Deacons

Looking at the photos from the Latin Mass Society Conference at Downside, someone asked me if the sub-deacon had been here at St Catherine’s. Indeed he had. He is the Revd Matthew McCarthy and was ordained deacon for the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter during the first ordinations conferred in the new chapel at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary on 6 March 2010. (The Chapel was consecrated only three days earlier). Six seminarians were ordained to the diaconate, four seminarians of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and two of the Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Wyoming. The ordaining Bishop was Most Revd Arthur J. Serratelli, Bishop of Paterson, New Jersey. Matthew was the Deacon for the Solemn Mass celebrated here on 6th July. (I've added a video of the Introit below).

Rev. Matthew McCarthy (reverencing Bishop Sarratelli) in

Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary Chapel, Nebraska.

The sub-deacon that day was the Revd Damian McCaughan, who was ordained deacon for the Diocese of Down and Connor in the Holy Father’s Cathedral, the Basilica of St John Lateran, on Easter Monday, April 5th 2010. The ordaining Bishop was Most Revd William Walsh, Bishop of Killaloe, conducting ordinations for the Pontifical Irish College students.

Rev. Damian McCaughan (to the left of Bp Walsh) in St John Lateran, Rome.

Both of these fine men are, God-willing, coming back next year to celebrate a “first” Mass here at St Catherine’s. Please keep them in your prayers.

The Eucharist, the whole Eucharist and nothing but the Eucharist.

Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum!

I’m prompted to write this following a comment on the last post (please have a look at it, rather than me restating it here). Thanks to Gregory for his succinct presentation of the story. The concern is that, in an effort to encourage people to receive the Holy Eucharist under both species a priest appears to have given the impression that those who do not receive from the Chalice are not receiving the fullness of the Sacrament. If so, this is, of course, a condemned heresy. I might also say that the context in which it arose is also a little disturbing, in that it’s suggested that the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion administering the Chalice were feeling “slighted” at being “ignored”. It may be that the priest in question found it difficult, as many of us do, to face full-on pressure from parishioners who are heavily involved in the parish and stand their ground but some things must be tackled, no matter what the fall-out. But not knowing the details, no-one else can make too much comment on the circumstances. The teaching of the Church is a different matter! Christ, whole and entire, is received under one species and all the grace necessary for salvation is received in that one species. The General Instruction to the Roman Missal (2003) will suffice to make this perfectly clear:

Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation. (No. 282)

If, especially after encouragement, the option to receive from the Chalice is not taken up and might seem to be causing a division, there is a clear instruction on what to do. Stop it.

The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful ...where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated. [Redemptionis Sacramentum 102]

Redemptionis Sacramentum, directing us to the Second Vatican Council and the Council of Trent, gives a clear understanding of the principles involved:

[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. [Cf. Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXI, 16 July 1562, Decree on Eucharistic Communion, Chapters 1-3: DS 1725-1729; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 55; Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, nn. 282-283.

Whilst there may be reasons for encouraging communion under both species, there may also be good, practical and theological reasons for not doing so. After all, the Council of Trent “induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species”. [Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXI, 16 July 1562, Decree on Eucharistic Communion, Chapter 2.]

No blessings at Communion time!

I have always found it odd to be giving blessings at the altar rail as communion is distributed. It seems to me that everyone receives a blessing very shortly afterwards and that the whole point for those who can't receive is to make them want to! In the case of non-catholics, to become catholics. In the case of those barred for some reason, to encourage them to be reconciled. I've never ignored someone asking for a blessing at the rail but I don't make a fuss of it or encourage it because people have often been told by other priests to come forward in that manner. Of course, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (in those places that have them) should never attempt to give a blessing in a liturgical setting, for that belongs to the priest.

Recently, I had a letter which spoke of my perceived reluctance to bestow blessings at communion time, so I set about the task of looking up the relevant documents. Having been told in the past, by those in authority, that "Rome knows all about such things" and encouraged to go with the flow and do what most others do, I was delighted to find a clear statement from the Congregation of Divine Worship from as recently as 2008.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship (Protocol No. 930/08/L), dated November 22, 2008, and signed by Fr Anthony Ward, SM, Under-secretary of the Congregation stated the following:

“this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations”:

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. ‘97), art. 6, §2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin)”.

