The Rite of Blessing of the Agnus Deis (Part 2)

Following up on our post on Monday about the blessing of the Agnus Deis, on Wednesday we published the text of the blessing promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV, and today we give a previous version from the late 15th century. This post is reproduced with some modifications from the website of the Cappella Gregoriana Sanctae Caecilia (St Cecilia Gregorian Choir), based in Manilla in the Philippine Islands, with their kind permission, and our thanks.

Dom Prosper Guéranger, in volume 7 of his L’Année liturgique, quotes an even older source for the prayers of the blessing of the Agnus Dei, and that is the Cæremoniale Romanum (Latin text in pdf here), published in 1488 by two-time papal master of ceremonies, Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini, bishop of Pienza and Montalcino, erected from the diocese of Arezzo on 13 August 1462, later split in 1582 into the independent sees of Pienza and Montalcino. Here is an English translation of the prayers based on Dom Guéranger’s French rendition, and below is our translation based on the original Latin.

The prayers in the older version are much, much longer, and the immediate ancestors of the prayers in the text published in 1752. The older version confirms that the water consecrated at the start of the ceremony is already blessed, carried out beforehand as usual either by the Pope himself or by any of his domestic prelates. Other ceremonials call the consecrated water the water of the New Lamb, by reason of the sole and eminent purpose it is reserved. Because the collects are untrimmed, we can clearly discover the Scriptural foundations of this special blessing reserved alone to the Pope. Unlike the 1752 rite, which arranges the constitutive prayers addressed to God from Father to Son to Holy Spirit, the 1488 rite addresses God first the Father, then the Holy Spirit, and finally the Son.

The frontispiece of a copy of Piccolomini’s Caerimoniale, ca. 1500. The kneeling man, whose identity is unknown, presents a copy of the book to Cardinal Georges d’Amboise; the inscription says “My Lord, on my return from Rome, I give you this book.” (Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des manuscrits. Latin 938)

Blessing of waxen Agnus Dei

according to the 1488 Cæremoniale Romanum

On any day after Easter, before Low Saturday, having said or heard Mass in his private Chapel, the Supreme Pontiff, vested in amice, alb, cincture, and simple mitre, blesses water with the usual blessing, as is done on Sundays by priests, in a vessel thither prepared, and, if it is more suitable, said water may be blessed beforehand by one of the Pope’s domestic Prelates. Then, the Pontiff approaches the aforesaid vessel, and, the mitre removed, standing, says:

V. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
R. Who hath made heaven and earth.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray. O Lord God, Father almighty, Founder of all the elements and Keeper of mankind, Giver of spiritual grace and Bestower of eternal salvation, Who didst vouchsafe the waters flowing from the spring of Paradise to irrigate all the earth, upon which Thy Only-begotten Son hath walked with dry feet, and hath deigned to be baptised in them, which hath flowed forth with His Blood from His most holy side, and hath commanded His Disciples to baptise all nations in them: benignantly and mercifully attend, and let the grace of Thy blessing come upon us who remember these Thy wonders, that Thou mayest ✠ bless and, having been blest, sancti✠fy the objects, which We cause to be cast and plunged in this vessel of water that was prepared for the glory of Thy Name, that, by the veneration and honour of these same objects, crimes may be washed off us Thy servants, stains of sins may be wiped off us, pardons may be obtained for us, graces may be granted to us, and we may finally merit to attain eternal life together with Thy saints and elect. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

The Pontiff then receives the Mitre again, and pours Balsam from its ampoule into the Water, in the form of a cross, saying:

Deign, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these waters through this anointing of balsam, and Our blessing. In the name of the ✠ Father, and of the ✠ Son, and of the Holy ✠ Spirit. Amen.

And he signs thrice. Then, from another ampoule, He pours holy Chrism into the same Water, likewise in the form of a cross, saying:

Deign, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these waters through this holy anointing of Chrism, and Our blessing. In the name of the ✠ Father, and of the ✠ Son, and of the Holy ✠ Spirit. Amen.

