Una Voce Bulletin, No. 7: No new restrictions so far, but petitions in support of the TLM
16th July passes, no document emerges From the President: no new restrictions so far, but several petitions in support of the TLM. The supposedly fateful date of 16th July has come, and, unlike the Ides of March for Julius Caesar, it has gone, without incident. This was the date specified in one version of the rumour predicting new restrictions on the Traditional Mass.
As far as I know none of the rumours that went into any detail suggested that there would be a complete ban. Rather, the idea seems to have been that restrictions would be tightened on the celebration of the Traditional Mass in parish churches, or by diocesan priests. These have been the focus of previous documents, and it would be surprising if proposals along these lines were not being discussed in the Holy See. It remains to be seen if any such new document will see the light of day.
Apart from the reality that nothing normally happens in Rome in the month of August, we are no further forward in relation to these rumours than before, except in one respect: the date of 16th July stimulated a whole series of appeals to the Holy See not to take this step.
Last year I published a book on past petitions, such as the one in 1971 which apparently stimulated the English Indult the same year, which was the first opening for the licit celebration of the Traditional Mass for the benefit of the Faithful—that is, not just in private by infirm priests. It is always difficult to know if an intervention of this kind has made a difference, but perhaps it did in 1971, and it may be playing a role today.
The impression given by the petitions from Britain, America, and Mexico, is that if you ask prominent lay Catholics, and non-Catholics who take an interest in these things, what they think about the Traditional Mass, if they think about it at all, they view it in a positive way. They know it is culturally significant, a great work of art, and they probably know that it has been spiritually significant for people they know—perhaps even for themselves. They find the idea that it must be restricted to safeguard the unity of the Church baffling.
Comment
This is not surprising, but these petitions make the issue very clear. Those who are pushing for more restrictions on the Traditional Mass in Rome are not indifferent to the views of film-makers, politicians, millionaires, artists, and musicians. The Church’s apostolic work depends on their good will, and prelates meet them constantly in different contexts: when raising money, organising events, restoring churches, and so on. Prelates’ feeling that their rank makes them part of an international elite is one of the few temporal perks of the role. Sometimes, mixing with these sorts of people may tempt them to play down the hard sayings of the Gospel. On this occasion, the elite is pushing them in a much more positive direction.
The danger that there will be new restrictions on the ancient Mass has not necessarily passed. Please maintain your prayers and offerings for this intention. Indeed, it is not enough not to have more bad documents. The current legal regime is causing unnecessary suffering and division, and we will need a new document at some point to make a positive change. I have complete confidence that common sense will prevail in the longer term, but it is impossible to know what difficulties will have to be overcome first.
A young Catholic at the doorway of the Birmingham Oratory, during Mass for SS Peter & Paul celebrated in association with the Latin Mass Society’s Annual General Meeting.
Briefing from the Chairman
Cancellation of Westminster Old Rite Triduum
The LMS has issued a press release about the cancellation of the TLM Easter Triduum in the Archdiocese of Westminster (reported in National Catholic Register, Catholic Herald, The Tablet). This celebration attracted up to 200 people and had been taking place for 25 years.
Here I want to reflect on how this lamentable development fits into the bigger picture.
The Triduum has not been formally refused permission by the Dicastery for Divine Worship (DDW): rather, Cardinal Nichols chose not to seek permission for it, as with the two annual Masses at the High Altar of Westminster Cathedral which served as the LMS’ annual requiem and AGM Mass. It seems that axing these celebrations is a concession on his part to the stated programme of Traditionis custodes, to close down the TLM, in stages.
One reading of this decision is that as annual events they are not as pastorally important as a weekly Sunday celebration, they are all particularly prominent. They can be sacrificed (as the Cardinal put it) ‘for the sake of the wider provision’.
The Cardinal has also suggested that the Latin Mass Society is not an appropriate body to make requests for a celebration under Traditionis custodes, not being a ‘stable group’. We of course represent ‘stable groups’, but that is his view, which is why the appeal against his initial decision came from a priest on behalf of the ‘stable group’ at the regular Sunday TLM in St James’, Spanish Place. However, this approach did not change the outcome.
In the meantime, new non-parochial TLMs continue to be established, often at the behest of the DDW, to substitute for parish locations. Is the policy to eliminate the TLM, or simply to exclude it from parish churches? In the Archdiocese of Westminster, where there are few non-parochial churches, it comes to the same thing, but that is not so everywhere.
Another complicating factor is the different treatment of diocesan clergy and the traditional Institutes; yet another derives from the varying attitude of bishops. The overall effect of the policy is therefore very uneven.
In the meantime, with apologies for the inconvenience, our policy of providing information about Mass times only to members is clearly the right one. Non-members who want to see where the Triduum will be celebrated in England and Wales need to join us: if, that is, they share our aims.