So it would seem clear that the giving of blessings at Communion time to anyone, for any reason is not permissible. This is not a matter of personal preference, but of obedience to Holy Church. What seems strange is that no-one seems to know of this - and many other rulings - that come from the various Roman Congregations. So much comes from the diocesan offices for this and that at a local level but documents from Rome (on topics great and small) seem to get very little publicity.

A great many little habits seem to be accruing to the liturgy in these days: "something nice I saw at a Methodist service", "a lovely thing we did at children's camp". I even know somewhere that is still doing that 1970's thing of bringing up stones to the altar during Lent to represent our sins - all so very nice if you like that sort of thing but, please, not inserted into the Mass! (We have a perfectly good, Church-mandated and biblically based symbol for sin in Lent - the imposition of ashes).

The Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, aimed to 'reform' the sacred Mysteries by removing 'unnecessary repetition' and 'accretions' - lamenting "the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy" (SC 21).

Fr. Joseph Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite, 3 vols., Christian Classics, 1950, 1986), shows that from the time of the earliest known Roman sacramentaries (5th and 6th century) the Roman Rite had absorbed customs from other local Churches (e.g. Gaul), as well as developed it's own, an evolution that ended with Pius V and Trent. What had once been "novelties" when first adopted at Rome became fixed parts of the "immemorial Mass". The only constant being the authority of the Apostolic See to permit, order and even to impose them or abolish them.

Priests (well, at least me) are often faced with the claim that “these things happen at other Churches”. Our reply must be that such things should be addressed to the competent authorities, since no-one "even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority". (SC 22.3). Would that such things were more widely publicised by our diocesan liturgy offices. (Month by month I scour their literature for a chant workshop or how to offer Mass in the Extraordinary Form - hope springs eternal). Doesn't it say somewhere that every priest is responsible for the Sacred Liturgy in his Parish which he is“bound to watch over so that no abuses creep in” - yes it does, Canon 528 §2.

Requiem Mass for Fr Dan Cadogan

In march of this year a Solemn Requiem Mass was offered for the repose of the soul of Fr Dan Cadogan, a much-loved priest who regularly offered the Holy Sacrifice in the usus antiquior.

My friend John Beaumont, who served the Requiem Mass, wrote an article about Fr Cadogan which he hoped to have published in Mass of Ages, the LMS magazine. However, time has passed and it seems unlikely that it will now be published, so I am posting it here.

(I apologise for the quality of the photographs - they were taken with my granny's old Box Brownie!)

A SOLEMN REQUIEM:

Fr. Daniel Cadogan and the Timoleague Chalice

by

John Beaumont

There can be no doubt that during the years since the Second Vatican Council the view has been expressed until lately (and even now) that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is somewhat passé. The great hope was believed to be the new Ordo Missae, which would lead to what might be described as a new liturgical Pentecost. We know now, to our cost, that it didn’t happen. I would suggest that it was all a bit naïve anyway to think that it would. And it was certainly arrogant to think that the other and older form of Mass, which had nourished so many Saints down the ages, was by implication inferior.

Thoughts of this kind are inevitable to one like myself who has just completed a book relating the story of almost all the notable converts produced in Britain and Ireland since the Reformation. The great majority of these people knew only the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Of course, some of these converts tragically lapsed in their faith after their conversion. The names of the political activist. Douglas Hyde, and that of the poet, Kathleen Raine, come to mind in this context. But huge numbers of these converts loved the old rite and were consoled and enraptured by its spirituality. Some of them even wrote about these things. For example, here is Mgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s account in his novel By What Authority of a Mass celebrated in the troubled Elizabethan times:

Then [the priest] began the preparation with the servant who knelt beside him in his ordinary livery, as server; and Isabel heard the murmur of the Latin words for the first time. Then he stepped up to the altar, bent slowly and kissed it and the mass began. Isabel had a missal, lent to her by Mistress Margaret; but she hardly looked at it; so intent was she on that crimson figure and his strange movements and his low broken voice. It was unlike anything that she had ever imagined worship to be. Public worship to her had meant hitherto one of two things – either sitting under a minister and having the word applied to her soul in the sacrament of the pulpit; or else the saying of prayers by the minister aloud and distinctly and with expression, so that the intellect could follow the words, and assent with a hearty Amen. The minister was a minister to man of the Word of God, an interpreter of His gospel to man.

