Following "The Liturgical Year" with Dom Prosper Guéranger: RORATE SUNDAY

Thankful greetings to all who have sent their congratulations to this page on its 10th anniversary. The blog was founded precisely on Rorate Sunday, and named after its magnificently beautiful Introit.

Dom Guéranger will be our guide to this fourth and last Sunday in Advent: the Lord is near.

***

THE FOURTH SUNDAY IN ADVENT
by Dom Prosper Guéranger

We have now entered into the week which immediately precedes the birth of the Messias. That long-desired coming might be even tomorrow; and at furthest, that is, when Advent is as long as it can be, the beautiful feast is only seven days from us. So that the Church now counts the hours; she watches day and night, and since December 17 her Offices have assumed an unusual solemnity. At Lauds, she varies the antiphons each day; and at Vespers, in order to express the impatience of her desires for her Jesus, she makes use of the most vehement exclamations to the Messias, in which she each day gives Him a magnificent title, borrowed from the language of the prophets.

The Essential Book Suggestion: "The Liturgical Year"

Centennial of Dom Delatte's Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict I - Saint Benedict was above all a man of Tradition

Solesmes Abbey, France

Dom Paul Delatte, a diocesan priest who, later in life, joined St. Peter's Abbey, in Solesmes (historically, on the border between the Maine and the Anjou, now at Sarthe, Pays de la Loire, France), and, not long after his perpetual vows, was elected third Abbot of Solesmes in 1890, wrote many of the fundamental works on Benedictine life in the modern age. He suffered greatly in his years as successor to Dom Guéranger, certainly due to the intense persecution unleashed by the government of the Third French Republic, that forced the religious of France from outside their own houses (the monks of Solesmes had lived in various houses in the city outside their abbey since 1880) and finally into exile for not adapting to atrocious anticlerical association rules established in 1901.

But, and this is less well-known, Dom Delatte suffered even more from the intense internal persecution by some of his monks, who again and again denounced him (and also his great friend Mother Cécile Bruyère, first Abbess of St. Cecilia's, Solesmes) to the Apostolic See, causing him all kinds of trials, until his request for resignation (not his first) was finally accepted by the Holy See in 1921. Much of this is detailed in the French edition of a selection of his letters, "Lettres", published by Solesmes

Among his many great writings, probably none is as influential as his Commentary to the Rule of Saint Benedict, first published 100 years ago, in September 1913. The full text is available in its French text here, and in English here (translated by Dom Justin McCann, of Ampleforth Abbey). Various reasons prevented us from celebrating its publication in the exact centennial date, but since we are still in its centennial year, we are quite happy to post excerpts of the English translation for the edification of our readers. If you wish to help the work of Our Lady of Clear Creek Abbey, you may also buy a print version from their website here.

INTRODUCTION

"THE man of God, Benedict, among the many wonderful works that made him famous in this world, was also conspicuous for his teaching: for he wrote a Rule for monks, remarkable for discretion and rich in instruction. If anyone desires to know more deeply the life and character of the man, he may find in the ordinances of that Rule the exact image of his whole government: for the holy man cannot possibly have taught otherwise than as he lived." To this judgement of St. Gregory the Great, so complete for all its grace of form and sobriety of language, we may yet add two observations: first that the moral beauty of St. Benedict, his temperament and almost his characteristics, are reflected also in the pages, at once candid and profound, of his biographer; secondly, that the Rule itself came, in the middle of the sixth century, as the ripe fruit of a considerable monastic past and of the spiritual teaching of the Fathers.

St. Benedict was above all else a man of tradition. He was not the enthusiastic creator of an entirely new form of the religious life: neither nature nor grace disposed him to such a course. As may be seen from the last chapter of his Rule, he cared nothing for a reputation of originality, or for the glory of being a pioneer. He did not write till late, till he was on the threshold of eternity, after study and perhaps after experience of the principal monastic codes. Nearly every sentence reveals almost a fixed determination to base his ideas on those of the ancients, or at least to use their language and appropriate their terms.