The Supreme Pontiff, with mitre, having received consecrated water with a silver spoon, consecrates another water: then, he turns towards the baskets, where the Agnus Dei are, and, the mitre removed, standing, says upon them:

V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray. O God of all hallowing, Lord and Ruler, Whose unending mercy is felt: Who didst vouchsafe Abraham, the father of our faith, arranging by Thy commandment to immolate Isaac his son as a foreshadowing of our redemption, to accomplish his sacrifice through a ram stuck amongst the brambles; and didst order Moyses, Thy lawgiving servant, that a perpetual holocaust should be offered in lambs without blemish: humbly we beseech Thee that, implored by the duty of our voice, Thou mayest deign to ✠ bless and, through the invocation of Thy Holy Name, sanctify these waxen figures fashioned with the image of the most innocent Lamb, that, at their touch and sight, the faithful may be invited to prayers; the crash of hailstorms, the storm of whirlwinds, the force of tempests, the rage of winds, the troublesome thunders may be subdued; malignant spirits may flee and tremble before the banner of the Holy Cross, which is engraved into them, to which all knee bendeth, and all tongue confesseth, for death being vanquished through the gibbet of the Cross, Jesus Christ reigneth in the glory of God the Father: for He, led as a lamb unto the slaughter, in death offered Thee, Father, the Holy Sacrifice of His Body, that He may guide back the lost sheep that was waylaid by the devil’s deceit, and bring it back carried upon His shoulders unto the fold of the heavenly homeland: He Who liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

He says another Collect:

Let us pray. Almighty and eternal God, Who art the Founder of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Law, and didst establish them to be accomplished for mankind’s atonement, just as Thy creation, which, deceived by the intimation of the devil, incurred Thy indignation in their disdain towards the empire of Thy majesty, and as Thou didst vouchsafe to be pleased in their obedience to these victims and sacrifices, as Thou didst establish in the sacrifice of Abel’s lamb of the firstfruits, and in the oblation of Melchisedech Thy Priest, and in the immolation of Abraham’s, Moyses’, and Aaron’s victims, lambs, rams, and fattened bulls, with Thy servants humbly offering as a foreshadowing everything that came in contact with them, because with Thy holy blessing, they became holy and salvific: and like the lamb, from whose blood the side posts and upper posts of the house were anointed, being immolated, delivered Thy people at midnight from the striking of the Egyptians; and in the same manner that the innocent Lamb, by Thy will immolated on the altar of the Cross, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, did deliver our forefathers from the power of the devil: so may these Lambs without blemish, which we offer to be consecrated before Thy divine majesty, receive that power: mayest Thou deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate them, that, sanctified by Thy generous blessing, they may receive the same power against all cunning of the devil, and deceits of malignant spirits, that may no tempest prevail against those devoutly bearing these Lambs upon themselves, may no adversity rule over them, may no pestilential breeze or corruption of air, and no mortal disease, no storm and tempest of the sea, no conflagration, nor any wickedness rule over them, nor may man prevail against them: may a safe delivery with the mother be kept through the intercession of Thy Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

We pray Thy mercy, O almighty God, Who didst create everything out of nothing, and, after Adam’s fall, didst bless Noe and his sons, who lived justly before Thy majesty, and were saved by Thy mercy from the waters of the deluge: mayest Thou thus deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate these Lambs, so that those bearing them, out of reverence and honour to Thy Name, may be delivered from all inundation of waters, and from all vicissitudes of the devil’s tempest, and from sudden death, through the power of the Passion of Jesus Christ, Thy blessed Son: Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

These done, the Supreme Pontiff is girded with a linen apron, and, having received the mitre, sits by the vessel of water, and the servers bring to him the Agnus Dei in silver platters, which the Pontiff plunges into the water, and the attending prelates take them out, and bring them in platters upon tables prepared with clean cloths, that they may be dried; and all having been baptised by the Pontiff, or by his prelates, the Supreme Pontiff, rising, and standing without mitre, says these Collects upon them:

