Cardinal Heenan and the Hail Mary

My bishop recently stated that it is abuse to include the Hail Mary in the General Intercessions and he is right of course, it doesn't occur in the Traditional Mass (it happens in the Leonine "devotions" after Low Mass) and it shouldn't really be there in the Mass of Paul VI. The problem is that if it is not recited at Mass this important part of our Tradition will be lost. I have met recently received Catholics and children too, from dioceses, unlike mine, where bishops and priests have been rigorous in banning it from Mass, who don't know it, which presumably means they have no sense of Marian devotion devotion whatsoever! I find that deeply disturbing.

 Apparently, Cardinal Heenan asked Pope Paul VI permission to include it in the Intercessions, here In England and Wales, in Mary's Dowry, apparently the Pope agreed and "models" published for the General Intercessions in England and Wales in the 1970s/80s it was always included. I must say I have never seen any "official" notification of such a permission but in those heady days Paul VI seems to have granted permission for a lot of things that were never put on paper, for example: demanding Mass should be celebrated facing the people!

It is interesting that for the Papal Liturgies during the Pope's visit here those preparing the liturgy had felt, apparently,  confident enough about it to include the Hail Mary in the drafts but the Office of Papal Liturgies had removed it, presumably, because though a custom might be acceptable, even laudable in one particular country or region, if it is not "Roman" it is wrong for it to be celebrated and publicly accepted by the Bishop of Rome especially in a liturgy that will be seen outside of the region by an international audience.

Cardinal Heenan seems to have been quite wise old bird, he managed to ensure that in England and Wales, alone in the entire Church it was possible to celebrate the Traditional Mass licitly in public. He managed to ensure that in his own cathedral at least he managed to preserve something of Catholic Traditional music, and was willing not only to allow but quietly to encourage a rather rigorous and traditional interpretation of the Missal, whilst in those heady days of chaos and confusion after the Council kept liberals onside.
I cannot help thinking his intervention over the Hail Mary which was dressed up in terms of the great devotion of the English for Our Lady, was simply a recognition it was on the wane and if it was removed from public use there no devotion to Our Lady in England.

Recently the Pope stressed the importance of Mary's role at an academic conference on Our Lady in Rome, the conference itself sadly noted the loss of Marian devotion in the last fifty years. It seems what Heenan feared for England has been realised elsewhere in the world.

A loss of Marian devotion is seriously damaging to and diminishes our Christology, therefore our devotion to and worship of Christ, our understanding of the Eucharist, of the Church.

Addendum
May be a Canon Lawyer can answer this:-

+ Is this a legitimate custom in E&W?
+ Is it a legitimate custom elsewhere?

+ In what sense are the General Intercessions part of the Liturgy, there is no authorised text, only "models". 
+ At what point does deviation from the model actually become an "abuse".

Read More

On the list

I hate those competitions where bloggers have to get people to vote for them in order to get an award to stick up on your side bar, it is all a little vulgar but I was pleased to appear on this list of priest bloggers, along with some friends like Fr Tim Finigan, Fr Simon Henry, Fr Michael Brown and il bloggero ultissimo Fr Z. There are also  a couple of priest's blogs I haven't seen before.

I tend not to trawl the net looking for priest's blogs, if you have some favourites let me know about them in combox.

Read More

Isn't this ghastly!

I was looking for something for the feast of The Most Holy Name of Mary, and I came across this, I think it is the Sistine Choir.
Poor Pope! I bet he would prefer the "music lovers Mass", the one without music.

Read More

The Nuncii

I was chatting to a couple of Irish friends yesterday, both rather spontaneously said in the words of the second, "Charlie Brown: he's doing good!" He meant His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland, Archbishop Charles Brown. The first pointed out that he has been getting in touch with ordinary people, going to Croagh Patrick to preach and offer Mass, going to Youth 2000 meetings, appearing parishes, ordaining priests in bishopless dioceses. He's getting to meet ordinary Catholics, rather than just being in touch with the Diplomatic Corps and the Bishops. It is boosting his personal credibility, it also gives ordinary people the opportunity to discuss the future of the Irish clergy. It is good to hear something positive about a bishop coming from Ireland.