But even though the Rule were nothing but an intelligent compilation, even though it were merely put together with the study and spiritual insight of St. Benedict, with the spirit of orderliness, moderation, and lucidity of this Roman of old patrician stock, it would not for all that be a commonplace work: in actual fact, it stands as the complete and finished expression of the monastic ideal. Who can measure the extraordinary influence that these few pages have exercised, during fourteen centuries, over the general development of the Western world? Yet St. Benedict thought only of God and of souls desirous to go to God; in the tranquil simplicity of his faith he purposed only to establish a school of the Lord s service: Dominici schola servitii. But, just because of this singleminded pursuit of the one thing necessary, God has blessed the Rule of Monks with singular fruitfulness, and St. Benedict has taken his place in the line of the great patriarchs.

We may almost say of the Benedictine Rule what is certainly true of the Law of God that it bears in itself its own justification, that it is self-sufficient; "the judgements of the Lord are true, justified in themselves," and that it only needs to be read and loved and lived. ... Perhaps the publication of these notes will satisfy, in some measure, the interest of the many Christian souls who ask us every day for enlightenment on the mode of life, spirituality, and real usefulness of monks.

...

The primary purpose of these studies is neither curiosity nor historical knowledge: our concern is with the soul and with the supernatural life. By constant communing with the master thought of St. Benedict and with the minds of his best disciples, will the sons of D. Guéranger be able to keep alive among them the true spirit of monasticism.

The Authentic Rite, Education, and Conversion - and our tasks for the future

Editorial: Radicati nella fede, May 2014

Newsletter of the Catholic community of

Domodossola and Vocogno, Diocese of Novara, Italy

There is nothing which is merely outside ourselves that can guarantee the renewal of the Church or the rebirth of Christian life.

When we talk of the crisis of the faith in modern times, when we desire the re- flowering of Christian life for our people, we must be very much aware that it is not possible to put our faith in any guaranteed automatism of something that happens outside of ourselves: the rebirth will always begin with our being born again through the grace of God. Yes, it is in personal conversion that we must hope for the re-flowering of the Church.

The idea of spreading Christianity to the sound of reforms started precisely from an error in perspective. We believe that this was the error of the conciliar years. We shall try to explain.

Was there need for a renewal in the Christian life in the ‘50s and ‘60s? Certainly there was. Was there need for greater truth in priestly life, in convents, in lay associations, in Catholic schools, in families? We have no difficulty in admitting it: a certain formalism was placing the life of faith in danger…there was need for authentic freshness.

However, it was a grave mistake to imagine that authentic freshness in the Christian life was to be found in an entire series of reforms, which radically changed, if not distorted, the face of the Church. A renewal did not come out of these, nor a springtime but a long autumn which has [now] brought wintertime to the faith, a winter which has killed the life of grace in our countries and lands of historic Christianity.

We started changing everything, modernizing the Mass and with it, all the other aspects of Catholic life, thinking that this would stop the flight from the churches, with the result, which is there for everyone to see, that the churches ended up being emptied; the people who stayed and attend them, are certainly not more authentically Catholic than the people of the past.

A striking example is precisely the reform of the Mass: they changed it to render it less difficult and less heavy for people. Did a renewal come about? No, it didn’t: instead, an impoverishment [came about] and an ambiguous emptying of content: it is as if the “skeletal” new rite of the Mass no longer educated, creating space for all our little and big heresies.

The way to go was another: that of working fervently every day in the education of souls to live the Mass and [helping] them to understand its inestimable worth and immeasurable beauty. Intelligent, fervent priests were needed, able in prayer, study and sacrifice; deeply motivated souls were needed. Instead we confided in the deceptive way of an external reform which facilitated the rites for priests and the faithful…under the illusion that by fixing exterior things, souls would convert. And everything collapsed into a dreadful impoverishment: the Mass was banalised to run after the faithful who had lost their fervor, and reduced almost to a rite worthy of a merely natural religion.

Instead what the Church needed was holiness, and holiness is born from personal conversion.

The rite does not have to be changed, our heart instead does. The rite must be the stable rock upon which we lay our entire life. It is for this reason that we returned to Tradition, it is for this reason that we preserve the “Mass of Ages”. The rite must preserve the true faith and true Catholic prayer. It must place us in the correct position before God; it is only thus that grace will be able to work our conversion.

Saints, passionate for the work of God, are the ones who renew the Church and Christian life and not human games of continuous changes.

The one who wants continuous change is simply a bored man; and with bored men in search of exterior novelties, even religious, a Church of holiness is not built.

