “ex opere operato” has any role to play, hold that the sacramental rites serve more to “reawaken faith” than to confer grace.

It is difficult, moreover, to understand what was actually being sought with these reforms, since in fact edits were made to shorten the length of the celebrations, but tedious passages were introduced which burden the ceremonies unduly.

(MR 1952): The renewal of baptismal promises does not exist, just as, in this form, it has never existed in the traditional history of the liturgy of either East or West.

8. (OHS 1956): Creation of an admonition during the renewal of promises, which can be recited in the vernacular.


Commentary: The tone of this moralizing admonition betrays all too well the era in which it was composed (the mid-fifties). Today it already sounds dated, besides being a rather tedious adjunct. There is also the typical a-liturgical manner of turning to the faithful during this rite, a hybrid between homily and ceremony (which will enjoy great success in the years to follow).

(MR 1952): Does not exist.

9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the Our Father recited by everyone present, and possibly in the vernacular.


Commentary: The Our Father is preceded by a sentimental-sounding exhortation.

(MR 1952): Does not exist.

10. (OHS 1956): With no liturgical sense whatsoever, there is introduced here the second part of the litany, broken off at the half-way point prior to the blessing of the baptismal water.


Commentary: Before the blessing of the baptismal water, the litany is recited kneeling; afterwards, a great number of ceremonies are performed, along with movements in the sanctuary; then there is the joy following the blessing of the baptismal water and any Baptisms that follow; and then the same impetratory prayer of the litany is resumed at the precise point where it was broken off a half-hour before and left hanging. (It would be difficult to determine if the faithful remember when they left this prayer half-finished.) This innovation is incoherent and incomprehensible.

(MR 1952): The litany, recited integrally and without interruption, is chanted after the blessing of the baptismal font and before Mass.

11. (OHS 1956): Suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Psalm “Judica me” (Ps. 42), and the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass.


Commentary: It was decided that Mass should begin without the recitation of the Confiteor or the penitential psalm. Psalm 42, which recalls the unworthiness of the priest to ascend to the altar, was not appreciated, perhaps because it has to be recited at the foot of the altar before one can go up to it. When one understands the underlying liturgical logic here relative to the altar viewed as the “ara crucis” [“altar of the Cross”], a place sacred and terrible, where the redemptive Passion of Christ is made present, a prayer expressing the unworthiness of anyone to ascend those steps makes sense. The disappearance of Psalm 42 (which in the following years would be eliminated from every Mass) seems, instead, to be a wish for a preparation ritual having to do with an altar that is, symbolically, a common table rather than Calvary. As a consequence, the holy fear and sense of unworthiness affirmed by the psalm are no longer inculcated.

(MR 1952): Mass begins with the prayers at the foot of the altar, Psalm 42 (“Judica me, Deus”), and the Confiteor.

12. (OHS 1956): In the same decree, all the rites of the Vigil of Pentecost are abolished, except the Mass.


Commentary: This hasty abolition has all the marks of being tacked on at the last moment. Pentecost always had a vigil similar in its ceremonies to that of Easter. The reform, however, was not able to deal with Pentecost. But then again, the reformers could not leave untouched two rites which, fifty days apart, would have been, in the one case, a reformed version and, in the other, a traditional version. In their haste they decided to suppress the one they did not have time to reform; the ax fell on the Vigil of Pentecost. Such improvident haste resulted in rapid editing of the rites of the Vigil of Pentecost, so that the texts of the Mass which traditionally followed those rites no longer harmonized with them. Consequently, in the rite thus violently mutilated phrases remain which are rendered incongruous with the words of the celebrant during the Canon. The Canon presumes that the Mass is preceded by the rites of Baptism, which have been, however, suppressed. As a result, thanks to this reform, the celebrant recites during the special “Hanc igitur” words related to the sacrament of Baptism during the Vigil, whether the blessing of the font or the conferral of the Sacrament: “Pro his quoque, quos regenerare dignatus es ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, tribuens eis remissionem peccatorum” [“For these, too, whom Thou hast deigned to regenerate with water and the Holy Spirit, granting them remission of their sins”]. (136) But there is not a trace of this rite anymore. The Commission, in its haste to suppress, perhaps did not notice.

(MR 1952): The Vigil of Pentecost has rites which are baptismal in character, of which the “Hanc igitur” of the Mass makes mention.

GOOD FRIDAY Changes

Holy Saturday

4/19/2014

 
Picture
The Lesson is taken from the Treatise on the Psalms by St. Augustine the Bishop

They imagine wickedness, and practise it; that they keep secret among themselves, every man in the deep of his heart.  And they say that no man shall see them.  Now one known as Man came up against these communings, and in the form of Man he did suffer himself to be laid hold upon.  For they could not have laid hold upon him, had he not been Man; neither could he have been seen, had he not been Man; nor been scourged, had he not been Man; nor been crucified, nor died, had he not been Man.  As Man, therefore, he came to endure all those sufferings which could have had none effect upon him had he not been Man.  And further, had he not been Man, in no wise could man have been redeemed.  So it was, as the Psalmist saith, that he came, as Man, unto a deep heart; that is, something that passeth human understanding.  For he shewed his Manhood to the eyes of men, but kept his Godhead hidden deep within: thus concealing the form of God, wherein he is equal to the Father; but exhibiting the form of a servant, wherein he is inferior to the Father.