But here was a worship unlike all this in almost every detail. The priest was addressing God, not man; therefore he did so in a low voice, and in a tongue as Campion had said on the scaffold “that they both understood.” It was comparatively unimportant whether man followed it word for word, for (and here the second radical difference lay) the point of the worship for the people lay, not in an intellectual apprehension of the words, but in a voluntary assent to and participation in the supreme act to which the words were indeed necessary but subordinate. It was the thing that was done; not the words that were said, that was mighty with God. Here, as these Catholics round Isabel at any rate understood it, and as she too began to perceive it too, though dimly and obscurely, was the sublime mystery of the Cross presented to God.

The present writer finds it easy to be moved by such accounts, as he is by such accounts as that of Mgr. Ronald Knox in his The Mass in Slow Motion and that given by Cardinal Newman in his novel Loss and Gain. Then again there are those sterling articles and letters to the press written by Evelyn Waugh during the Council, where he warned the authorities of the real risk they would be taking if they jettisoned this form of the Mass. What he feared duly came to pass.

Thankfully, and probably due in a major part to the prayers of these converts (and, of course, those of loyal cradle Catholics) things have begun to change. When attending Mass in the Extraordinary Form one no longer feels as if one is practicing the faith in secret, as did those characters in Benson’s novel. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has been liberated. A wonderful example of this liberation could be seen in the Archdiocese of Liverpool on 17th March 2010, the Feast of St. Patrick. The Mass in question was, to give it its formal title, “a Solemn Requiem celebrated on hearing news of the death of a priest.” The priest in question was Father Daniel Cahill Cadogan. For many years a priest in the Archdiocese. Fr. Cadogan was born in Cork City, Ireland, on 10th July 1922. After his early education at St. Colman’s College, Fermoy, Co. Cork, his ecclesiastical studies were undertaken at St. Kieran’s Seminary, Kilkenny. He was ordained to the priesthood at St. Mary’s Cathedral, Kilkenny, on 9th June 1946.

After his ordination Fr. Cadogan spent some time as a curate in the Clifton Diocese. In 1950, however, he was incardinated into the Archdiocese of Liverpool. During his fifty years of active ministry he faithfully served nine parishes. On his retirement from active parish life in 1997 Fr. Cadogan lived at St. Joseph’s, Upholland, and then at Ince Blundell Hall, where he was chaplain to the religious community there for several years. Even in retirement he continued to play an active part in the life of the Archdiocese.

As a result of his wide experience Fr. Cadogan came to the conclusion that the last fifty years in the Church had seen a great loss of Catholic identity. Having lived through the Council and its aftermath, he acknowledged that much of what had been discarded had done a great disservice to the Church. The week after his retirement he said Mass in the Extraordinary Form at St. Mary’s, Highfield Street, Liverpool. He continued to help out on the weekly rota of priests willing to celebrate the Indult Mass, as it was known until the promulgation of the Pope’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, in 2007. It is not surprising that he welcomed the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the Chair of St. Peter in 2005. Fr. Cadogan was indeed happy to be classed as a follower of the “hermeneutic of continuity” as opposed to the group seeking a “hermeneutic of rupture” that is so commonplace in the Church today.

Fr. Cadogan spent his final days at Ince Blundell. It is apt, in view of his great devotion to Our Blessed Lady, that he died on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, 11th February 2010. He was buried at the historic Franciscan Friary, Pantasaph, Holywell, Flintshire.

And so to the Solemn Requiem in the Extraordinary Form. This was celebrated in the church of St. Catherine Labouré at Farington, near Leyland, in Lancashire. The chief celebrant was Fr. Simon Henry, the parish priest, and there were deacon and sub-deacon. The Mass was most impressive, the exquisite black vestments standing out and the choir contributing beautifully. A sizeable congregation attended the Mass in a church, which, though fairly modern in design, has now been tastefully set up for ad orientem celebration and thankfully has the tabernacle back in its place of prominence in the centre of the back wall of the building.

