“The work of human hands”

LifeSite News can be a rather curious site, not least for those of us living on the European side of the Atlantic, and for whom a lot of North American concerns seem, well, a bit strange. However it does cover a lot of Canadian stories, being based there, as well as ones from the US. Other stories have a wider appeal and relevance.

One such was a short article by John-Henry Weston, the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the website, which was published yesterday.

The point he is making was new to me, and as it was to him, so it is I imagine to many others. His article, which is worth looking at and reflecting upon, can be read at Did you know the Novus Ordo uses a phrase that Scripture associates with idolatry?

Reform of the Reform or Reversal of the Reform?

The blog Rorate Caeli is always a source of thought provoking reading matter, and there is a very interesting article on it about the future direction of the movement for a "Reform of the Reform" of the liturgy. It is well worth reading and reflecting upon, and can be read at The End of the “Reform of the Reform”:Father Kocik’s "Tract 90".

It will be interesting if this fuels debate, and if so hopefully in a positive way, and not in the rather depressing or angry way in which the perfectly good case for restoration is sometimes made. Has the process of reform reached its natural limit? Does its message still need to reach many parishes? Hoew practicable or possible is a reversal of the reform? can the Church accomodate such movements in tranquility? These and other questions immediately arise, and are important ones.

Liturgical reform or liturgical restoration is a vital topic for many and, as we know, often divisive. Let us hope that discussion will be positive and informed as this issue continues its course in the life of the Church.

The Baptism of Our Lord

The Baptism of Christ
Piero della Francesca

Image: The National Gallery

Prior to 1955 today was celebrated as the Octave Day of the Epiphany, although as my old St Andrew's Missal points out the Gospel reading was that of the Baptism rather than the visit of the Magi, a survival of an earlier observance of the Baptism on this day. The abolition of the Octave of the Epiphany, regrettable as it was and is was balanced to some extent by restoring today as the feast of the Baptism. That can be seen as legitimate restoration and also providing for a greater degree of celebration of this event which marks the beginning of Our Lord's public ministry.

The Missal which came into use in 1962 retains this feast on this day, but the 1969 Missal moves it to the Sunday after Epiphany, or if Epiphany falls on a Sunday, or as now in England and Wales, if the obligation is transferred to the Sunday, the Baptism is observed on the Monday following. I suspect this was so that more people would attend Mass on the day, rather like the argument for transferring the Days of Obligation to the Sunday in recent years. In my opinion that is a wrong attitude to what people should be expected to do, but I understand the application of that argument if you do not challenge, or are not prepared to challenge, the faithful to practice the public observance faith as it should be done.

In terms of the calendar and the structure of the liturgical year I much prefer the 1955 arrangement, although I would also retain an Octave for Epiphany, and thereby give time to celebrate and reflect upon the manifestations of Our Lord's Divinity and mission. By giving the Baptism its own specific feast it improves on the previous practice, whereas the current Novus ordo concertinas the days together.

A related change in 1969 was moving the feast of St Hilary back one day to January 13th, from its traditional date of the 14th. When it fell on that day it was the first saint's day after the end of Epiphany, and hence its use as an indicator for terms such as those at Oxford.

Beating my breast

On the Zenit post for January 10th their liturgical Fr Edward McNamara of the Regina Apostolorum makes these observations in his answers to liturgical enquiries.

Breast-Beating During the Confiteor

In the wake of our opinion (see Dec. 13) that the new translation of the Confiteor ("I confess") would allow for a triple striking of the breast, several readers pointed out an official reply from the Holy See on this topic which I had overlooked.
As one California reader pointed out: "Not that I like this responsum, but it is the final word that I know of on this. Gerunds, etc., are speculative; this is direct and clear."
The text, published in Notitiae 14 (1978), 534-535, says:
"n. 10. In pronouncing certain formulas as in, e.g., the Confiteor, the Agnus Dei, and the Domine non sum dignus, whether on the part of priests or on the part of the faithful, the gestures accompanying the words are not always performed the same. Some strike their breast with a triple strike when saying the aforementioned formulas, others once. Which practice seems that it should legitimately be retained?
"Resp.
"In this case it will help to remember these things:
"1) Gestures and words often tend to give significance to one another.
"2) In this matter, as in others, the liturgical restoration has pursued truth and simplicity according to the passage of Sacrosanctum Concilium: «The rites should be resplendent in their noble simplicity …» (SC, 34).
"While in the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of the Council of Trent the words were very frequently also accompanied by minute gestures, the rubrics of the Roman Missal restored by the authority of the Second Vatican Council are noteworthy for their discretion with regard to gestures.
"Having said this:
"a) The words mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa which are found in the Confiteor are introduced in the restored Roman Missal by a rubric of this sort: All likewise … striking their breast, say … (OM, n. 3). In the former Missal, in the same place, the rubric read like this: He strikes his breast three times. It does not seem, therefore, that anyone has to strike his breast three times in pronouncing those words in Latin or in another language, even if mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa is said. It suffices that there be a striking of the breast.
"It is obvious also that only one gesture suffices in those languages in which the words for showing one's fault have been rendered in a more simple manner, as, for example, in English, «I have sinned through my own fault», or in French, «Oui, j'ai vraiment peche».
"b) The discretion of the restored Roman Missal is shown to be noteworthy also in the other texts mentioned, namely the Agnus Dei and the Domine, non sum dignus which by words of penitence and humility in one way or another accompany the breaking of the bread and the invitation to the faithful to receive the Eucharist.
"As it was said in response n. 2 of the Commentary «Notitiae» 1978, p. 301: where the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it must not therefore be inferred that it is necessary to observe the old rubrics. The restored Missal does not supplement the old one but has replaced it. In reality, the Missal formerly indicated at the Agnus Dei, striking the breast three times, and in pronouncing the triple Domine, non sum dignus, striking the breast … says three times. Since, however, the new Missal says nothing about this (OM 131 and 133), there is no reason to suppose that any gesture should be added to these invocations."

I had already mentioned in my earlier reply that a single striking was a valid interpretation, and this official response confirms this.

At the same time, I think this official pronouncement fails the reality test. More than 33 years have gone by since the response was issued and practically everybody using Latin, Spanish and Italian strike their breasts three times at the Confiteor, no matter what the rubric says or fails to say. I think that the same is going to happen in English now that the triple form is restored, and it would be an exercise in futility on behalf of bishops and priests to attempt to oblige the faithful to do otherwise.

Nor would I consider the attempt a good thing in itself. People will naturally do this, and I believe it makes the sign of striking the breast more meaningful.

The present rubrics are clear about not striking of the breast during the Lamb of God, and the practice is now uncommon. The fact that the Agnus Dei is often sung makes it less natural to strike the breast than in the staccato beat of the Confiteor.

At the same time, there are very good arguments to defend the practice. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, for example, wrote the following in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy: "During the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), we look upon him who is the Shepherd and for us became the Lamb and as Lamb, bore our iniquities. At this moment it is only right and proper that we should strike our breasts and remind ourselves, even physically, that our iniquities lay on his shoulder, that 'with his stripes we are healed'" (page 207).

Thus far Fr Macnamara.

So it still looks as if I am in good company in retaining, or seeking to retain, this practice in my own prayers at the Agnus Dei in a Novus Ordo Mass (as well, obviously, at the Usus Antiquior) as a worshipper...