The Latin Mass Society was founded as a campaigning organisation, and we remain that. We will continue to expose the injustice and destructiveness of the current policy, and to support celebrations of the Church’s ancient liturgy wherever we can. This liturgy is every Catholic’s patrimony: as Pope Benedict expressed it: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
The deadline for the next issue of Gregorius Magnus is 1st February 2024. Please let us have your local news! We want to hear from all over the world.
Email president@fiuv.org.uk
Would you like to advertise? Or to contribute to future editions? Click on the links.
President’s Message
by Joseph Shaw
Welcome to a new edition of Gregorius Magnus, devoted particularly to walking pilgrimages, which have shown enormous growth this year, despite, or perhaps because of, the more hostile ecclesial environment in which we find ourselves. This edition will appear in the final days of the much-anticipated Synod on Synodality. Since the Synod will take place behind closed doors, it is particularly difficult to anticipate the general atmosphere when these words will be read. What I can say is that, whatever may happen at the Synod, the FIUV and its member associations, and in general the movement in support of the Traditional Mass, took part in the Synod consultation in a serious and sincere way, and that, as far as the diocesan, national, and continental stages went – whose reports can be read online – our voices were not entirely drowned out. In a previous edition of Gregorius Magnus, I picked out passages in some of these documents noting our concerns. The focus of the Synod seems destined to lie elsewhere, of course, and we will not be surprised if the systematic marginalisation of Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass will not capture the attention of the Synod Fathers – not forgetting the lay participants – for very long.
Nevertheless, the framing of our contributions in the reports is interesting. We have been set down, not unreasonably, as one of various ‘marginalised’ groups. We tend to be mentioned at the end of a list of disaffected groups of Catholics, such as those in illicit unions and those with same-sex attraction. Several of these reports were at pains to emphasise that we constitute a very small minority, but the same is clearly true of the other groups they mention as well. I wonder what the reaction would be if homosexual Catholics were told that they must not attend Mass in the same ecclesiastical building as respectable people, but would have to make do with the parish hall or a nearby gymnasium, as some Traditional Catholics have been told in the United States and elsewhere. What
would people say, again, if divorced and (invalidly) remarried Catholics were told that they would in future have to drive for an hour or more to attend services?
I don’t think we would need a specially convened Synod in Rome, at vast cost, to work out that such rules are ‘unpastoral’. Pope Francis would not lose any time in reminding us that the Church is a ‘field hospital’, a remedy for the sick, and not a prize for the righteous. And he would be right to do so. The Church is indeed a hospital for the sick, and this fact should focus our attention on the spiritual remedies the Church must employ, not to gratify patients’ disordered appetites but to restore them to spiritual health. The remedies certainly include the sacraments. Following the fashion in politics for medicalising disagreements, some of our opponents like to imply that Traditional Catholics are suffering from some psychological pathology, but if so, making it more difficult for us to access the sacraments, or trying to make us do so in conditions designed to demoralise us, doesn’t seem a very logical response The saying, of obscure origin, that ‘beatings will continue until morale improves’, could have been invented for our situation. Those wondering about the resilience of the traditional movement should remember, however, that this has always been our lot. Even under Summorum Pontificum, many of the Federation’s member associations faced extraordinary opposition, and even open hostility, from those charged with providing them with pastoral care. Our lay associations, religious communities, and priestly institutes were not founded to bask in the approval of bien pensant opinion or the favour of the ecclesial establishment. Our movement was formed in the grief of Catholics deprived of the liturgy they loved, and since then it has been engaged in unending difficulties, and sometimes outright persecution. However imperfect we ourselves may be, we know the value of what we are defending, and we also know that, in end, the Church will remember it too.
Qui seminant in lacrimis, in exsultatione metent.
Those who sow in tears, shall reap in joy. (Ps 125:5)
Una Voce International and other organisations, groups and individuals concerned with the Traditional Latin Mass would like to appeal to all Catholics of good will to offer prayers and penances during the season of Lent, particularly for the intention: the liberty of the Traditional Mass.
We do not know how credible rumours of further documents from the Holy See on this subject may be, but the rumours themselves point to a situation of doubt, conflict, and apprehension, which is severely harmful to the mission of the Church. We appeal to our Lord, through His Blessed Mother, to restore to all Catholics the right and opportunity to worship according to the Church’s own venerable liturgical traditions, in perfect unity with the Holy Father and the bishops of the whole Church.
Una Voce International (Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, FIUV,) https://fiuv.org
Some commentary on this project from the President can be found here.
The Friends of the FIUV support the Federation with a regular donation. They are added to the Gregorius Magnus mailing list and we arrange regular Masses for their intentions. See more about the Friends here.