Let us pray. O nourishing Spirit, Who makest the waters fruitful, and givest life to all, and didst establish every great sacrament in the substance of the waters, which, having relinquished bitterness, were transformed unto sweetness, and, sanctified by Thy breath, by impulse of the reception of the laver (of Baptism), at the invocation of the Name of the Holy Trinity, wash away sins: we beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou mayest deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate these Lambs, poured forth with the sacred and everlasting water and with the balsam of holy Chrism, so that, being blessed by Thee, they may receive power against all the devil’s temptations, and all who bear them may be protected amidst adversity and prosperity, that, having received Thy consolation, they may fear no peril, and dread no shadow, and no devil’s savagery or man’s cunning may inflict harm upon them, but, strengthened in the fortitude of Thy power, they may glorify in Thy consolation, Thou Who truly art called the Paraclete, and livest and reignest in perfect Trinity: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, Who truly art the innocent Lamb, the Priest and the Victim, Who art foretold by the voice of the prophets as the vine and the cornerstone, Who didst wash away the sins of the world, Who, being slaughtered, didst redeem us, O Lord God, in Thy Blood, and didst anoint with Thy Blood the posts of our breast and brow, lest the devil’s nighttime cunning, and noontime onslaught, and the people thrashing and passing over our houses, display their violence before us: Thou truly art the Lamb without blemish for our atonement, and didst vouchsafe to be perpetually immolated by Thy faithful in Thy memory, and to be eaten as the paschal Lamb under the species of bread and wine in the Sacrament unto the salvation and the remedy of our souls, that, having sojourned across the sea and the present age, we may come to the glory of the resurrection and eternity: we beseech therefore Thy mercy, and mayest Thou deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate these Lambs without blemish, which we have formed in Thy honour from virgin wax through the merits of the Cross, and, confected with holy water, and balsam, and the liquor of holy Chrism as a hallowing of Thy Conception, which Thou didst receive by divine power alone, without human contact and posterity, mayest Thou thus uphold, protect, and defend those who bear these Lambs from all danger of conflagration, lightning, storm, and tempest, and guard them from all adversity through the mystery of Thy Passion, and mayest Thou thus deign to deliver them and those labouring in childbirth from all perils, as Thou didst deliver Thy Mother from all peril, and Susanna from false accusation, and blessed Thecla Thy Virgin and Martyr from conflagrations; and just as Thou didst cause Peter, freed from fetters, to escape unscathed, mayest Thou cause us to depart unharmed from this age, that we may prevail to live with Thee without end: Who livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

These done, the Agnus Dei are placed back in their baskets, and then, on Low Saturday, after the Agnus Dei at Mass, they are given, as is more fully described in the ceremony of the mentioned day.

Review of Monastery and High Cross: The Forgotten Eastern Roots of Irish Christianity

The Faddan More Psalter

If you want to read a book full of historical and liturgical surprises, pick up a copy of Connie Marshner’s 2024 Monastery and High Cross: The Forgotten Eastern Roots of Irish Christianity (Sopia Institute Press).

We have always known that St. Patrick was sent to Ireland by the Pope, not to bring the Gospel to the Emerald Isle for the first time but to tend a Christian flock already there (of course, he also did a great deal of evangelizing once he arrived). But the question still remains: who were these pre-Patrick Christians?

Marshner’s book, which is an expansion of her Masters thesis in Gaelic literature, provides an answer. The volume opens with the tale of an astonishing discovery. In 2006, an Irishman was digging up peat when he came upon a leather-covered book. The Faddan More Psalter, as it is now known, was written about AD 800. The content (the Psalms) are in Latin text of the Vulgate, the script is Gaelic, but the cover is distinctively Egyptian in style—and, inside the cover were fragments of papyrus!

If the thesis of Monastery and High Cross is correct, then we can consider the Faddan More Psalter a metaphor for early Irish Christianity as a whole: a mixture of Continental, local, and—most surprisingly, Middle Eastern elements. That mixture, incidentally, remained in Ireland until the Anglo-Norman invasion in the twelfth century, which was begun partially on the pretext of bringing the Irish Church more into line with the practices of Rome.