Interestingly, in the light of this exercise in Catholic tradition, there is also another link with our Catholic heritage. The Cadogan family is of a seafaring background and has a long historic connection with Cape Clear Island. History records that, following the destruction of the Timoleague Friary in 1642, the sole surviving escaping friar was rescued from the high seas by Cape Clear fishermen and nursed back to health in the Cadogan household. The friar had with him a box which he entrusted to the Cadogan family, to keep unopened, until his return. The box, its contents unknown, was kept safe in an alcove above the fireplace in the Cadogan household for over two hundred years until it was opened in 1851 by the then parish priest – revealing vestments (which crumbled) and the Timoleague chalice (in perfect condition). Accordingly, the chalice was returned to Timoleague parish where it has remained, excluding very rare occasions, such as Fr. Cadogan’s Golden Jubilee, when he was granted permission to take the Timoleague treasure back to Cape Clear Island to celebrate an open-air Mass – a remarkable honour bestowed on a member of the family known as “The Cadogans of the Chalice”.

A regular extraordinary form Mass is said at St. Catherine’s holy days of obligation and on every Saturday, and it is hoped that this facility can be extended. Certainly there can be no doubt that we can rely on the prayers of Fr. Cadogan for that intention and those of the friars associated for so many years with the Timoleague chalice.

John Beaumont is the author of Roads to Rome: A Guide to Notable Converts from Britain and Ireland from the Reformation to the Present Day, published on June 2010 by St. Augustine’s Press (see www.staugustine.net).

Sunday Mass in the Traditional Form

Starting this coming Sunday, the Feast of the Assumption, we are going to be able to offer Mass in the Traditional form of the Roman Rite at 11.30am each Sunday. It will just be Low Mass and we will see how it goes.

Mass in Latin and facing East

Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy) meant Mass ad orientem and in Latin says Archbishop Koch in an interview granted by the new President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Archbishop Kurt Koch, to Gaudium Press. It's good to know that even in our little parish here in Lancashire our thinking on how to celebrate the liturgy with prayer and dignity is in tune with those being newly appointed to important posts at the heart of the Church. Explaining the theology behind our move to "ad orientem" worship has not always been easy when this orthodox and much praised ancient practice is so little in evidence in the local church here in the U.K. Thanks to Rorate Caeli for the link.

Gaudium Press - These two views [of the Church as People of God and as Mystery] also influence one's position on the liturgy. How should the liturgy be understood today?
All those things that some people say that was new after the Second Vatican Council were not a theme of the Constitution on the Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium]. For instance, celebrating the Eucharist facing the faithful was never an object of Tradition. The Tradition had always meant celebrating facing East, because that was the position of the resurrection. In Saint Peter's Basilica, the celebration took place facing the people for a long time because that was the direction facing East. The second thing was the vernacular language. The Council wished that Latin remain the language of the liturgy.
Yet all those very deep, fundamental, things of the liturgical Constitution, are still ignored by many. For instance, the entire liturgy and the Paschal liturgy. The Easter of mystery, of death, and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One cannot celebrate the Paschal [mystery] without sacrifice, and that is the theme that is mentioned in theology. Because the Constitution on Revelation [Dei Verbum] is not yet known in the Church either. We still have much to do in order to receive the Council.
Gaudium Press / Anna Artymiak

Feast of St John Vianney

Happy Feast day to all my priest friends. Please pray for your priests today, especailly those who might be struggling in some way:

O Almighty, Eternal God,

look upon the Face of your Son and for love of him,

who is the Eternal High Priest, have pity on your priests.

Remember, O most compassionate God,

that they are but weak and frail human beings.

Stir up in them the grace of their vocation

which is in them by the imposition of the bishop's hands.

Keep them close to you, lest the enemy prevails against them,

so that they may never do anything in the slightest degree unworthy of their sublime vocation.

Amen.