The true liturgical movement, meaning the one of Gueranger and Pius X, was done to favour authenticity in prayer by priests and faithful. It was done for souls to be immersed in the Holy Liturgy, truly praying with the Church so that this would give birth to a more authentic, intelligent Christian life. Instead in the liturgical movement there was an operation of betrayal, carried out by those who thought that facilitating was the equivalent of aiding prayer: it was not to be, as anyone with eyes can see the disaster… Christians rarely know how to pray nowadays.

There is nothing external that can substitute our conversion to sincere personal devotion, to an authentic love for Christ. Our conversion, however, worked through grace, will spring from the prayer of the Church which Tradition has given us and which is the prayer of Christ Himself.

So it is necessary also for us that:

1) there is a return to correct liturgy according to tradition, so that the treasure which is “prayed revelation” is not lost;

2) that priests and the faithful motivated intelligently, become authentic missionaries and teachers of prayer according to the heart of the Church. If the second point did not apply to us then we would fall into the same tragic error of the Council reformers who believed that it was enough to go back to something exterior (perhaps even the Old Mass) for life to be revived.

May Our Lady assist us in being faithful to our task.

[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. Image by Gonzague Bridault, Mass on the 800th anniversary of the birth of St Louis, Apr. 25, 2014, Saint-Eugène, Paris.]

"They have closed Heaven"Guéranger, Liturgy, and Change.

Editorial: Radicati nella fede, March 2014

Newsletter of the Catholic community of

Domodossola and Vocogno, Diocese of Novara, Italy

Is it the liturgy that has to adapt to the times of man, 
or is it the times of man that have to take on the form of the Catholic liturgy?

A “modern” Christianity which sees the truth of the faith emerging from the depths of man’s conscience, would want the liturgy to take on the movements of a ‘lived anthropology’ i.e. from the life of man, to celebrate human awareness of man’s relationship with God. When all is said and done, this has been the winning line of the past years: the liturgy has increasingly celebrated man, even when it celebrated the faith of man. In other words, the liturgy has been adapted to suit the times. The result? A tragedy! God and the things of eternity have practically disappeared from the churches, to make room for the faith of believers, who ‘express, comment and interpret what they experience’ with regard to God. The reformed liturgy, in the best of instances, speaks about the Church, but hardly ever about God. And when it speaks about the Church, it does so according to the optic of “the People of God on the move” rather than “the Mystical Body of Christ”.

And note well, we are not referring to those shameless Catholic/Communist para-liturgies of the ‘70s… concerned about social issues and human commitments. On the contrary, we are referring to the liturgies and Masses that go on in most dioceses now, where the faith, ‘the believing community’, the ‘people round their bishop’ are addressed; these liturgies celebrate the community, but God, Who is present, is not adored, and one is not immersed in the Mystery of the Redemption. It is a sort of neo-modern liturgy, which has gone beyond the Marxist temptation of engaging with the world. By speaking only of faith it considers the believers, but never arrives at God, Our Lord, eternal truths, nor the question of salvation. It is as if “they” realized that a horizontal-type of Christianity could not continue, as was the case years ago, and so we ended up with church social programs, so as to edify the community of believers. In any case the error is the same: man as the starting point – and the closing of Heaven.

But does man really need this auto-celebration of his faith? Or is he not made to immerse himself in God?

No, the Catholic liturgy is something completely different: it is the eruption of Heaven on Earth and the open door between Heaven and Earth!

If you like, we shall try to give two opposing but eloquent images, which express two very different concepts of worship. The first, that of a simple priest in one of the many churches scattered in the Catholic world, in the quietness of prayer, facing the Crucifix, offering the Eternal Sacrifice which saves souls, in the presence of faithful attentive in prayer and adoration; the second, that of a noisy and festive community at Mass, concerned about “forming community” and “expressing their various charismas” (in truth doing things, since there is usually little tolerance for sitting still at the new mass) and getting into stride with the directions of the pastoral committee… and at the end, for sure, receiving also communion. Two opposing concepts which are hard to reconcile. The first, the traditional one, makes room for the action of God. The second one, slows down – but perhaps we can even say – stops, with the action of the community itself!

You see, the truths of the faith do not spring up from the depths of man’s conscience, nor from the “real life” of the community which reinterprets life in the light of God, but are communicated by actual revelation from God, which the Church guards and transmits: revelation comes down from Heaven – it does not sprout up from the earth as the moderns would have us think. Thus the liturgy carries Heaven to Earth and carries Earth to Heaven. It is above all the action of God and not primarily the action of the Church. The Church receives the action of God, guards it and expresses it, using certainly all of the appropriate human means; She safeguards the liturgy from erroneous modifications that can muddle up the work of God, and transmits it faithfully protecting it, so that Heaven stays open for mankind.