How far did they encourage themselves in those diligent searchings, wherein they failed so greatly?  So far that even when the Lord was dead and buried, they set a watch over the sepulchre.  For they said of Christ to Pilate: That deceiver.  By this name the Lord Jesus Christ was named, to the comfort of his servants, when they be called deceivers.  That deceiver (say they to Pilate) said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again: command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead; so the last error shall be worse than the first.  Pilate said unto them: Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as ye can.  So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and settling a watch.

They placed a watch of soldiers over the sepulchre.  The earth quaked!  The Lord rose again!  Such were the miracles wrought round about the sepulchre, that the very soldiers who kept watch might have become witnesses, if they had been willing to declare the truth.  But that covetousness which possessed the disciple and companion of Christ, possessed also the soldiers who guarded his tomb.  We will give you money (say they), and say ye that his disciples came and stole him away while ye slept.  Truly, they failed in their snare and communings.  What is this thou saidst, O wretched cunning?  Dost thou so far forsake the light of prudence and duty, and plunge thyself so deep in craftiness, as to speak thus: Say ye that his disciples came and stole him away while ye slept?  Thou producest sleeping witnesses!  Surely thou wast thyself asleep, who didst thus snare thyself in such a snare.

Picture

Good Friday Changes 1952-56

4/18/2014

 
Picture
GOOD FRIDAY

1. (OHS 1956): The name “Solemn Liturgical Action” is devised, (73) thus eliminating the very ancient names “Mass of the Presanctified” and “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.”


Commentary: The terminology of “Presanctified” underlined the fact that the sacred Species had been consecrated at an earlier ceremony and showed the connection with the return of the Eucharist, an important and ancient part of the rite. But the Commission despised this concept and decided to reform the name along with the rite itself: “[We need] to trim back the medieval extravagances, so little noted, of the so-called Mass of the Presanctified to the severe and original lines of a great, general communion service.” (74) The usage “in Parasceve” [i.e., Friday “in Preparation”] was no longer in favor, even though its Hebraic overtones indicate its great antiquity.

(MR 1952): The name is “Mass of the Presanctified” or “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.”

2. (OHS 1956): The altar no longer has the veiled cross (and candlesticks -- CAP) on it


Commentary: The cross, especially the one on the altar, has been veiled since the first Sunday of the Passion, so that it should remain where it naturally ought to stand, namely at the center of the altar, later to be unveiled solemnly and publicly on Good Friday, the day of the triumph of the redemptive Passion. The authors of the reform apparently did not like the altar cross and decided to have it removed to the sacristy on the evening of Holy Thursday, and not in a solemn way but in the containers used to carry away the altar cloths after the stripping of the altars, or perhaps during the night in some unknown way, about which the rubrics for Holy Thursday are silent. On the very day of greatest importance for the Cross, when it ought to tower over the altar even though veiled at the beginning of the ceremony, it is absent. The fact that it remained present for nearly fifteen days on the altar, though publicly veiled, makes for the logic of its corresponding public unveiling, instead of an a-liturgical return of the cross from the sacristy as though someone hid it there in a closet during the night.

(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled at its usual place, i.e. on the altar, stripped of its cloths, and flanked by the usual candlesticks.

3. (OHS 1956): The reading of the Gospel is no longer distinct from that of the Passion.


Commentary: The entire passage is given a more narrative title: “The History of the Passion.” The motive behind this change is not clear, given that the Commission seemed to oppose such a change in the analogous case of Palm Sunday. (78) Perhaps the intention was, as elsewhere, to do away with everything that made reference to the Mass, such as the reading of the Gospel, and consequently to justify the suppression of the name “Mass of the Presanctified.”

(MR 1952): The Gospel is sung in a way distinct from the singing of the Passion, but on this day of mourning, without incense or torches.

4. (OHS 1956): The altar cloths are no longer placed on the altar from the beginning of the ceremony; at the same time, it is decided that the priest is not to wear the chasuble from the start, but only the alb and stole.


Commentary: The fact that the celebrant wears the chasuble even for a rite that is not, strictly speaking, the Mass witnesses to the extreme antiquity of these ceremonies, which the members of the Commission recognized as well. On the one hand, they maintained that the ceremonies of Good Friday were composed of "elements that (since ancient times) remained substantially untouched," but on the other hand they desired to introduce a change that would separate the Eucharistic liturgy from the "first part of the liturgy, the liturgy of the word."  This distinction, in embryonic form at the time, was to be marked--according to Father Braga--by the fact that the celebrant wore the stole only and not the chasuble: "For the liturgy of the word [the celebrant] was left only the stole."

(MR 1952): The priest wears the black chasuble, prostrates himself before the altar, while the servers, meanwhile, spread a single cloth on the bare altar.

The question of the prayer for the Jews, though completely pertinent to the study of Holy Week, cannot be addressed except by a study that gives clarity to the philological misunderstanding relative to the erroneously interpreted words "perfidi" and "perfidia."

5. (OHS 1956): For the seventh prayer, the name "Pro unitate Ecclesiae" ["For the unity of the Church"] is introduced.