On the issue of the Motu Proprio ‘Traditionis Custodes’, the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Joseph Shaw, launches a second series of the popular podcast series with an in depth analysis of the recent apostolic letter on the restrictions of the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Letter from Cardinal Angelo Felici to Fr Josef Bisig, 1999, quoted from Leo Darroch Una Voce: the History of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce 1964-2003 (2018) p348
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth (1996): A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.
“On this Day 50 years ago – 6th July 1971 – a letter was sent to The Times, an appeal to save the Latin Mass in England and Wales. It was signed by a number of well-known people including Agatha Christie, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Graham Greene, Lennox Berkeley, Cecil Day-Lewis, Yehudi Menuhin, Nancy Mitford, Iris Murdoch, and William, Baron Rees-Mogg.”
The English indult is often known informally as the Agatha Christie Indult. Read on to see why! This article appeared in the Latin Mass Society’s February 1999 Newsletter
There were many Catholics in the middle to late 1960s who had become very uneasy with the developments and proposed changes in the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council. While being deeply unhappy with these changes, it proved to be very difficult to mount any kind of positive resistance because the changes had been introduced gradually and, in some ways, in a piece-meal fashion, over a period of time. The Latin Mass Society had been started in 1964, even before the Council had ended, but at that time it was still very much finding its feet and there had been certain promises that Latin would be retained and that the Canon of the Mass, for example, would remain unchanged, as would Latin, as in the traditional manner. It soon became obvious that this was not to be and as early as November 1965 the officers of The Latin Mass Society sent an appeal to Pope Paul VI that “the discontinuance of the use of the Latin tongue in parts of the Mass has proved a grave spiritual privation and a source of great anguish of soul”. The petition also requested “that, side by side with the continued employment of the mother-tongue, the Mass may frequently and regularly be celebrated wholly in Latin”.
It was a time of great confusion and turmoil, the form of the Mass seemed to be changing by the month, and no sooner had one novelty been introduced then it was replaced very quickly by something else. A number of priests took the opportunity to introduce their own whims and fancies, which only exacerbated the problem, and many priests cast aside their vows and left their ministry. Such was the maelstrom of confusion that faced those who were trying desperately to cling on to the Mass of their heritage and prevent the great traditions of the Church being cast aside as unwanted goods which had outlived their purpose.
It was the introduction of the new rite of Mass in the early 1970s, and the instruction that the old had to be discontinued, that concentrated our minds wonderfully and gave us a focal point on which to mount a specific course of action. It was that proposal that made us wake up to the fact that the Mass, our beloved Mass, had been vandalised to such an extent as to pass belief, although it still took some time for us to realise what had been done. I was waiting for someone to tell me that the whole disaster was a joke, a try-on, and that at any day now the priests would return to the Mass for which they had been ordained. We were all naïve, and naïve for quite a long time, but when I realised it was not a joke I became active. I was very much a new hand at this sort of thing – gathering signatures – and some people thought I was mad to get involved. After all, I was until a few years earlier, a rather lapsed Catholic, and was one of those whom the destruction of our most precious spiritual and cultural heritage, manifested in the destruction of the liturgy, brought back to the Church; to be counted, to say No, to what we considered a return to barbarism and blasphemous vandalism. Yes, there were such, and some were not even Catholics, lapsed or otherwise, but alarm bells began to be heard by thoughtful men and women.
I had been a member of The Latin Mass Society only since December 1969 and I can recall discussing with Iris Roper, Bernard Wall, Professor Alexandra Zaina, and Geoffrey Houghton-Brown, my plan to write to prominent people and ask for their support in trying to save the old Mass. After this discussion and the approval of all concerned I went to work in early 1971 with my late wife Senta and was also supported and helped by my private secretary. I contacted a number of well-known personalities and spoke personally to Graham Greene, Harman Grisewood, Kathleen Raine, Cecil Day Lewis and others, but most of the signatories agreed to help after responding to letters to them. There were some who were contacted and declined to help, including a famous Catholic actor who was content with the new Mass, but most were more than happy to be associated with such an important initiative. Because the changes were imminent, and there was some urgency in getting the appeal to Rome, we had to move quickly. We had no particular deadline date in mind but we knew that we could not afford to wait too long After about three weeks, Senta and I had fifty-seven signatures and we thought that would suffice; especially considering the kind of people that had put their name to the appeal.
