Thursday 16 December 2010

Interesting new blog

Those of you who are interested in things liturgical (and who isn't?) should have a look at this new blog:

Regarding the use of the 1962 liturgical books the Pimpernel and I are of one mind:
"Our first response ought to be one of obedience, a traditional hallmark of Catholics to the rulings of competent authority in all things but sin. We may like the third confiteor or folded chasubles and the broad stole, and even rightly argue that they are elements of the Tradition which should not be lost, but it is not a matter of sin not to use them."
Among those availing themselves of the Holy Father's generosity in Summorum Pontificum it is not unusual to find many who have inserted elements from previous Missals. A priest friend once had a server who insisted on making the third confiteor, only slighty sotto voce, even though none of the other servers were saying it and the absolution was not being given!

I've added this site to the blogbar on the right in order that new entries will be flagged. I for one look forward to reading the musings of the Liturgical Pimpernel. Ad Multos Annos!


The Liturgical Pimpernel said...

Jolly decent of you, Reverend Sir! Glad to reciprocate.

GOR said...

Yes, I have been bothered for some time by the proliferation of self-styled ‘liturgical experts’ who seem at pains to out-do one another with their knowledge of the minutiae of liturgical development throughout the history of the Church. It smacks a little of a Pharasaic ‘broadening of phylacteries’ which Our Lord condemned.

A recurrent theme of the Holy Father’s regarding Holy Mass was the loss of orientation since Vatican II. And he wasn’t just referring to compass points! I see a similar danger in the liturgical wrangling over ‘1962’, ‘1955’ assorted Popes, the Council of Trent and so on ad nauseum.

There is an element of elitism here which I have also noted among some adherents of the EF – a sort of ‘we are the true believers’ and extra nos, nulla salus. Of course, this is not new and has been around from earliest times in the history of the Church, as St. Paul decried about certain cliques in Corinth awhile back.

If those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its errors, then some must be guilty of ignoring history while purporting to be ‘historical’. It is reminiscent of scholastic arguments about the spatial properties of angels, which might be good fun in an academic setting but contributes little to piety or the greater glory of God.

The Apostles marveled at Our Lord’s ability to pray and asked Him to teach them how to do the same. His response was not a long disquisition on comportment, external gestures or physical orientation. It was the Our Father - and it was meant to come from the heart and not be submerged in extrinsic niceties.

As we learned in our catechisms, the essential parts of the Mass are three: the Offertory, the Consecration and Holy Communion. Once those are performed validly and licitly we have the Sacrifice of the Mass. How we get there is not unimportant, but in the final analysis it is secondary to the essence of what has been handed down to us.

Rubricarius said...


I really cannot see much difference between the server you mention saying the Confiteor and the ministers making bows to the Cross at the introit and collects (and no doubt elsewhere) at the High Mass celebration that was the subject of your first post.

If people want to follow the 1962 rubrics why don't they simply follow them rather than inserting practices from previous editions of the liturgical books? I cannot quite see the point of criticising others for 'mix and match' with regard to rubrics if you then disregard the 1962MR on certain points. Of course I couldn't work out if you were one of the ministers but the point remains.

Chloe said...

Appropos of nothing ~Father, have you seen this comment by Misericordia on Holy Smoke?