When the Liturgical Movement is discussed, practically everyone loves to refer to Dom Guéranger, the great Benedictine Abbot, who re-founded monasticism in France after the revolutionary tempest. The Liturgical Movement began with him, that is to say, the rebirth of the Christian spirit which takes its movements from the liturgy. A prolific author, the Liturgical Year was published by him, but not only that, as he also took part in all of the dramas and battles in the Church of the 19th century, and was also a trusted advisor to Pius IX as well as the founder of the Abbey at Solesmes.

But what did Dom Guéranger really want? And what was Pope St. Pius X asking for by taking up once again with authoritiveness the work by the great Benedictine and giving thus new life to the Liturgical Movement?

They wanted people to have intelligence of Divine things (that they would understand the liturgy of the Church) so that these would penetrate once again into the lives of Christian people. They wanted a great work of education so that the things of Heaven would return and give form to the life of men.

Let us quote Dom Guéranger: 

“The mysteries of the great sacrifice, the sacraments, the sacramentals, the phases of the Christian cycle, so rich in grace and light, the ceremonies, this sublime tongue which the Church speaks to God with in the presence of men; in a word, all of these marvels will once again be familiar to the faithful people. Catholic instruction will once again be the great and sublime interest for the masses and will dominate all other [interests]; and the world will understand again that religion is the first good for the individual, the family, the city, the nations and the entire human race.”

Guéranger, along with Pius X and his too-often badly quoted “active participation” wanted the exact opposite of what has been usually done since the Council. After the council the liturgy was transformed to adhere to the life of men, but, by contrast, the Church in the past always desired that the life of man would take on the form of the Catholic liturgy.

They did not want a lowering of the liturgy to the merely natural life of men, but they wanted to raise people to the sublime mysteries.

What use has a man of a liturgy that addresses only his hopes, efforts and his “religious sense”, but never mentions Heaven? It is on this misunderstanding, that tragically, the Liturgical Movement failed.

We need to return to Guéranger and the real Pius X. But the question is: when?

[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]

Vatican II at 50: Archbishop Peruzzo, the Prophet - and the anti-liturgical revolution that was to come

Giovanni Battista Peruzzo, the Passionist* Archbishop of Agrigento (Sicily), had been a bishop since 1924, and was admired deeply by the poor people of his diocese as the "vescovo dei contadini", the "peasants's bishop". Abp. Peruzzo, who had been the victim of a serious attempt on his life in 1945, shortly after the end of the War in Europe, would die before the second session of the Second Vatican Council, but, when faced with the concepts proposed in the schema of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and on the wild liturgical ideas being openly discussed in the aula during the first session (1962), he could not remain silent. 

The words of his short address to the Council Fathers, as reported by Prof. Roberto di Mattei, based on Dom Guéranger's principles of the Anti-Liturgical heresy (first translated by us in 2006), are nothing short of impressive in their prophetic depth, and on what aspects are really necessary for the sanctification of souls - anti-liturgical revolution not being one of them.

[…] On October 29, [1962,] the Bishop of Agrigento, Abp. Giovanni Battista Peruzzo, recalled the initial stages of the anti-liturgical movement in the historical setting of pagan humanism [260], between the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th.   Abp. Peruzzo’s speech, which was ridiculed by the progressives, deserves to be reported in its entirety because of the wisdom and foresight it displays.

In his speech, resound the admonitions of Dom Guéranger, who, in the 14th chapter of his Institutions Liturgiques, vigorously denounced the principles that were behind the anti-liturgical heresy, in which the first characteristic: “is the hatred for tradition, of formulas, of divine worship.” [261]

“I am the last one [to speak] but I am old, the oldest among you, and perhaps I have understood little; therefore, forgive me if some of my statements should be displeasing to you. I have listened to many comments and proposals against Holy Tradition, which has to be maintained regarding the use of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy, and many words have been a cause of fear and anxiety to me, so now I will explain these to you briefly, not from a theological perspective but from a historical one. I do not like the anti-liturgical movement because of its origins. It is always of great importance to pay attention to the origins of families, of institutions, of realities, of doctrines, to determine who the father is, who the mother is, who the guide is. If the original source was sound at the beginning, it will easily remain sound throughout the course of time. If the source is  contaminated, it will hardly become pure. Based on these principles, I have before me the origins of the anti-liturgical movement – and exactly who the fathers and guides were. 