Commentary: With this expressive ambiguity the idea is brought in of a Church in search of its own social unity, hitherto not possessed. The Church, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, solemnly defined, does not lack social unity in the earthly realm, since the said unity is an essential property of the true Church of Christ. This unity is not a characteristic that is yet to be found through ecumenical dialogue; it is already metaphysically present. In effect, the words of Christ, "Ut unum sint" ["That they may be one"], is an efficacious prayer of Our Lord, and as such is already realized. Those who are outside the Church must return to her, must return to the unity that already exists; they do not need to unite themselves to Catholics in order to bring about a unity that already exists. The aim of the reformers, however, was to eliminate from this prayer, says Father Braga, some inconvenient words that spoke of souls deceived by the demon and ensnared by the wickedness of heresy: "animas diabolica fraude deceptas" and "haeretica pravitate." By the same logic, they desired to do away with the conclusion, which expressed hope for a return of those straying from the unity of Christ's truth back into His Church: "Errantium corda resipiscant et ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem." At any rate, it was not possible to reform the text of the prayer but only the title, since at the time—laments Father Braga again—“unity was conceived in terms of the preconciliar ecumenism." In other words, in 1956 the unity of the Church was conceived of as already existing, and God was being beseeched to bring back into this already existing unity those who were separated or far off from this unity. In the Commission there were members with traditional ideas who opposed the work of doctrinal erosion, though powerless to stop the creation of theological hybrids, such as the choice to leave the traditional text but to give it a new title. Annibale Bugnini himself, about ten years later, acknowledged that to pray for the future unity of the Church constitutes a heresy, and he mentions this in an article for L'Osservatore Romano that found fault with the title of the prayer "For the unity of the Church" introduced ten years prior by the Commission of which he was a member. Praising the prayers recently introduced in 1965, he writes that the prayer's name was changed from "For the unity of the Church" to "For the unity of Christians," because "the Church has always been one," but with the passage of time they were successful in eliminating the words "heretics" and "schismatics."  It is sad to note that these shifting maneuvers were employed with the liturgy in order to bring in theological novelties.

(MR 1952): The text is the same as that of 1956, wherein it is prayed that heretics and schismatics would return to the unity of His truth: "ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem,"  but without the ambiguous title of the 1956 version: "Pro unitate Ecclesiae."

6. (OHS 1956): At this point, there is the creation of a return procession of the cross from the sacristy.


Commentary: This time, the cross returns in a liturgical manner, i.e. publicly rather than placed into the hampers used to collect the candlesticks and flowers from the previous evening [the Mass of Holy Thursday]. In the liturgy, when there is a solemn procession of departure, there is a solemn return; this innovation makes for a solemn return of a symbol that, the evening before, was carried away together with other objects in a private form, placing it—in the best-case scenario—in a wicker basket. There seems to be, in fact, no liturgical significance for introducing this procession of the return of the hidden cross. Perhaps we are confronted with a maladroit attempt to restore the rite carried out at Jerusalem in the fourth and fifth centuries and made known to us by Egeria: "In Jerusalem the adoration took place on Golgotha. Egeria recalls that the community assembled early in the morning in the presence of the bishop ... and then the silver reliquary [theca] containing the relics of the true Cross were brought in."  The restoration of this procession of the return of the cross took place in a context that was not that of Mount Calvary of the early centuries but in the context of the Roman liturgy, which over time had wisely elaborated and incorporated such influences from Jerusalem into a rite handed down over many centuries.

(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled on the altar beginning with Passion Sunday; it was unveiled publicly in the precincts of the altar, that is in the place where it remained publicly veiled until that point.


7. (OHS 1956): The importance of the Eucharistic procession is downplayed.


Commentary: The procession with the cross is a new creation, but the reform decides to downgrade the return procession with the Body of Christ to an almost private form in an inexplicable inversion of perspective. The Most Holy Sacrament was carried out the day before in a solemn manner to the altar of the Sepulcher. (We deliberately use the name "Sepulcher" because all of Christian tradition calls it thus, including the Memoriale Rituum and the Congregation of Rites, even if the Commission members barely tolerated this term (95); it appears to us profoundly theological and suffused with that sensus fidei [sense of the Faith] that is lacking in certain theologians.) It seems logical and "liturgical" that there should be for a solemn procession like that of Holy Thursday an equally dignified return on Good Friday. After all, here there is a particle of the same Blessed Sacrament from the previous day, the Body of Christ. With this innovation the honors to be paid to the Blessed Sacrament are reduced, and, in the case of Solemn Mass [of the Presanctified], it is the deacon who is instructed to go to the altar of the Sepulcher to bring back the Sacrament, while the priest sits tranquilly resting on the sedilia. The celebrant graciously arises when Our Lord, in the form of the sacred Species, is brought in by a subaltern, and then goes to the high altar. Perhaps it was for this reason that John XXIII did not want to follow this rubric at the Mass celebrated at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and desired to go himself, as Pope and as celebrant, to bring back the Most Holy Sacrament.

(MR 1952): The Most Blessed Sacrament returns in a procession equal in solemnity to that of the preceding day. It is the celebrant who goes to bring It back, as is natural. Since one is dealing with Our Lord Himself, present in the Host, one does not send a subordinate to bring Him to the altar.

8. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the incensing due to the consecrated Host.

Commentary: There is no apparent reason why the honors rendered to God on Good Friday should be inferior to those rendered on other days.
(MR 1952): The consecrated Host is incensed as usual, although the celebrant is not incensed. (98) The signs of mourning are evident here, but they do not extend to the Real Presence.

9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the people reciting the Our Father.


Commentary: "The pastoral preoccupation with a conscious and active participation on the part of the Christian community" is dominant. The faithful must become "true actors in the celebration .... This was demanded by the faithful, especially those more attuned to the new spirituality.... The Commission was receptive to the aspirations of the people of God." (100) It remains to be proven whether these aspirations belonged to the faithful or to a group of avant-garde liturgists. It remains as well to specify theologically what this above-mentioned "new spirituality" and its "aspirations" were.