To understand the forgotten Eastern roots of Irish Christianity, let us begin by outlining some of the differences between the Faith in Ireland and on the Continent. The early Irish Church celebrated Easter on a different date; it did not have daily private Mass; it practiced antiphonal singing long before the rest of the West adopted the practice; it was more monastic than diocesan (in part because diocesan headquarters are typically in cities and Ireland had none until the Vikings forced their way in); Irish churches, some of which had an iconostasis (!), were so small that only the priest and his ministers were inside for the Mass while the deacon and congregation were outside; Irish monasteries were more eremitical (hermit-like) than cenobitic (communal); Irish art was unlike any other in Europe; and scholarship, knowledge of the Greek language, and Marian devotion were more advanced in Ireland than anywhere else in the West.

Not your typical Western monastic dwelling: the beehive cells of Skellig Michael, Ireland

Adding to this picture are puzzling artifacts. Besides the Faddan More Psalter, Irish archeologists have discovered objects from Egypt, North Africa, and the Byzantine Empire, including the skull of a Barbary ape. It is also curious that Celtic Crosses frequently depict St. Antony and St. Paul the Hermit, the founders of the Desert Fathers in Egypt, and that there is a fourth-century inscription in County Cork that reads “Pray for Olan the Egyptian”—recall that St. Patrick did not arrive in Ireland as a missionary until 432. We also have Irish manuscripts that contain texts found nowhere else except parts of the Middle East. And there is a Chi Rho monogram carved into a stone in northeast Ireland that is of the same design as that found in second-century Coptic and Armenian sources.

The stone on which is inscribed in Ogham (the earliest form of Irish writing), “Pray for Olan the Egyptian”

All this evidence points to an Eastern influence in general and a Coptic influence in particular, so much so that one of Marshner’s chapter sections is entitled, “The Nile Flows into the Shannon.” Celtic art, like we see in the seventh-century Book of Kells, has elements in common with fifth and sixth-century Coptic manuscripts, including curvilinear interlacing around letters, red dots, and fish or dolphins bearing a cross. The Book was also illuminated with color dyes from around the world, including lapis lazuli from Afghanistan.

From the Book of Kells

Ireland’s famous High Crosses are a particularly interesting example of Eastern influence. The pre-Christian Irish did not cut stone or carve stone, let alone use stone for monumental statuary. But from the seventh to the twelfth century, Celtic Crosses became common in Ireland, western Scotland, and even parts of France, where Irish missionaries were active.

The Celtic Cross of Monsterboice

The crosses are an amalgamation of different Eastern practices. The very idea of having a stone sculpture came from Armenia: the Byzantine Empire did not have a tradition of sculpture, and in the West the practice died out with the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. The only Christian nation that had stone sculptures was Armenia, and apparently this easternmost fringe of the former empire shared its tastes with the westernmost fringe.

Chrismal with stauroteca

Celtic Crosses are distinctive because of the circle that surrounds the intersection of the arms. The pattern is most likely from Jerusalem. Pilgrims took home with them chrismals from the Holy City, small vessels that could contain chrism oil or even the Precious Blood. Some of these were in the shape of a cross with a stauroteca, a star-studded shield in the middle containing a portrait of Christ. A fifth or sixth-century Egyptian textile depicts this shield significantly enlarged—in other words, a Celtic cross (see below).

As for the carved markings, what is on the cross is significant as well as what is not on it. What is on it, as previously mentioned, are Desert Father Saints such as Antony and Paul the Hermit. Also included are typically Eastern choices, such as the Alpha and Omega and biblical scenes prefiguring the Crucifixion: Daniel in the lion’s den and the three youths placed in the fiery furnace. And what is not on these crosses is the Lamb of God, for the Byzantine Empire had outlawed depictions of Christ as a lamb.

Escape from persecution was probably the main motive for this Hiberno-Coptic connection. We know that orthodox priests and monks fled Egypt during the reign of Arian Emperors and later during the reign of Julian the Apostate (361-363), who denounced ascetics. They also fled en masse after the Islamic Arab conquest of Egypt in 642. It is quite possible that Ireland was one of several destinations for these periodic waves of refugees. We also know that Armenian clerics dwelt in Ireland for a while in the 600s and that the ninth-century Litany of Pilgrim Saints speaks of “seven monks of Egypt in the desert of Ulster.” Although there is no historical corroboration of this claim, it was enough to inspire the Coptic Orthodox Church to found a Seven Coptic Monks Church in Galway a couple of decades ago.