Our own Nuncio too seems to be getting about a bit too, this summer he has been to the Faith Conference, Evangelium Conference, he has been a great champion of the Ordinariate and I understand wanted to come to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. It seems that the only place he won't go to is the Soho Masses and maybe Ma won't invite him to deliver the Tablet lecture either (have you seen this new disgraceful blog, Fr Xylophone, really! and Mrs Popehater, well!).
One of the things both seem to be interested in, is hearing about potential Bishops who are outside of the normal circle who are committed to Evangelisation, ours even has  his email address is even available.

A good Nuncio can turn a local Church around. it has happened in the States and Australia, I have a good hope it will happen in Ireland and here - let's pray for them both.

Read More

Was Vatican I a Council of rupture?

There is lots of talk about the Spirit of Vatican II,  Fr Henry has "fisked" an interesting interview with the wise Cardinal Piacenza, stating the constant message of this Papacy, "Vatican II was not a Council of rupture".

I have a Greek bishop friend, who teaches theology and is a theological advisor to the Patriarch of Constantinople. I am not sure that much that VII says really interests him, his big problem is Vatican I and what it says about the role of the Pope and the nature of Papal Infallibility. That is the sticking point for any hope of re-union with the East, in the past when I have talked about the possibility of re-union with him, his answer is really "It is impossible", because of Vatican I.

It is interesting that on the Orthodox side there seems to have been developments, though any Orthodox worth his salt would hate that word, so let us speak of a "deepening understanding or of questioning" of the role of "Patriarchates" and their relationships with one another, really because of the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Synod, which may or may not happen. One of the issues that is on the agenda is the ranking of the Moscow Patriarchate in relation to those of Apostolic origin and especially Moscow's relationship to Constantinople, Constantinople's relationship to Athens is another matter. Although it will never be discussed publicly the Roman Patriarchate is actually important for Orthodoxy, both in how it sees itself but also in the claim that Orthodoxy would make about us falling into heresy or having gone into schism, yet if  "first Rome has fallen", what about Moscow's claim that it is the third Rome because "Constantinople, the second Rome has fallen". What is meant by "falling"? Why is it the there are several claimants to the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria, and yet there is only one unchallenged claimant to the Roman Patriarchate? What is the relationship of Constantinople to other autocephalous Churches, especially Patriarchal ones.
Another issue not unrelated, is the validity of the sacraments of what Orthodoxy sees as schismatic and heterodox Churches and ecclesial communities. This relates to how distant, how fallen, are Protestant communities and their sacraments? Are they the same as Oriental Orthodox Churches who rejected Chalcedon, and what about the sacraments of those in communion with Rome, not only Latins but also Orientals and Byzantines.
But the big problem for Orthodox as far as Rome is concerned are the claims, perhaps perceived claims, "the Spirit of" Vatican I, they at least symbolise the rift.

For Catholics there seems to be a blurring of Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. The teaching on artificial birth control and the impossibility of female ordination to the priesthood (and episcopate) are increasingly put forward as "Infallible" teachings, but not so much because they were taught by Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II but because they have "always and everywhere" been taught by the whole Church.
For all the exalted language surrounding Vatican I, and certainly the "Spirit of Vatican I" hype afterwards, nothing that has been declared as "Infallible" since 1870 is new, everything is found in the first of the first millennium, that is before the break between East and West.
For the last thousand years, since the great schism a the theology of Patriarchate has been unimportant in the West but the more Ecumenical dialogue developes and the more we come value the the East, the more "a theology of chairs" becomes important.

Vatican I speaks of the Pope having "universal" authority over the whole Church, and indeed the first title ditched by Benedict XVI was "Patriarch of the West", which for Orthodox was seem a slight modification of "Universal Patriarch" but in practice what does it mean? Does it actually mean anything different in the second and third millennium than it would have meant in the first? Does it mean more than occupying the first chair but in fellowship with, rather than dominance of, other Patriarchs.
Was Vatican I a Council of rupture?