(MR 1952): The Pater [Our Father] is recited by the priest.

10. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the prayers that make reference to sacrifice while the Host is consumed.


Commentary: It is true that on this day, in the strict sense, there is no Eucharistic sacrifice with the separation of the sacred Species, but it is also true that the consuming the Victim, immolated the preceding day, is a part, though not an essential one, of the sacrifice. This is, in a certain sense, the sacramental continuation of the sacrifice, because the Body, when consumed, is nevertheless always the Body as immolated and sacrificed. Accordingly, tradition always speaks of the sacrifice in the prayers connected with the consuming of the Host. Some members of the Commission held that after so many years of tradition the time had come to correct errors and to declare that words such as "meum ac vestrum sacrificium" ["my sacrifice and yours"] were "completely out of place in this instance, since one is not dealing with a sacrifice but only with communion." (103) The decision was then taken to abolish these age-old prayers.

(MR 1952): The prayer, "Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium, etc." is recited, but, given the unique context, it is not followed by the usual response.

11. (OHS 1956): Placing a part of the consecrated Host into the wine in the chalice is abolished.


Commentary: Placing a particle of the consecrated Host (a rite also known in the Byzantine rite) into the unconsecrated wine obviously does not consecrate the wine, nor was that ever believed by the Church. Simply put, this union manifests symbolically, though not really, the reuniting of the fragment of the Body of Christ with the Blood, to symbolize the unity of the Mystical Body in eternal life, the final cause of the entire work of redemption, which is not unworthy of being recalled on Good Friday.
The “Memoire” preserved in the archives of the Commission affirm that this part of the rite absolutely had to be suppressed, because “the existence of a belief in the Middle Ages that the commingling of the consecrated bread [sic!] alone in the wine was sufficient to consecrate even the wine itself also brought about this rite; once the Eucharist was studied more profoundly, the lack of foundation for this belief was understood. But the rite remained.” This affirmation is rendered scandalous by the absence of any historical foundation and by the scientific method; and it implies quite profound theological consequences. In addition, it remains to be proven historically that during the Middle Ages the belief under discussion was in currency. Some theologians may have held erroneous opinions, but this does not prove that in fact the Roman Church fell into error to the point that she made it part of the liturgy with this precise theological view in mind. (The belief that the wine is consecrated by mere commingling with the Bread of Angels was not unknown among medieval Catholics, and is still held by the Greek Orthodox, as shown by the rubrics of the Liturgy of the Presanctified as observed by the Greeks and by some Slavs. However, it was never officially accepted by Rome as a legitimate belief, and it is interesting to note that by and large the Russian Orthodox share the Roman stand. CAP.) In this context, one would be affirming that the Roman Church, conscious of the serious error, did not wish to correct it; one would be maintaining [in effect] that the Roman Church could change her view over the course of the centuries on a point that is so fundamental; and one would also be affirming that the she could err in relation to a dogmatic fact (such as the universal liturgy), and that for several centuries. Perhaps justification was sought for the work of reform already undertaken, which sought to correct all the errors that entire generations of Popes failed to detect but that the keen eye of the Commission had finally unmasked.
It is not pleasant to note that these affirmations are imbued with a pseudo-rationalism of a positivist stamp, the kind in vogue during the fifties. Often it relied on summary and less than scientific studies in order to demolish those deplorable “medieval traditions” and introduce useful “developments.”

(MR 1952): A part of the consecrated Host is placed in the wine, but, with great theological coherence, the prayer before consuming the Precious Blood is omitted.

12. (OHS 1956): The change of times for the service, which could have been accomplished in harmony with popular customs, ended up creating notable pastoral and liturgical problems.

Commentary: In the past, pious customs and practices were developed in a way that was consonant with the liturgy. A common example in very many places: from noon, even today, a great crucifix is set up, in front of which the Tre Ore [“Three Hours”] of Christ’s suffering is preached (from noon until three o’clock). As a consequence of the change in time for the service, one is confronted with the paradox of a sermon delivered before the crucifix at a time when the crucifix ought to remain veiled, because the Good Friday service is to be held in the afternoon. (108) Some dioceses even today are constrained to hold the “Liturgical Action” [of the Passion of the Lord] in one church, while in another the ancient pious practices are conducted, in order to avoid a too obvious visual incongruity. Numerous similar examples could be adduced. It is clear, though, that the “pastoral” reform par excellence was not “pastoral,” because it was born of experts who had no real contact with a parish nor with the devotions and piety of the people—which they often enough disdained.
According to the reformers, during the hours of the afternoon a “liturgical void” had been created, and an attempt to remedy this was sought “by introducing paraliturgical elements, such as the Tre Ore, the Way of the Cross, and the Sorrowful Mother.” (109) The Commission decided, therefore, to remedy this scandal using the worst “pastoral” method: namely writing off popular customs and paying them no mind. The disdain in this type of “pastoral” method forgets that inculturation is a Catholic phenomenon of long standing. It consists of a reconciliation, one as generous as possible, of piety to dogma, and not of a unilateral imposition of provisions by “experts.”

(MR 1952): The problem is not a question of times: liturgy and piety have developed over the centuries in a fusion of one with the other, without, however, coming into conflict in an antagonism as pointless as it is imaginary.