To compose Monastery and High Cross, Connie Marshner drew from an impressive array of scholarship, but her prose is not exactly that of a typical scholar:

“You might be saying to yourself at this point, ‘Connie, are you crazy? Aren’t we talking about the Dark Ages when nobody went anywhere more than five miles from where they were born? Isn’t it ridiculous to think penniless monks went thousands of miles from home?’ To which I say, ‘Hang on to your hat!’” (46).

The book also has useful call-outs on different topics, but they sometimes contain irrelevant digressions. After describing Andrew Ekonomou’s Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes, she adds that Ekonomou has a “more varied biography than most academics: a former state prosecutor in Georgia, he is senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice” (25). Good for Ekonomou, but how does this contribute to my understanding of Catholic Ireland?

For a book with so many discussions about individual artifacts, I was surprised that it did not contain any illustrations or images. Monastery and the High Cross would have been greatly enriched by photographs, for as they say, each is worth a thousand words. Marshner has subtitled her work the “forgotten Eastern roots of Irish Christianity,” but it would be more accurate to call it “the neglected roots.” As Marshner’s own footnotes attest, scholars have known for at least a century that the East influenced Celtic Christianity. Monastery and High Cross does not so much propose a brand-new thesis as assemble a series of theses and corroborate them with recent findings like that of the Faddan More Psalter.

Nor does the volume present a tidy picture of Eastern influence, either with respect to how it came to be or what was being shared. We do know not always know, for example, whether the path was indirect—from the East, through Mozarabic Spain or Gallican France, to Ireland—or direct. And if it was direct, we do not always know the origin country: Egypt, Syria, Armenia, etc. Monastery and High Cross successfully makes its case that Celtic Christianity has Eastern roots, but it leaves us with more questions than answers. It is Marshner’s hope that her book “may pique the interest of future scholars who will be able to do more justice to the topic” (xiii), and mine too.

This review originally appeared in The Latin Mass magazine 35:1 (Spring 2026), pp. 58-59. Many thanks to its editors for allowing its publication here.

The Hours of Boussu (Part 1)

Here is yet another magnificent book of Hours from the endless treasure trove that is the Bibliothèque nationale de France, known as the Hours of Isabelle de Lalaing, the noble lady for whom it was made sometime after 1490. It is also called the Hours of Boussu, the town in the county of Hainaut (in modern Belgium) of which her family were the lords; the anonymous artist is known as the master of Antoine Rolin. As with everything on the BnF website, the manuscript can be downloaded as a pdf for free. Here is a selection of images which includes all the large pictures, and some examples of the many different kinds of decoration. This first part goes up to the end of the Little Office of the Virgin, the heart of any books of Hours. A second post will include the other features that come after it, such as the Offices of the Passion and of the Dead.

This book is one of the most richly decorated examples of its genre; literally every page that does not have a sacred picture or more elaborate border has a rectangular section like the ones seen here on the two pages for the calendar in April, filled with birds, sometimes other animals, insects (mostly butterflies), and an extraordinary variety of flowers. A great deal of blank space is left on the pages, which is also a sign of the wealth of the person commissioning the book.

The Virgin Mary kneeling before the Three Persons of the Trinity, with an angel holding a banderole saying, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The Lord’s Prayer

The Stabat Mater, which here, unually, has a decorative border with angels, rather than an image of the Virgin standing by the Cross.

In addition to the floral and animal motifs in the borders, there are a fair number of pictures related to the prayers at their beginnings, such as this one to the Virgin Mary.

Many books of Hours included a group of four Gospels, one from each of the Evangelists: John 1, 1-14, the Gospel of Christmas day; Luke 1, 26-38, the Annunciation; Matthew 2, 1-12, the Epiphany; and Mark 16, 14-20, the Ascension. Here we see St John on the island of Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse...

