Saturday, November 28, 2015


"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants."--Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Roman, March 19, 1965.

But with the advent of the Anglican Ordinariate's new Divine Worship: the Missal, it is clear, very clear that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his ideologies are being stripped from the Mass beginning with Protestants in the Anglican Communion who have come into the Full Communion of their Church and have brought their Catholic ethos in Anglican form to our Mass! This is called Gospel "reversal of values!"

Look at this photo of the prayer after the Our Father in the Anglican Ordinariate Divine Worship, the Missal. What do you see, or I should ask, who do you see?
Saints Peter and Paul have been added back (as in the Extraordinary Form)! Wow! Just Wow!

We can say that we are now seeing the end of the Bugnini nightmare of a liturgy and a Mass that is truly what Sacrosanctum Concilium desired for the Church.Bugnini's contrived Mass is being rejected and the EF Mass, albeit in English and with some reforms is being restored. I am amazed that other liturgical blogs do not see the importance of the new Missal and what it means.

This missal was developed with the assistance of two major Congregations at the Vatican, Divine Worship and For the Doctrine of the Faith. In addition, this Missal was approved by Pope Francis! Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Robert Sarah as Prefect for Divine Worship. Cardinal Sarah has already spoken of a reform of the Ordinary Form and what we see in this new Missal is exactly what he was describing!

Please note what you see in this photo which you would not see in a similar photo of the current Ordinary Form Missal:
I've already pointed out that the Introit is now printed in the Missal as it is in the Extraordinary Form, albeit in English. It is called the Introit, contains the refrain, verse, Gloria Patri and refrain--the EF's way of doing the Introit which is not the way it is present in our Ordinary Form Missal. But more importantly another sign of continuity in this new Missal with the EF's Missal, you will note above, is that the Gradual/Alleuia/Tract is printed on this page (although the actual lesson is not). This clearly shows that these are restored to the Liturgy.  Also note that the Offertory Antiphon is included (not so in our Ordinary Form, it was removed!) It's is back.

Do you notice in this photo yet another restoration?
Yes, you should notice that Passiontide is restored. This means that the last two Sundays of Lent have their names restored. The Sunday before Palm Sunday is Passion Sunday and the Second Sunday in Passiontide is Palm Sunday. This is exactly as it is in the Extraordinary Form!

As I have complained before, though, there are those, now aging and dying, but using their last gasp to return us to the Bugnini ways, not  only in Liturgy (they lost that war with this new Missal) but in other ways too.

The 1960's caricature of bishops is being touted as the best recovery since Bugnini himself. Of course it is to laugh. This is a part of the stripping of the Church of all things Catholic and including not only the Mass but Catholic cultural expressions and what the dying generation would like to see return and remain. But they won't succeed!

Take a read of what another aging cleric longing for the 1970's writes recently:

The Pact of the Catacombs is Still Relevant Today

by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion

On November 16, 1965, near the end of the Second Vatican Council, 42 bishops attending the Council met together in the catacombs of St. Domatilla in Rome, celebrated Mass, and signed a covenant committing themselves to lives of simplicity, frugality, and humility. The document is known as “The Pact of the Catacombs.”

Drawn up anonymously, so as to avoid the appearance of grandstanding on the part of the signatories, the Pact was circulated to all the bishops at the Council, and received about 500 co-signatories (where were the other 1,700 bishops?). It was presented eventually to Pope Paul VI, who received it gratefully.

Here are the more notable “lifestyle” paragraphs of the document:

Regarding housing, food, and means of transportation and everything concerning these things, we will seek to live in accordance with the common average level of our people.
We renounce forever wealth and its appearance, especially in clothing (expensive materials and brilliant colors), and insignia of precious metals (such things should in effect be evangelical).
We refuse to be called in speech or writing by names or titles that signify grandeur and power (Your Eminence, Your Excellency, Monsignor . . .). We prefer to be called by the evangelical name of Father.

In our comportment and social relations, we will avoid everything that can appear to confer privileges, priorities (for example, banquets given or received, special places in religious services).
We will not possess either movable or immobile properties or bank accounts in our names. If it is necessary to possess some property we will place it under the name of our diocese or other social or charitable works.

Wherever it is possible we will place the financial and material administration of our diocese to a commission of competent laymen conscious of their apostolic vocation, given that we should be pastors and apostles rather than administrators.

Item 5 was generally found to be too difficult to actualize fully; and item 6 has been effected, at least in part, in perhaps most dioceses of the world.

Retired Bishop Luigi Bettazzi of Ivrea, Italy, now 92, and the last surviving member of the group of bishops who devised the Pact (the names of all signatories eventually became known), said the commitments were personal and individual, not the start of an organized movement.