HOLY SATURDAY Changes

Good Friday

4/18/2014

 
Picture
The Lesson is taken from the Treatise on the Psalms by St. Augustine the Bishop

Hide me from the gathering together of the froward, and from the insurrection of wicked doers.  In our consideration of this Psalm, let us contemplate our Head himself.  Many Martyrs have suffered such things as the Psalmist prayeth against; but no Martyr shineth with such glory as the Head of the Martyrs.  In him we best perceive what they endured.  He particularly was hidden from the insurrection of wicked doers, to wit, in the sense that God the Son, who was made man, hid himself under the veil of his own flesh.  For he is both Son of Man and Son of God: yea, he was the Son of God (for he was in the form of God), and as such became in the flesh the Son of Man, in the form of a servant; whereby he had power to lay down his life, and power to take it again.  What could his enemies do unto him?  They could only kill the body: the soul they could not kill.  Give heed: it were little for the Lord to exhort the Martyrs by word, did he not confirm them by this his example.

We know what was the gathering together of the froward amongst Jewry, and what was the insurrection of wicked doers.  How were they wicked doers?  In that they desired to kill the Lord Jesus Christ.  Many good works (saith he) have I shewed you: for which of these works do ye desire to kill me?  He bore all their infirmities.  He healed all their sick.  He preached the kingdom of heaven.  He held not his peace at their iniquities, so that they might rather hate the same, than the Physician who would heal them.  Yet being ungrateful for all these his remedies, like men raging in high fever, they did rage against the Physician who had come to heal them, and took counsel for his destruction.  It was as though they would put it to the proof, whether he were man that could die, or whether he were something more than man that would not suffer himself to die.  In Chapter 2 of the Book of Wisdom we have, as it were, their very words: Let us examine him with despitefulness: let us condemn him with a shameful death: for he shall be visited according to his words: for if the just man be the Son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of the enemies.

They have whet their tongue like a sword.  Let not Jewry say: We did not kill Christ.  For they delivered him up to Pilate's tribunal in order that they should themselves seem innocent of his death.  Thus when Pilate said to them: Take ye him, and crucify him: they answered: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.  So it was that they sought to cast the guilt of their crime upon a human judge: but by this could they deceive God the Judge?  What Pilate did, made him perforce in some sort partaker of their crime.  But in comparison with them, he was less guilty.  For he did what he could to rescue him out of their hands, and therefore ordered him to be scourged and brought before them.  That is to say, not by way of persecution did he scourge the Lord, but as wishing to satisfy their rage, that when they saw him scourged, they might relent, and cease to desire his death.  Nevertheless he did do it.  But if we hold him to be guilty who did it against his will, shall they be innocent who did force him to do it?  By no means.  Pilate did pronounce sentence on him, and commanded him to be crucified, and so in some wise it might be said that he did kill him.  But O ye, his own Jewish people, ye in full truth did kill him.  And how did ye kill him?  With the sword of the tongue.  For like a sword ye whet your tongue.  And when did ye strike the blow, but when ye cried out: Crucify him, crucify him?

Picture

Holy Thursday Changes 1952-56

4/17/2014

 
Picture
HOLY THURSDAY

1. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the stole as part of the choir dress of priests.

Commentary: This is the beginning of the myth of concelebration on Holy Thursday. The bolder among the reformers wished to introduce it along with this reform, but resistance—especially from members of the Commission such as Cardinal Cicognani and Msgr. Dante—blocked this novelty. Father Braga writes: “As to the ‘participation’ of the priests, sacramental concelebration did not seem attainable (the mind-set, even of certain members of the Commission, was not yet prepared for it).” In effect, there was a strongly hostile feeling against concelebration on Holy Thursday because it was not traditional: “Concelebration, whether sacramental or purely ceremonial, was to be excluded.”  To introduce the idea of concelebration, its proponents had to be content with the creation of the practice of having every priest present don a stole, (60) not at the moment of communion only but beginning with the start of the Mass.

(MR 1952): The priests and deacons wear the usual choir dress, without the stole, and put on the stole at the time of communion only, as is the usual custom.

2. (OHS 1956): The practice is introduced of giving communion with only those hosts consecrated on this day.


Commentary: It is incomprehensible why those present cannot communicate with hosts already consecrated previously. The Roman practice of the “Fermentum”—which is historically documented—was to communicate, in general, from a particle of the Eucharist from the Sunday prior, to show the communion of the Church throughout time and space, within the reality of the Body of Christ. This presence, being “real and substantial,” continues when the assembly departs and at the same time, with even greater logical coherence, precedes the reuniting of the assembly. With this [new] rubric, the idea is introduced of the Real Presence being tied to the day of the celebration, as well as the idea that one is obliged to communicate from hosts consecrated on the same day. It is as much as to say that those hosts are in some way different from those consecrated earlier. One should note that this obligation relates not merely to the symbolism of the tabernacle being empty before the Mass of Holy Thursday—which, at most, might have had some significance, albeit a novel one—since the text affirms that those who receive communion must receive only hosts consecrated on this day.  The underlying theology does not seem very solid, while the symbolism is debatable.

(MR 1952): There is no mention of this practice of giving communion with hosts consecrated on Holy Thursday.

3. (OHS 1956): The washing of feet is no longer at the end of Mass but in the middle of Mass.