When the appeal had been prepared I informed Cardinal Heenan and gave him a copy, but the original was sent direct to the Pope with the help of my good friend Mgr. John MacDonald who was based at the Beda College in Rome at that time. Many members, especially those in London, will remember Mgr. MacDonald with affection and others will remember him from The Latin Mass Society’s video recording of Solemn High Mass on 31st August 1986 at St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater. The Cardinal readily agreed to help and to do what he could and I think he acted independently. On 6th July 1971 The Times published the text of the appeal and included a list of all the signatories. It informed its readers, “The following appeal to preserve the Roman Catholic Mass in its traditional form has been sent from Britain to the Vatican. Similar appeals, ecumenical and non-political, have been made from other countries”. Interestingly, among the signatories were the Anglican Bishops of Exeter and Ripon.
“If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated – whatever their personal beliefs – who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility. Now the fact is that basilicas and cathedrals were built so as to celebrate a rite which, until a few months ago, constituted a living tradition. We are referring to the Roman Catholic Mass. Yet, according to the latest information in Rome, there is a plan to obliterate that Mass by the end of the current year. One of the axioms of contemporary publicity, religious as well as secular, is that modern man in general, and intellectuals in particular, have become intolerant of all forms of tradition and are anxious to suppress them and put something else in their place. But, like many other affirmations of our publicity machines, this axiom is false. Today, as in times gone by, educated people are in the vanguard where recognition of the value of tradition in concerned, and are the first to raise the alarm when it is threatened. We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts – not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression – the word – it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms.”
Signed: Harold Acton, Vladimir Ashkenazy, John Bayler, Lennox Berkeley, Maurice Bowra, Agatha Christie, Kenneth Clark, Nevill Coghill, Cyril Connolly, Colin Davis, Hugh Delargy, +Robert Exeter, Miles Fitzalan-Howard, Constantine Fitzgibbon, William Glock, Magdalen Goffin, Robert Graves, Graham Greene, Ian Greenless, Joseph Grimond, Harman Grisewood, Colin Hardie, Rupert Hart-Davis, Barbara Hepworth, Auberon Herbert, John Jolliffe, David Jones, Osbert Lancaster, F.R. Leavis, Cecil Day Lewis, Compton Mackenzie, George Malcolm, Max Mallowan, Alfred Marnau, Yehudi Menuhin, Nancy Mitford, Raymond Mortimer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Iris Murdoch, John Murray, Sean O’Faolain, E.J. Oliver, Oxford and Asquith, William Plomer, Kathleen Raine, William Rees-Mogg, Ralph Richardson, +John Ripon, Charles Russell, Rivers Scott, Joan Sutherland, Philip Toynbee, Martin Turnell, Bernard Wall, Patrick Wall, E.I Watkin, R.C. Zaehner.
The publication of the appeal on the 6th July was followed three days later by a rather lengthy article from Clifford Longley in The Times in which he said:
A plea for the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass – threatened by extinction by the end of this year – is to be made to the Vatican by Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster. There has been mounting pressure in Britain for such a step for some time, transcending the divisions between progressive and conservative factions in the Church, and supported by a considerable body of opinion outside the Roman Catholic communion. From the beginning of the new liturgical year in December it will no longer be permitted to celebrate in Roman Catholic churches the so-called Tridentine Mass, whether in the vernacular or in Latin. A new form, with a set of four basic variations and known as the Ordo Missae, will be obligatory in spite of widespread misgivings both at the passing of the old and at details of the new. Cardinal Heenan is to ask the Vatican authorities – and, in effect, the Pope himself – to leave it up to individual bishops whether the Tridentine rite can be used on special occasions or not. The new forms would continue as the standard, but the Tridentine tradition could be kept alive in certain churches and cathedrals, and the settings of the Mass by the great classical composers would not become, as is now feared, mere museum pieces without a contemporary religious significance.”
Mr. Longley went on to say:
“Resistance to these changes has not come only out of nostalgia for the old and venerable. A theological argument has been raging for some time over the validity and orthodoxy of parts of the new rite, and in England the Latin Mass Society has resolved to boycott it completely on the grounds of conscience. One variation, the Second Eucharistic Prayer, was said to be so silent on the subject of sacrifice as to render it acceptable to non-conformist churches. Generally, however, the Latin version of the Ordo Missae has been accepted as an improvement on the Tridentine for everyday use.”
After a rather lengthy examination of the problems surrounding an acceptable English translation he continues:
“For this reason, therefore [the possibility of hearing the Credo and Gloria occasionally in the great cathedrals of Europe], Mgr. John Humphreys, Secretary of the English hierarchy’s Liturgical Commission, feels that to mourn the passing of the Tridentine Mass on the grounds that it will be a serious loss to western culture is misplaced. Permission to revert to it on such special occasions as Mass in an old people’s home or a meeting of the Latin Mass Society would, he considers, be a reasonable concession for a five or ten year period. Although the quarrel with the new order of Mass has provoked much criticism of the language chosen, both in the original Latin and in ICEL’s translations, and some bitter theological wrangles from some more conservative quarters, the fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church is coming to the end of a momentous period of change in its most sacred worship with astonishingly little damage. This fundamental renewal of its spiritual well-springs could lead to incalculable benefits, not least the revitalization of Roman Catholic parish life.”