Bishop Bettazzi said he was “not as strong as Pope Francis” when it came to housing. (He was told by his vicar general that he had to live in the bishop’s residence, and he did so.) But he tried in most areas to follow the Pact successfully, adding that he did not wear the bishop’s ring that all bishops received from Pope Paul VI at the end of Vatican II because it was “ostentatious.”

Bishop Erwin Krautler, ordinary of the impoverished diocese of Xingu in the Amazon basin, and legendary for his simple lifestyle for 35 years, credits the Pact of the Catacombs for the way he conducted his life and ministry.

The approach of the 50th anniversary of the Pact has led to new interest in it, not least because of the way Pope Francis lives so frugally and simply. Bishop Belazzi commented, “God with his grace gave us a pope like Francis, who without having signed the Pact, already led this kind of life and had experience of a simple church, a poor church, a church very close to the poor.”

The Pact of the Catacombs can today inspire clergy to adopt its spirit in ways that are feasible.

Msgr. Mannion is pastor emeritus of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Salt Lake City. Reprinted by permission of Catholic News Agency.


Ivan said...

If only this was our ordinary form missal.

Gene said...

Rather than turning in his grave, how do you know he isn't turning on a spit over a low flame for a million years?

Servimus Unum Deum said...

Father, I usually deplore the bile and filth of the prideful, and hardened of heart, Radicals who misrepresent traditionalists you allow to comment on this blog (maybe to show how asinine their comments are?), but a broken clock strikes correctly 2x a day. One thing they are correct in saying, is that until a major event like this happens en Masse in the Church's most dominant rite with ordinary Catholics, that is those in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, these little "examples" of true liturgical worship will stay that way, just pandering to little groups of diehards and obstinates, or for cultural needs.

I'm even tempted to think that until we get a pope with the balls to ignore almost all the Churches prelates and priests and about 2/3 of the laity (the poorly catechized,) they will purposely pander to the masses to keep division from happening in the Church, or for those heretical prelates from misleading poor, uneducated sheep from dissenting from the faith when the lead sheperd changes the Novus Ordo again for the better. So no big Liturgical change and no dictating what reverent liturgy and music is for the Masses. The current liturgy stays and let praise and worship music, much taken from non-Catholic artists remain, to keep he Masses happy.

Look, the Anglican missal is awesome. But it just sucks that it is just for a small fraction of a fraction of the populace, and the Rad Trads blew the EF coming back into greater force from crapping on blogs like this and slandering and detracting people on their websites and in person, so most priests and bishops still won't allow the Latin Mass or leave it to mere private study.

Anonymous said...

It is a waste of time going on and on about liturgy. It will not get better it will get worse.

Bishops don't care, priests don't care and the laity most especially, could care less.

We have a pope who is trying his best to officially teach that sacraligeous communions are permitted as well as sacraligeous reception of confession (adulterers going to confession but never mentioning that they are living a life of adultery). It is an attack on the very foundation of the Faith, the sacraments. It's a little late to be worrying about a missal.

The entire Church is a mess like never before in history. And don't go on about the three popes. The Faith was always taught by the Church. What do we have today? A pope basically telling a heretic that it's up to her if she wants to receive communion. The papal preacher praising the Reformation. Bishops and Cardinals publicly teaching that active homosexuality is a good that the Church can learn from. Do you get the point Father.

If cancer in the body is detected early enough there is a chance of curing it. But left alone to spread it's damage is irreparaiable. It's the same with the liturgy. John Paul was elected pope only 8 years after the imposition of the Pauline missal. He the chance to stop abuse, but did he? Did he stop communion in the hand, which by the way was permitted through deceit in the US on the part of bishops like the archbishop of Chicago in 1977. He could have restored communion kneeling he could have stopped the collapse of the Catholic educational system and religious life. But did he. I remember when he came to DC in 1979 and a habitless nun, to his face, demanded woman priests. What did he do about her. Nothing. So now for almost 40 years that nun has been a cause of scandal and god knows how many souls she has lead down the wrong path because of her error. Had John Paul disciplined her then and there it would have a huge effect of reversing the collapse. Could anyone imagine Pope Pius XII sitting there while some nun in lay clothes tells him that the Church has been wrong for 2000 years and it needs to change? It would never have happened.

It's to late to fix things. It's all collapsed. That's not gloom and doom it's called TRUTH. Only Divine Intervention can help at this point. And sadly God has delivered us to our folly. We have the pope we deserve, the bishops we deserve, the priests we deserve and look at the laity. Is there any Faith left? Is there?

Anonymous said...