Commentary: The reform appealed to a restoration of the “veritas horarum” [i.e., observance of the “true times” of the services], an argument used in season and out, like a veritable hobby horse. In this case, however, the chronological sequence given in the Gospel is abandoned. Rivers of ink flowed in order to convince others of the scandal of an horarium that was not in full accord with that of the Gospels, but in this case not only was a rite anticipated, or postponed, for practical reasons, but the chronological order of the Gospel narrative was inverted within a single ceremony. St. John writes that Our Lord washed the feet of the Apostles after the supper: “et cena facta” [“the supper having been finished”] (John 13: 2). It escapes understanding why the reformers, for whatever obscure motive, chose, arbitrarily, to put the washing of the feet directly in the middle of Mass. While Mass is being celebrated, consequently, some of the laity are allowed to enter the sanctuary and take off their shoes and socks. Apparently there was a desire to re-think the sacredness of the sanctuary and the prohibition of the laity from entering it during divine services. The washing of feet, therefore, is spliced into the offertory, an abuse whereby the celebration of Mass is interrupted with other rites, a practice founded on the dubious distinction of Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

(MR 1952): The rite known as the Mandatum, or washing of the feet, is carried out after Mass and not in the sanctuary, after the stripping of the altars and without interrupting Mass or allowing the laity to enter the sanctuary during the service, and withal respecting the chronological sequence given in the Gospel.

4. (OHS 1956): Omission of the Confiteor recited by the deacon before Holy Communion.


Commentary: The third, despised Confiteor is done away with, without recognition of the fact that the confession made by the deacon, or the server, although borrowed from the rite for communion extra missam [outside of Mass], is a confession of the unworthiness of the communicants to receive the sacred Species. It is not a “duplication” of the confession made by the priest and ministers at the beginning of Mass, since at that point they have simply recited their own unworthiness to approach the altar and to celebrate the sacred mysteries. (Hence, at a sung Mass it is recited sotto voce.) This is distinct from one’s unworthiness to approach Holy Communion.

(MR 1952): The Confiteor is recited before communion.

5. (OHS 1956): At the end of Mass, during the stripping of the altars, it is mandated that even the cross and candlesticks are to be removed.


Commentary: It was decided that everything should be stripped from the altar, even the cross. The rubrics of the reformed Holy Thursday do not explain, however, what to do with the altar cross, but one learns this by accident, as it were, from the rubrics of the following day. In effect, the rubrics of Good Friday speak of an altar without a cross, which one can deduce from the fact that it was taken away during the stripping of the altars, or perhaps in a more private manner during the night. (This and other problems arise when one changes a liturgy which has benefited from layers of tradition and which is all but intolerant of hasty alterations.) Perhaps, on the basis of a certain liturgical archeologism, the reformers wished to prepare souls for the spectacle of a bare table in the middle of the sanctuary—something which makes little sense theologically.

(MR 1952): The cross remains on the altar, veiled and accompanied by the candlesticks, enthroned there in expectation of being unveiled the following day.

GOOD FRIDAY CHANGES

Maundy Thursday

4/17/2014

 
Picture
The Lesson is taken from the Treatise on the Psalms by St. Augustine the Bishop

Hear my prayer, O God, and hide not thyself from my petition: take heed unto me, and hear me: how I mourn in my trial, and am vexed; because of the crying of the enemy, and of the tribulation which cometh from the ungodly.  These are the words of one who is disquieted, beset by trouble and anxiety.  He prayeth as one under much suffering, desiring deliverance from evil.  Let us see from what evil he doth suffer: and as we hear what that evil is, let us recognize that we also suffer from the same thing; so that as we share his tribulation, we may also join in his prayer.  I mourn in my trial (saith he) and am vexed.  When doth he mourn?  When is he vexed?  In my trial, saith he.  He hath in mind the ungodly that cause him tribulation, which same he calleth his trial.  Therefore, think not that the wicked can serve no good purpose in this world, and that God is unable to accomplish good by means of them.  Every wicked person is permitted to live in order that he may be made righteous, or else that the righteous may be tried by him.

I would to God that the ungodly who now try us were converted, and so were on trial with us.  Yet, though they continue to try us, let us not hate them: for we know not whether any of them will continue to the end in his evil ways.  And mostly, when thou thinkest thyself to be hating thine enemy, thou hatest thy brother, and knowest it not.  Only the devil and his angels are shewn to us in Scripture as doomed to eternal fire: their amendment alone is hopeless, against whom we wage a hidden strife.  For which strife the Apostle would arm us, saying: We wrestle not against flesh and blood (that is, not against men, whom we see) but against principálities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.  Mark that he saith not: The rulers of this world: lest perchance thou shouldst think that devils are rulers of heaven and earth; but rather, he saith: The rulers of the darkness of this world.  When he speaketh thus of the world, he would have us understand the lovers of the world whereof the Gospel saith: And the world knew him not.

For I have spied unrighteousness and strife in the city.  Give heed now to the glory of the Cross itself.  On the brow of kings is now placed that Cross, which once enemies did deride.  Effect hath proven strength.  He hath subdued the world, not with a sword, but with Wood.  The Wood of the Cross seemed a worthy object of scorn to his enemies; and standing before that very Wood, they wagged their heads, saying, If thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross!  Thus did he stretch forth his hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.  If he is just who doth live by faith, then is he unrighteous who hath not faith.  Wherefore, when he saith: Unrighteousness: understand that it is the disobedience of unbelief.  The Lord then saw unrighteousness and strife in the city, and stretched out his hands unto an unbelieving and gainsaying people.  And yet, looking upon the very same, he saith: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Picture
The Lesson is taken from the Former Epistle of blessed Paul to the Corinthians

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divísions among you; and I partly believe it.  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.  For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.  Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.  And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.