Read More

Three Points about Cardinal Martini

I had an email from an Italian friend about Cardinal Martini, in response to my post on the late Cardinal: huge crowds did attend his "lying in state" and funeral and Corriera della Sera has wept salt tears over him.
My friend pointed out a few things non-Italians forget:

• Against the background of two non-Italian Pope, and in the face an absence of honourable Italian secular leaders, "the patrician" -an important word for many Italians- Martini stood out. He had a natural charisma. My friend pointed out than in the present economic times, when Italy has little role on the world and it seems likely that Italians will not in the future have a firm grip on the Papacy or even necessarily on the Curia, Martini was in a sense the Italian Pope. Italians tended to see Martini as holder of the legacy of John XXIII and Paul VI ( and probably John Paul I) and a spirit of "modernity"
• Milan is a huge Italian diocese, the Milanese are Ambrosian, not Roman Catholics. They have their own Rite, their own calendar, and to some extent their own law. They reflect very much a Northern Italian attitude to the south, for them Rome is "the South", almost Neapolitan, if nor Sicilian! The Milanese, especially the Church, define themselves in contradistinction to the rest of Italian, most especially "Rome", which is seen the source of every sort of political and cultural corruption and vice.
• He also represented many of the post-war Italian Socialistic and Democratic values that have been obscured under leaders such as Berlusconi. He was a strong leader too, absent in the political arena and absent in the Church; the Bertone / Sodano squabble which seems to be at the root of Vatileaks has done great damage to the image of leading Italian clergy, it shows them as week. "Italians" my friend pointed out, "like to think of themselves on the left, even if in practice they can no longer afford it".
• Martini was a popularist!

Read More

Hope which is in you

"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." 1 Peter 3:15
These words have been buzzing around my head, and those nice people at Gloria TV have reproduced my words too, it always sounds different when other people quote you, and a conversation I had with an old Irish man some years ago came back to me. He said he stopped getting up on Sunday mornings, "when I realised Mass was about our community, I didn't think it worth getting up for that", he was talking about the time of the liturgical changes and they had recently knocked down and rebuilt his parish church.
The Mass is not about us, it always has been about Jesus and giving us glimpse of heaven, "and so with Angels and Saints we sing...", it is a vision of the triumph of the Lamb, it is about our ultimate re-orientation, the end of  our earthly pilgrimage. Frankly, some liturgies I have attended speak more about Hell than Heaven. I really do think if we have nothing to say about the world to come, if we do not have answer for those who ask of "that hope which is in you", we have nothing to say, because it we are ultimately hopeless.
When thinking about liturgy we have to ask whether it does point us to heavenly realities, or does it merely say, "this is it, there is nothing more", is it hopeful or hopeless? Does it point to something the mysteries of the Life to come or is it merely about earthly realities.
Buildings music, words, actions, vestments, community life, everything are supposed to deepen "that hope which is in you". Our work as local churches with the sick and the poor, for social justice, they too are supposed to speak of that hope, so too our prayer, our devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the Angels and Saints.
The big question about liturgy and the life of a local church is surely is this worth getting out of bed for, and having done so, does what is happening at the local church offer anything different from the type of experience found in the local pub, or football match, or shopping centre or the other events that are available as an alternative to Sunday Mass? If we only have "community" then this can be found in a so many alternative places today.
One of my parishioners is dying, she is young mother, pray for her, she has deep faith, and therefore hopes: she told me she felt surrounded by love but actually this love comes from her young son, her sister, her extended family, her neighbours, her work colleagues and her carers, it does not really come from fellow parishioners but her faith comes from the Church and her attendance at Mass.
I wouldn't enter into a discussion about which form of the Roman Rite speaks more clearly about the heavenly mysteries, the things we are called to hope in and for but the ars celebrandi should point to these mysteries, in either form. When the Mass merely celebrates us, "the community gathered", when music is about community singing, or is trite and sentimental, when participation is more about action than interiority, when as Joseph Ratzinger says we "form a closed circle" or a "significant absence of silence", then there are problems with the Eternal. The loss of hope in the Church does seem be related to how the liturgy is celebrated when it is done badly it destroys hope.

Read More