Well, it is a fact that this prophecy of revitalization that many predicted for the new order has failed miserably but many of us warned at the time that this would be the natural and inevitable consequence. You cannot sever the traditions of centuries, embark on a completely new venture, and expect life to continue with equilibrium. Life is simply not like that. The hierarchy in general may have been aware at that time at what was in the air but I cannot recall any of them making any public comment. At that time, in the midst of all the turmoil of the day, we did not consider producing the appeal on expensive parchment or on a scroll, we simply presented it on Latin Mass Society notepaper with the then new, but now very familiar logo, which had been designed and supplied by a friend of Iris Roper.
This had been an entirely new venture for us and in those days we had no experience in how to present a petition to a Pope. The appeal was entrusted to Mgr Macdonald and no-one who had had any involvement with preparing it had travelled to Rome, nor was there any particular presentation ceremony. Mgr. Macdonald’s contact in the Vatican had left it ‘on the table’ for personal petitions to the Pope.
Towards the end of 1971 two most important, and perhaps contradictory, events happened within very close proximity. The first on 26th November, when The Universe informed its readers on its front page:
“As from this Sunday, the first in Advent, it is forbidden to offer Mass in the Tridentine rite anywhere in the world. In very special circumstances old or retired priests may apply to their own bishop for permission to use the rite, but for private use only.”
Because this kind of information was the norm, the laity were conditioned into accepting the new Mass as a fait accompli. In fact, the old Mass had never been forbidden and this was revealed some 15 years later in December 1986 when a commission of cardinals, set up by Pope John Paul II, confirmed that this was so and proposed the granting to all who seek it the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition
This front page story in The Universe was somewhat contradicted by The Times less than a week later when, on the 2nd December 1971, it informed its readers with the headline, “Pope sanctions traditional Latin Mass in Britain”. It explained that Pope Paul VI had given permission for the traditional form of the Latin Mass, known as the Tridentine rite, to be used on special occasions in England and Wales with the consent of the local Roman Catholic bishop. “This concession was obtained by Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, at a recent private audience with the Pope and news of it has been passed to such bodies as the Latin Mass Society who have been campaigning for the right to retain the Tridentine form……Cardinal Heenan’s approach to the Pope on this question came after the publication of an open letter, signed by many non-Roman Catholic artists, musicians, and intellectuals, in July. The letter pointed out that the Tridentine rite, which takes its name from the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, was one of the basic art forms of European culture on which had been based many settings of the Mass by great classical composers. The disappearance of the rite, they complained, would impoverish cultural life.”
Cardinal Heenan had, indeed, secured a personal audience with the Pope, who, on the 30th October 1971 had granted the request. The story goes that Pope Paul VI was reading quietly through the list of signatories and then suddenly said, “Ah, Agatha Christie!” and signed his approval. It has since been known, informally, in traditional circles as the Agatha Christie Indult. Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, conveyed the decision officially to Cardinal Heenan on 5th November 1971 (Full text available here)
In his letter, Mgr. Bugnini informed Cardinal Heenan that Pope Paul VI, by letter of 30th October 1971, had given special faculties to the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to convey to His Eminence, as Chairman of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, that it was permitted to the local Ordinaries of England and Wales to grant that certain groups of the faithful may on special occasions be allowed to participate in the Mass celebrated according to the rites and texts of the former Roman Missal. The Missal to be used on these occasions should be that published by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 Jan.1965), and with the modifications in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967).
Mgr. Bugnini added a personal letter to the official text of the Indult which perhaps indicated his own mind on how restrictive he wished the indult to be applied. He said:
“Under separate cover you will have received the letter expressing the mind of the Holy Father regarding Your Eminence’s request of 29th October 1971. His Holiness knows well that Your Eminence will ensure that this permission is granted with that prudence and reserve that the matter requires. It is also very desirable that the permission be given without too much publicity. As I write I am reminded about this time last year we celebrated the canonization of the Forty Martyrs. That canonization remains one of the best liturgical celebrations I have seen in St. Peter’s, a fine blend of the old and the new”.