Dear Father,

Is it necessary to approve the posts of the barking bile?

I mean truly, who the heck is he talking about?


Vox Cantoris said...

I have a good friend who visited his grave. He suitably anointed it whilst no one was watching.

As for the comment from that boy in surplice above, "until we get a pope with what?"

I think you missed that one Father in your comment release.

Rood Screen said...

Why did Paul VI allow one man to control the most important thing in the universe?

Gene said...

I'm surprised that Julian even used the word.

Mark Thomas said...

In fairness to Monsignor Bugnini, it was our Popes, not he, who possessed control of the Roman Liturgy and authorized the radical liturgical reforms that have wrecked the Liturgy.

It was Pope Venerable Pius XII who placed Monsignor Bugnini in position to formulate liturgical reforms. Whatever recommendations that Monsignor Bugnini and the liturgical commission presented to Pope Venerable Pius XII were just that...recommendations.

It was Pope Venerable Pius XII alone who authorized the radical liturgical reforms that had marked his Pontificate. Monsignor Bugnini was powerless to have enacted even one reform of the liturgy.

Pope Saint John XXIII had sent Monsignor Bugnini packing...that was the end of Monsignor Bugnini's lofty status in regard to the liturgical reform...

...but in 1964 A.D., Pope Blessed Paul VI restored Monsignor Bugnini to prominence.

But it was Pope Blessed Paul VI alone who had authorized the radical liturgical reforms of the 1960s and, ultimately, foisted upon us the Novus Ordo.

In 1975 A.D., Pope Blessed Paul VI exiled Monsignor Bugnini to Iran and that was the end of Monsignor Bugnini's work in regard to the liturgical reform.

At every stage, it was our Popes, not Monsignor Bugnini, who authorized radical changes to the Roman Liturgy.

Our Popes gave us the radical liturgical reforms of the 1950s and beyond...who authorized Communion in the hand, altar girls, horrific liturgical translations, and so forth.


Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

When the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1970, with the calendar changes which Paul VI later regretted, it was necessary to redistribute the chants of the Graduale Romanum, and to render in chant those parts of the Ordinary which had hitherto not been sung. The 1974 Graduale did this (a not inconsiderable achievement) and so the Novus Ordo has the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia/Tract, Offertory and Communio as integral to it, albeit as optional; but since the most solemn form of the Novus Ordo is the Solemn Latin version (see Musicam Sacram as to graduated solemnity) it is not a question of 'restoring' these things. They were there from the outset.

Any Catholic in the year 1960 would have accepted the Latin Mass as part of his religious culture. He would have seen it as defining his identity as against the Established Protestant Church of England (especially if he was Irish). He might well attend extra-liturgical services which were mostly in the vernacular but in a hieratic version which the CofE also used.

Within ten years all these assumptions would be swept away. Even the Mass, which was seen as more-or-less immutable, would be changed out of all recognition. A leading English Benedictine said of the liturgy 'we don't give the people what they want, we give them what we think is good for them'.

Did those who in the 1960s eagerly pushed this line, bolstered by historical assumptions which after only 50 years have been shown to be erroneous, have any idea of what they were unleashing? Some did, some didn't. It is a feature of religious people to prefer platitudes to reality.

The situation in 2015 is therefore as follows. We have a normative Latin Rite which can be offered in a babel of vulgar tongues with any number of options and inculturated elements and so is hardly universal. We have the classic Roman Rite as per 1962 which is not an ideal date to finish but will do for now. Throw into the mix is a new Rite which falls between two stools while at the same time incorporates elements which are derived from Protestant liturgies.

Tomorrow is the first Sunday of Advent. I don't have to sing so shall attend the nearest EF Low Mass which is 13 miles away. I know exactly what I'm getting.

James said...

I've tracked down the great man's grave, which appropriately enough seems like a modernist mish-mash of different materials:

Fr Martin Fox said...

Dear Father:

Those who say that "it's too late," and that this new Missal makes no difference, are mistaken. They are right to think that this Missal, like Summorum Pontificum, by itself does not effect dramatic change. Even so, they set powerful forces in motion. Ponderously slow, yes; but powerful. The change will come.

My question: how long before permission is granted for non-Ordinariate priests to use this Missal? Could a Roman parish receive permission to use it? For example, suppose you have a parish that is devoted to the traditional Mass and sacraments, and they wanted to offer an English be "pastoral," doncha know?

What about Roman priests who ask to use it privately? "After all, bishop, I might be called upon to fill in at the Ordinariate parish; I need to be familiar with this usage."

I can readily imagine seminarians wanting to use this Mass, for the same reasons you like it.