“This movement began at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. The first anti-liturgists were the Humanists, [who were] true and authentic pagans in Italy and were only a little better in France and the northern lands under the guidance of Erasmus, but all of them wavering in the Faith.     Many of our brothers followed them in their path, and consequently  separated from the Catholic Church. From there the Jansenists came into being, in Italy the followers of the Synod of Pistoia, and finally the Modernists: this is the company to which many have conformed their speech.

“Instead, I cannot find a single holy bishop promoting this movement. From the likes of Charles Borromeo to St. Anthony Mary Claret, from St. Francis de Sales to St. Alphonsus, ancient and modern, all of them have adhered to the Latin Tradition. This fact must make us cautious about proposing novelties. The 'old ways' which are sure are easily abandoned; but who knows what bottomless pits the new paths might prepare and cause for us!

“Erasmus wrote thus in his preface to the Gospel of St. Mathew: 'It seems so indecorous and ridiculous, that the common people and silly women, repeat, mumbling like parrots, the Psalms and Sunday prayers, while they themselves do not understand a thing as to what they mean.' The University of Paris condemned this view, which seems straightforward and right, as: impious, erroneous, and the promoter of new errors; read Duplessy.

“This judgment appears to be excessive to us, but it  proved prophetic. All of those who have asked at least for a reduction of Latin in the Liturgy, in the past, as in the present, always express the same reasons; to instruct the people better and urge them onto greater faith and love of God.

“In the Augustana [Augsburg Confession], nothing other than a request for singing in the vernacular by the people during the celebration of the Mass was made – but what happened? The replacement of the language in the Mass by the vernacular, was in general, the first act of separation from Holy Mother Church. This strong affirmation is not mine, but from Dom Guéranger, who is the true father of the liturgical renewal.  Here are his words: 'the separation of the liturgical language for unexplainable reasons, that we do not know of, almost always, even if the dispensation was obtained from the Supreme Pontiff, has led to schism and  full separation from the Catholic Church.’ He proves this affirmation, as you will be able to read in the third volume of his Institutions Liturgiques. These words, these facts must make us extremely cautious in a matter of such importance.

“I will briefly explain a third reason: the loyalty that bishops, more than any others, must always have towards the Supreme Pontiff, obviously.  For almost five centuries the Supreme Pontiffs have strongly resisted pleadings, solicitations, and threats, in defense of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy. In recent times, from Pope Leo XIII until the reigning pontiff,  they have unanimously recommended the necessity of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy through various Apostolic Letters. 

“Dear Brothers, are these instructions mere guidance or do they give an order? Discussions to the contrary are open; but to me it seems right that they be made in low voice in humble submission and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff. Everyone asks the Christians of today to become better. Let all of us commit ourselves to this goal; history, in fact teaches us that the sanctification of souls can be bound to the Liturgy, but it demands, above all, our holiness, the strength of our faith, heroism in the  apostolate, the spirit of prayer, of penitence, and also that great outward devotion that leads the people to God. Forgive my boldness and also pray for me.” [262]

What is the basic difficulty?

Bishop Trautman, of Erie, chairman of the Committee on the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, asks in the Jesuit weekly America:

Why have the new translations become so problematic, so non-pastoral? What is the basic difficulty?

May we venture a guess? We call to the stand Dom Prosper Guéranger:

Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship.

This is in the eyes of sectarians a most important item. 'Worship is no secret matter.' 'The people,' they say, 'must understand what they sing.'

Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. ...

The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the language of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most of the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic who attends leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning.

While the reformed temple assembles, with great difficulty, purist Christians once a week, the 'Popish Church' watches unceasingly her numerous altars visited upon by her religious children; every day, they withdraw from their work to come hear those mysterious words which must be of God, for they nourish the faith and ease the pains.

We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being spoken in the way one speaks on the town square. ...

The Anti-Liturgical Heresy
(L'Hérésie Anti-Liturgiste, an excerpt of the Institutions Liturgiques, v. 1)

________________________

The Institutions Liturgiques, v. 1, were first published in 1840; Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of the same work includes a thorough presentation of the issue of liturgical language.