The Gradual for Mass
Christ was made for us obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.

Sung during the Washing of the feet
Picture
Where charity and love abide, there is God.

V.
  The love of Christ joined us in one.
V.
  Let us rejoice and be glad in him.
V.
  Let us fear and love the living God.
V.
  And love one another in sincerity of heart.
Where charity and love abide, there is God.

V.
  When, therefore, we are joined together.
V.
  Let us see that we be not divided in spirit.
V.
  Let all malicious wranglings and contentions cease.
V.
  And let Christ our God be in the midst of us.
Where charity and love abide, there is God.

V.
  So may we with the blessed see.
V.
  In glory thy countenance, O Christ our God.
V.
  Joy that is infinite and undefiled.
V.
  Sæcula per infiníta sæculórum.  Amen.
V.  For ever and for evermore.  Amen.

Where charity and love abide, there is God.

Wednesday in Holy week - Spy Wednesday

4/16/2014

 
Picture
Why is it called Spy Wednesday?

In the Old Testament Joseph, who prefigured Christ, was betrayed by his older brother, Judah -- the father of the tribe whence came King David and through which the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled -- when Judah sold Joseph into slavery in Egypt for so many shekels of silver (see Genesis 37-38, and also Psalm 68:2-29 and Acts 1:13-20).

From that tribe of Judah came Our Lord, Who was betrayed by another Judah, a man who is more commonly known as Judas Iscariot ("Iscariot" refers to Kerioth, a town in Judea). This Judas handled the money for the Apostles and became offended by the extravagance of Mary Magdalen's gesture of love toward Jesus:


John 12:1-8 1
Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. And they made him a supper there: and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein.

Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always.
Immediately after this, Judas met with the chief priests to betray Our Lord for thirty pieces of silver.

Here is St. Matthew's version of History:


Matthew 26:6-15
And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, There came to Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He was at table.

And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial. Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her.

Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.

Thus today the Spy is Judas also today and during the Sacred Triduum, the Matins and Lauds of the Divine Office are often sung in a haunting service known as the Tenebrae service ("tenebrae" meaning "shadows"), which is basically a funeral service for Jesus.

During the Matins on Good Friday, one by one, the candles are extinguished in the Church, leaving the congregation in total darkness, and in a silence that is punctuated by the strepitus meant to evoke the convulsion of nature at the death of Christ. It has also been described as the sound of the tomb door closing. During the Triduum, the Matins and Lauds readings come from the following day's readings each night because the hours of Matins and Lauds were pushed back so that the public might better participate during these special three days (i.e., the Matins and Lauds readings heard at Spy Wednesday's tenebrae service are those for Maundy Thursday, the readings for Maundy Thursday's tenebrae service are from Good Friday, and Good Friday's readings are from Holy Saturday's Divine Office).


Picture
Legend says that the tree upon which Judas hanged himself was the Cercis siliquastrum -- a tree that is now known as the "Judas Tree." It is a beautiful tree, native to the Mediterranean region, with brilliant deep pink flowers in the spring -- flowers that are said to have blushed in shame after Judas's suicide.

Tuesday of Holy Week

4/15/2014

 
Picture
Hymn for Laudes
Thirty years among us dwelling,
His appointed time fulfilled,
Born for this, he meets his Passion,
For that this he freely willed:
On the Cross the Lamb is lifted,
Where his life-Blood shall be spilled.

He endured the nails, the spitting,
Vinegar, and spear, and reed:
From that holy Body broken
Blood and Water forth proceed:
Earth, and stars, and sky, and ocean,
By that flood from stain are freed.

Faithful Cross! above all other,
One and only noble Tree;
None in foliage, none in blossom,
None in fruit thy peer may be:
Sweetest wood, and sweetest iron,
Sweetest weight is hung on thee.

Bend thy boughs, O Tree of glory,
Thy relaxing sinews bend:
For awhile the ancient rigour
That thy birth bestowed, suspend:
And the King of heavenly beauty
On thy bosom gently tend.

Thou alone wast counted worthy
This world's ransom to sustain,
That a shipwrecked race for ever
Might a port of refuge gain:
With the sacred Blood anointed
Of the Lamb for sinners slain.

To the Trinity be glory
Everlasting, as is meet:
Equal to the Father, equal
To the Son, and Paraclete:
Trinal Unity, whose praises
All created things repeat.  Amen.

Almighty and everlasting God: grant that we may so celebrate the mysteries of the Passion of our Saviour; that we may be worthy to obtain thy pardon.  Through the same Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord.  Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.
R.  Amen.


Picture
Station at St. Prisca

Monday of Holy Week

4/14/2014

 
Picture
Then Jesus, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom Jesus raised from the dead.

Sermon by
by St. Augustine the Bishop

Lest men should deem that it was but by an ocular delusion that they had seen him arise from the dead, Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table.  He lived therefore, spake, and ate; to the manifestation of the truth, and the confusion of the unbelieving Jews.  Jesus, then, sat down to meat with Lazarus and others, and Martha, being one of Lazarus' sisters, served.  But Mary, Lazarus' other sister, took a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  We have now heard that which was done; let us search out the mystic meaning thereof.