On 22nd November Cardinal Heenan wrote to Mr. Geoffrey Houghton-Brown, the Chairman of The Latin Mass Society, and informed him that at the last bishops’ meeting he had reported on a private audience he had with Pope Paul. He had expressed sorrow that some Catholics opposed to reform of the liturgy had spoken offensively of the Holy Father. He said, however, that he had sympathy with the few Catholics who, while loyally accepting the reforms, felt a certain nostalgia for the old rite. The Pope had not regarded this attitude as unreasonable and would not absolutely forbid occasional use of the Roman Mass (according to the decree of 1965: amended 1967) provided all danger of division is avoided. In his diocese, he said, he was quite willing for the old rite to be used on special occasions.
A meeting of the committee of The Latin Mass Society took place in London on 27th November 1971 to discuss the letter from Cardinal Heenan to the Chairman. The feeling of the committee was one of dismay that the Cardinal had said that some Catholics had spoken offensively about the Holy Father thus, perhaps, linking the Society in some way to these offensive remarks. The Chairman had drafted a reply and the committee agreed unanimously that it be sent. The letter, which was sent on 28 November 1971 was as follows:
“My Lord Cardinal: I have shown your letter to the Committee of the above Society who are most grateful to Your Eminence for the trouble you have taken in Rome on behalf of the Roman Missal. The Committee, however, was greatly astonished at the contents of the letter. We hope that Your Eminence expressed no sorrow on behalf of the Latin Mass Society for having “spoken offensively” of the Holy Father, because this Society has always spoken of His Holiness with the respect due from Roman Catholics to the Vicar of Christ.
My Lord Cardinal, it is the opinion of this Society that the use of the customary Missal cannot be forbidden. The Pope has never rescinded the Bull, Quo Primum, nor the right of immemorial custom, both of which give priests a perpetual right to use, both in public and in private, the Tridentine or the Roman Missal. The Society is most grateful to Your Eminence for letting us know that you are willing to allow the use of the Roman Missal in the churches of the Westminster Diocese on special occasions. Your Eminence may rest assured that the Society will urge the use of the Roman Missal as often as possible.”
The Committee discussed whether the letters be sent to the Press, both Catholic and national, in view of the first page story in The Universe about the Latin Mass being “unlawful” and “forbidden throughout the world” from the first Sunday in Advent but there were objections on the grounds of breach of confidence. Considerable discussion followed on both the ethics and the expediency of the whole matter of publicising the information and it was finally decided to make the substance of the letter known, initially to The Universe, refuting its story, and to The Times as a sequel to its earlier information that the Cardinal would be seeking permission of the Pope for the retention of the Tridentine Mass.
There was no particular response from the English and Welsh bishops who, it seems from memory, were more hostile then than now except for Bishop Gordon Wheeler and Bishop Alexander, still with us, of Clifton, who I recall as being courteous and a gentleman.
Those of us who fought for the retention of the old Mass had a very rough ride in those early days. In comparison, things are now unbelievably improved. We never thought that we would have so many Masses celebrated in England and Wales, or France, or even in the U.S.A. In other ‘old Catholic countries’ the situation is still disastrous. In fairness and honour, it must be said for Cardinal Hume that not only did he accept Cardinal Heenan’s Bishop’s Conference decision to allow the old Requiem, but that no other Archbishop throughout Europe would have followed the policy of his predecessor and allowed a monthly Mass in his cathedral to continue (the monthly Mass in the crypt), let alone two Solemn High Masses a year at his High Altar! Let us always remember that with gratitude. Deo gratias.
____________
Addendum: At their Low Week Meeting in 1974 the English and Welsh Hierarchy, responding to an appeal to Cardinal Heenan from The Latin Mass Society, “recognised the right of Catholics to leave instructions regarding the rite to be used at their Requiem Mass”, and they informed the clergy of their decision. This was another concession gained by The Latin Mass Society in ensuring that the traditional rite of Mass would continue to be available after the introduction of the new liturgy. The fact that some bishops individually refused legitimate requests for a ‘Tridentine’ Requiem was to their shame but it does not invalidate the fact that the Society obtained another concession whereby the old Mass would continue to be celebrated in parish churches in England and Wales.
‘Declaration of fidelity to the Church’s unchangable teaching on marriage’
Cardinal Burke with the LMS last year. Photos: Daniel Blackman
You can join Cardinals Burke and Caffara, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and many others in signing a detailed declaration on the teaching of the Church on marriage, divorce, and related matters here. Although it makes for a long read, I do encourage people to sign it.
It is being promoted by the people who did the ‘filial appeal’ before the last Synod on the Family.
It is a magnificent piece of work. Each of 27 paragraphs about a particular issue is supported by several quotations from magisterial documents: Pope St John Paul II, Pius XI and XII, instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so on. They provide irrefutable proof of the solidity of the traditional understanding of the teaching and practice of the Church, and the necessity of the practice in light of the teaching, with crystal clear condemnations of many of the proposals floating about today. It thus makes for a very informative teaching document in itself.