I can also imagine, some time in the next two pontificates following this one, permission being given to use some of the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Ordinary Form, as "options" -- such as the prayers of the offertory, or the prayers at the foot of the altar, or the prayer before the final blessing. (The prayers at the foot of the altar could be used right now, I think.) We know that ad orientem is completely licit and proper right now, as are all the old vestments. None of them are forbidden.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. Fox, yes, the cat is out of the bag in terms of a Missal published by the Church and a part of the Latin Rite (although small part) that is definitely "reform in continuity" with the 1962 Missal, albeit it has Anglican options too. This is the wave of the future and it was Pope Francis who approved this Missal.

I've already posted another post on when a regular Latin Rite priest might celebrate using this Missal. I could see expansion of this in the future, but who knows.

For example we have 4 Masses on Sunday. Our 12:10 PM Mass is more traditional in looks as we celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist as orientem and people kneel for Holy Communion at our altar railing. Tomorrow and each last Sunday of the month this Mass is a High EF Mass.

I think it would show a great deal of continuity if I could use this new Missal for the Sundays when the Mass is in English--it would be exactly (at least almost) as an EF Mass but in the vernacular using a "sacral" English which is just as much a part of the EF culture (when using a hand missal) as it is of England. It is a part of our patrimony too!

If a parish can have Spanish Masses, Portuguese and a variety of other language Masses, why in the name of God and all that is holy can't we also have an "old" English Mass with the thee and thous and other peculiarities? We already have it for the Lord's prayer, for God's sake!

Servimus Unum Deum said...

Hello Fr. Fox,

I am interested that you say it does make a difference in the overall scheme. Since your posting is counterpoint to mine, can you elaborate further, as an alter Christus, as well as someone who has positively contributed to the discussion at hand here on Southern Orders? Also, is there anymore they one can do besides the usual advice of "just abandon the Novus Ordo, do what you can in the culture, and divert monies to orthodox or Latin Mass/Anglican/alternative rite sources???"

Looking forward to your Hoky thoughts, pax.

Rood Screen said...

We need to pray for Cardinal Sarah.

TJM said...

The reason I have great hope is that when I observe young priests celebrate Mass they do so with great dignity, many of them chant it, wear more traditional vestments, etc. I could see them very easily becoming comfortable with ad orientem and a larger degree of Latin. They were not witnesses to the shameless,ideologically driven liturgical wars of the 60s and 70s. They actually seem more mature and balanced than the crew in their 60-80s still pining for the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s, Although Pope Francis is not a liturgical maven, I prefer the way he celebrates Mass than the Barnum and Bailey specials put on during the John Paul II pontificate.

John Nolan said...

The texts for the Entrance and Communion antiphons as printed in the OF Missal are not supposed to be sung; they are to be recited by the congregation and/or the priest if no singing is in progress. The EF Missal contains all the chants since the celebrant is required to read them even if they are also sung. The OF interlectionary chants are designed to be sung and are taken from either the Lectionary or the Graduale; since the celebrant is not required to recite them they are not in the Missal. The same applies to the Offertory chant; it wasn't dropped (see GIRM 74 and 37b) but can be found in the Graduale.

Why does the Ordinariate Missal print the Gradual, Alleluia/Tract and Offertory? Is the celebrant supposed to recite them in a Low Mass? Does it suggest that these are the preferred options in a Sung Mass (rather than the Lectionary items)? Or is it to remind the schola which of the Graduale chants they are to sing? If they are using the 1974 Graduale they will need to use the index to locate them.

Anonymous said...

The only time I feel as if I am in a Catholic church at all is when I am able to attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Because by and large, the absolute vast majority who attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass in my Diocese are talking, eating, playing with mobile phones, jigging about, not very attentive at Mass at all. The OF Mass is largely offered according to the rubrics - although the music in many parishes leaves a lot to be desire is offered - and we have some excellent young orthodox priests but the congregations leave a lot to be desired. Having not been catechised for over 50 years most see it like attending a concert really, but I think they would be more attentive at a concert.

So, no, under these circumstances I can't see the Anglican Ordinariate or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass making a large difference to the bulk of Catholics. They are basically not interested.

For those of us who do care, the only option is to try to find an Extraordinary Form Mass or the Anglican Ordinariate. Even to travel distances is worth it I find.

I must say the Korean Masses, Samoan Masses in the Ordinary Form I have attended are the exception where the people are attentive and reverent and dress modestly and don't wear beach attire.

Fr Martin Fox said...


I apologize, but I'm not sure what your question is. Can you restate it, please?

Gene said...

Plus, I am interested in hearing your hoky answer, Fr. LOL!