Whosoever thou art that wilt be a faithful soul, seek with Mary to anoint the feet of the Lord with costly ointment.  This ointment was a figure of justice, and therefore is said to have been a pound thereof.  The word Pistikes used by the Evangelist as the name of this ointment, we must believe to be that of some place, from which this costly perfume was imported.  Neither is this name meaningless for us, but agreeth well with our mystic interpretation, since Pístis is the Greek word which signifieth Faith, and whosoever will do justice must know that the just shall live by faith.  Anoint therefore, the feet of Jesus by thy good life, following in the marks which those feet of the Lord have traced.  Wipe his feet likewise with thy hair; that is, if thou have aught which is not needful to thee, give it to the poor; and then thou hast wiped the feet of Jesus with thy hair, that is, with that which thou needest not, and which is therefore to thee as is hair, being a needless out-growth to the body.  Here thou hast what to do with that which thou needest not.  To thee it is needless, but the Lord's feet have need of it; yea, the feet which the Lord hath on earth are sorely needy.

For of whom save of his members, will he say at the latter day: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.  That is, ye have spent nothing save that which ye needed not, but ye have ministered unto my feet.  And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  That is, the fragrance of your good example filleth the world; for this odour is a figure of reputation.  They which are called Christians, and yet live bad lives, cast a slur on Christ: and it is even such as they unto whom it is said: The Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.  But if, through such, the Name of God be blasphemed, through the godly is praise ascribed to the Same his Holy Name, as the Apostle doth likewise say: In every place we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ.

Picture

Palm Sunday

4/12/2014

 
Picture
At that time: When they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them. 


Sermon
by St. Ambrose the Bishop


The Lord went up to the temple, and left the Jews behind.  And this was fitting, for he was about to take up his abode in the hearts of the Gentiles.  The true temple of God, wherein he worshipped, not in the deadness of the letter, but in spirit and in truth, is that temple whereof the foundations are laid, not in courses of stone, but in acts of faith.  He leaveth behind him such as hate him, and getteth him to such as will love him.  And so he cometh unto the Mount of Olives, that he may plant upon the heights of virtue those young olive-branches, whose mother is the Jerusalem which is above.  Upon this mountain standeth he, the heavenly husbandman, that all they which be planted in the house of the Lord may be able each one to say: As for me, I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God.

But we may even think of this mountain as being Christ himself.  For what other beareth such plants as he doth, not weighted down with an abundance of earthly fruit, but spiritually fruitful with the fulness of the Gentiles?  He also it is by whom we go up, and unto whom we go up.  He is the Door.  He is the Way.  For he is the one which is opened and which openeth.  Unto him, whosoever entereth in, knocketh.  Unto him also, having entered, to obtain their reward, they do offer their worship.  A figure also was it that the disciples went into a village, and that there they found an ass tied and a colt with her; neither could they be loosed, save at the hand of his Apostles which loosed them.  He whose work and life are like theirs will have such grace as was theirs.  Be thou also such as they, if thou wouldest loose them that are bound.

Now consider how those two who were convicted of transgression, and banished from the freedom of the Paradise of Eden, were made to be dwellers in towns, bound over as it were, into a village; and in this observe how Life called back again them whom death had cast out.  For this reason, we read in Matthew that there were tied both an ass and her colt.  Both male and female were banished from Eden.  The she-ass and the male-colt doth put us in mind of the return to Paradise.  The she-ass mindeth us of our sinful Mother Eve, and the colt of the multitude of the Gentiles.  Upon the colt Christ took his seat.  And thus it is well written of the colt, that thereon never yet had man sat, for no man before Christ ever called the Gentiles into the Church, which statement thou hast in Mark who saith: Whereon never man sat.

Picture
<<Previous


    archbishop lefebvre
    Click to see more

    Enter your email address for daily posts:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Archives

    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013

    Categories

    All
    Apologetics
    Archbishop Lefebvre
    Bishop Williamson
    Blessed Sacrament
    Catechism
    Catholic History
    Chalk Talks
    Chastisement
    Devotions
    Easter
    Eleison Comments
    Eleison Comments
    Eleison Comments Italian
    Encyclicals
    Espanol Eleison Comments
    Families
    Fatima
    Feast Days
    For Fathers (Dads)
    For Moms
    Fortitude
    Holy Ghost
    Holy Name
    Holy Souls
    Holy Week
    Home Schooling
    Lent
    Liberalism
    Litanies
    Liturgy
    Marriage
    Martyrology
    Martyrs
    Mass
    Meditations Of Abl
    Modesty
    News
    New World Order
    Obedience
    Our Lady
    Our Lady Of Quito
    Our Lord
    Pentecost
    Pioneer Priests
    Prayers
    Sacramentals
    Sacraments
    Sacred Heart
    Saint Of The Day
    Saints For April
    Saints For August
    Saints For December
    Saints For February
    Saints For January
    Saints For July
    Saints For June
    Saints For March
    Saints For May
    Saints For November
    Saints For October
    Saints For September
    Scandal
    Scapular
    Sermons
    Sspx
    St Benedict
    St Joseph
    St Michael
    St Michael
    Sundays Of The Year
    Temptations
    The Church
    The Last Things
    The Mass
    The Pope
    The Rosary
    The Saints
    The Virtues
    Tradcat Comments
    Truth Society

    Picture
    Click to see inside the store
    Picture
    k d
    Counter Site
    While Archbishop Lefebvre Blog is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below

    Archbishop Lefebvre

    Promote Your Page Too
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.