Not being a specialist in this material I didn’t know all of these documents before now. Particularly interesting to me were the quotations not only from Pope St John Paul II’s Veritatis splendor, but his 1984 Reconciliatio et paenitentia, and the extremely helpful Declaration from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried. This last is not exactly ancient history: it dates from the year 2000! You’ll find it on the Vatican website here.
See what that one says about Catholics whose lives give public scandal even after they have repented and had sacramental absolution: couples in illicit unions who have undertaken to live as ‘brother and sister’, since they cannot separate:
Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives—such as, for example, the upbringing of the children—‘to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses’ (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio [as man and wife] is per se occult [i.e., since they are sharing a house so people will assume they are still living as man and wife], while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest [i.e. it is a public fact that they are not married to each other], they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo [in such a way as won’t cause scandal, e.g. privately]…. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls…. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (2000): Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, nn. 1-4.
I know from my work on the Position Papers that the doctrinal and policy confusion on the liturgy since the Council has led to official documents in tension with each other and with what actually happens on the ground. What is being proposed as a ‘pastoral solution’ to the problem of the divorced and remarried would, if officially endorsed, take us into new territory of self-contradiction and incoherence. If the hierarchy can perform a reverse ferret on this topic, no one is going to have any reason to believe them ever again about anything.
Some, of course, would see that as an advantage. Other people would see it as impossible. But it is not impossible: the hierarchy, even the Holy Father, are not miraculously prevented from putting their names to misleading, imprudent, or indeed erroneous documents. What is impossible is that error should be required of Catholics as a matter of belief: or rather, while it is perfectly possible that religious superiors should demand assent to error, and this has happened many, many times in the history of the Church, it is impossible that such assent be a genuine moral obligation.
Among other forms of preparation we need to undertake for the next stages of the current crisis, we all need to bone up, in accordance with our abilities, on what the constant teaching of the Church is. This document will help us do that.
Reposted from October 2009. The coming persecution, whether by militant secularists or Islamists, will not be a lovely time of growth and development. It will be horrible.
—————-
Last night I went to the annual Craigmyle Memorial Lecture, hosted by Jim Dobbin MP on behalf of the Catholic Union and given in Portcullis House. This year the speaker was HE Francis Campbell, the first Catholic to be Britain’s Ambassador to the Holy See, and still in office. He gave a thoughtful talk on Pope Benedict’s conception of Europe and secularism.
An interesting discussion took place during the questions about the effect of persecution on the Church. One questioner was saddened and disillusioned that the church in the Czech Republic, having been active in opposing the Communists, had, since Communism fell, become rather an insignificant force in what is said to be the most secular country in Europe. Another questioner suggested that the reason for the decline in the Czech church was that it was no longer being persecuted.
Mount Grace Priory, a Carthusian house (more photos).
Having been to Yorkshire recently I can show exactly what persecution, when at all effective, usually does to the Church. It makes a ruin of its institutions, and most of its members apostatize. Of the Yorkshire Cistercians in the four great Abbeys there only one, George Lazenby of Jervaulx, gave his life for refusing to assent to the manifestly absurd claim (which even Queen Elizabeth did not revive) that the monarch was the Head of the Church.
Byland Abbey, Yorkshire, Cicsterian (more photos).
In Poland the result of the persecution, to leave aside the most obvious, the horrific sufferings of Catholics under the Nazis and Communists, has been the agonising on-going revelations of the treachery of one after another respected prelate. The effect on the minds of the ordinary people of more than a generation of unquestioned anti-Catholic propaganda will take at least another generation to undo, and probably far longer.
Yes, certainly persecution gives us martyrs, but anyone who thinks that it unites the Church clearly hasn’t read any history: the early Church was riven by heresy during persecution; persecuted English Catholics under persecution were bitterly divided about both strategy and leadership, divisions cruelly exploited by the persecutors.
And yet there are still people looking forward to what appears to be coming – a increasingly shrill persecution of Catholicism by the British state – as if to a lovely warm bath. But it won’t be lovely. It will be horrible. Without institutions, whether they be adoption agencies, charities, or schools, the Church is maimed: she cannot spread the gospel or undertake her characteristic works of love towards all effectively. So the first thing which will happen is that the Church will cease to be able to make visible to society at large what the gospel means in practice.
Byland Abbey Chapter House.
The next thing that will happen is apostasy. Lukewarm Catholics who find professing their faith embarrassing or even a danger to their jobs will cease to do it, and will fall away from the faith. Fervent Catholics will be more and more cautious about doing it, and will tend to become lukewarm. No one will hear Catholics witnessing to their faith and conversions will fall.
After that we can expect increased internal divisions. Catholics always have their disagreements, but a situation of chronic pressure from outside creates a feeling of desperation, which is expressed in ill-considered but emotional support for conflicting plans and leaders.
Rievaulx Abbey, Yorkshire, Cistercian (more photos).
Sociologists will tell you that isolation and persecution leads to radicalisation. This is the fervour which those looking forward to persecution are hoping for. But it can more easily be wrong-headed radicalisation which grows, rather than the admirable kind, in a situation where the institutions of Catholic education and informed debate have been destroyed.
An extraordinary air of whimsy and presumption pervades the air when persecution is discussed. Are the Catholics of today more ready for rack and rope than the Catholics of 1535 or 1939? I don’t think so.
Rievaulx Abbey, Monks Refectory
Look at the last two pictures above: this is the achievement of St Aelred of Rievaulx, one of the greatest spiritual writers of his age, who created one of the greatest religious houses of England. What is it now? A pile of stones whose visitors scarcely know what God Aelred worshipped.
Evelyn Waugh was ‘one of the strongest opponents of the vernacular’ in England (AP)
Evelyn Waugh’s forgotten battle to preserve the Latin Mass
The great novelist, who died 50 years ago, almost became the first president of the Latin Mass Society
Considered one of Britain’s greatest novelists, and widely regarded as one of the prominent Catholics of his time, Evelyn Waugh, author of Brideshead Revisited, died 50 years ago this year.
While he will be remembered for his great works of fiction, many Catholics will be unfamiliar with his connection with the Latin Mass and his association with the beginnings of the Latin Mass Society (LMS).
In the 1960s, Waugh had grave concerns about Vatican II and the liturgical reform that was happening. He wrote many articles on the subject and recorded in his diaries and letters how aggrieved he was about, particularly about the earlier 1955 Holy Week reforms, the Dialogue Mass, which was becoming more common, and Mass in English.
In a Spectator article at the onset of the Council, he wrote:
“‘Participation’ in the Mass does not mean hearing our own voices. It means God hearing our voices. Only He knows who is ‘participating’ at Mass. I believe, to compare small things with great, that I ‘participate’ in a work of art when I study it and love it silently. No need to shout. … If the Germans want to be noisy, let them. But why should they disturb our devotions?
“That is a key idea: the responses, the English, the jumping up and down, shaking hands and so on ‘disturbs our devotions’: the serious business of engaging prayerfully in the Mass.”
In 1965, several attempts were made to create an organisation in England and Wales in defence of the Latin Mass. After a letter was published in the Catholic Herald of January 22, 1965 by a banker called Hugh Byrne suggesting the immediate formation of an organisation, a group was formed to put the wheels in motion.
It was recorded in the Herald in 1965: “This week efforts are being made to start a national Latin Mass Society in Britain. Mr Evelyn Waugh, one of the strongest opponents of the vernacular, has been asked to become President of the Society, which will aim at campaigning for at least one Latin Low Mass in every church on Sundays.”
Until his death in 1966, Waugh acted as an unofficial spokesman for the conservatives, expressing their growing disenchantment to Cardinal Heenan and in the press. He was also instrumental, with Sir Arnold Lunn and Hugh Ross Williamson, in founding the Latin Mass Society at Easter 1965.
The first meeting, a meeting for interested parties was held at Rembrandt Hotel, opposite the London Oratory, on April 10. Those present included the organiser Hugh Byrne, Anthony Couldery, Gillian Edwards, Kathleen Hindmarsh, Geoffrey Houghton-Browne, Peter Kenworthy-Browne, Jean Le Clercq, Miss Lowe, Ruth McQuillan, Mary Teresa Parnall and Barbara Witty, all of whom agreed to form the committee of the proposed Society.
In 1966 the Latin Mass Society produced a booklet, Sancta Lingua, containing an anthology of texts which provided “evidence of the widespread distress which the innovations have caused among Catholics” and showed that the “pleas for the retention of the all-Latin Mass are based on spiritual considerations, and accord fully with the teaching of the Church”. Alongside Church documents and published articles by the likes of Evelyn Waugh, there were extracts from letters received by the LMS.
Evelyn Waugh’s concerns and responses to his letters from Cardinal Heenan, have been turned into a book, A Bitter Trial (edited by Alcuin Reid). Waugh didn’t live to see the 1970 Missal, but despite declining the invitation to be the president of the LMS, possibly due to ill-health, he continued to support the organisation until his death in 1966.
To commemorate Waugh’s death, the Latin Mass Society are holding Pontifical Vespers at 5.30pm today at St Mary Magdalen Catholic church, in Wandsworth, London, in his memory. It will be celebrated by Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, the Nuncio to Switzerland, and features music from Renaissance composers Asola and Palestrina, and Waugh’s contemporary Edward Elgar.