Continue Reading this Article. . .

An Especially Beautiful Byzantine Chant for Easter

In the Divine Office of the Byzantine Rite, a chant called the Exapostilarion is sung at the hour of Orthros between the section known as the Canon (explained here) and the Laudate Psalms. As in every liturgical tradition, some of the most beautiful texts and musical settings of them are found in Holy Week and Easter; here is an absolutely extraordinary version of the one for Easter, performed in a concert given in Rome in October of 2012 by the National “Dumka” Choir, which is very famous in Ukraine, conducted by Yevgeny Savchuk. This particular chant comes from the tradition of the Monastery of the Holy Dormition in Pochayiv, about 85 miles to the east of Lviv.

To all those who follow the Julian Calendar, and are now in the middle of Bright Week, a most blessed and happy Easter - Christ is risen!

Having fallen asleep in the flesh as a mortal man, o King and Lord, Thou didst rise on the third day, raising Adam from corruption, and destroying death: O Pascha of incorruption, the Salvation of the world!

Плотїю oуснув, яко мертвъ, Царю и Господи, тридневенъ воскреслъ еси, Адама воздвигъ ѿ тли, и oупразднивъ смерть: Пасха нетлѣнїѧ, мїра спасенїе.

Σαρκὶ ὑπνώσας ὡς θνητός, ὁ Βασιλεὺς καὶ Κύριος, τριήμερος ἐξανέστης, Ἀδὰμ ἐγείρας ἐκ φθορᾶς, καὶ καταργήσας θάνατον, Πάσχα τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, τοῦ κόσμου σωτήριον.

The Rite of Blessing of the Agnus Deis (Part 1)

Following up on our post on Monday about the blessing of the Agnus Deis, we here give the text of the blessing promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV. A previous version from the late 15th century will be given in the second part. This post is reproduced with some modifications from the website of the Cappella Gregoriana Sanctae Caecilia (St Cecilia Gregorian Choir), based in Manilla in the Philippine Islands, with their kind permission, and our thanks.

In 1752, Pope Benedict XIV ordered the publication of the text of the Blessing of the Agnus Dei. (Latin text in pdf here.) The rite, republished in 1865 by Father Jules Caron, begins with the consecration of the water wherein the waxen discs are to be later submerged. To the blessed water are mixed balsam and chrism. Afterwards, the Pope distributes the consecrated water to other fonts that will be used for the submersion of the discs, to be presided by other cardinals. The Pope himself, assisted by cardinals, presides over the blessing in the main font.

The Pope then approaches the Agnus Dei, which are placed in baskets, or some similar vessels, and pronounces a three-fold blessing over them, the first addressed to God the Father, the second to God the Son, and the third to God the Holy Spirit. These collects enumerate the various graces gained by bearers of the sacramental, such as deliverance from calamities and diseases, protection during childbirth, and consolation in this life and life-everlasting. After these powerful prayers, the Pope censes the discs thrice, and then into every font of consecrated water, the discs are submerged, and then later taken out and brought into an adjoining chamber where they are dried.

The Pope afterwards enters this chamber, and then pronounces the final collect, which highlights one of the central mysteries behind the sacramental, and this is the Conception of the Lord, otherwise known as the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin. The wax used for the discs traditionally came from the paschal candle of the Sistine Chapel, and of the other churches of Rome, from the previous Easter, and into this wax was usually mixed an amount of pure unused wax, hence the last collect calls it the cera virginea. And just as the conception of the Lord was preserved from human contact, so the last collect expresses its hope that bearers of the Agnus Dei will be protected from mortal troubles, and after death will merit eternal life. In the end, the discs are gathered in the baskets, and are distributed on the following Low Saturday, after the Agnus Dei is chanted at Mass.

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58), by Pierre Subleyras, 1741 (Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.)

Blessing of waxen Agnus Dei

published in 1752 by order of Pope Benedict XIV

The Supreme Pontiff, standing without Mitre, says:

V. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
R. Who hath made heaven and earth.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray. O Lord God, Father almighty, Creator of all the elements, and Giver of spiritual grace, from Whose Only-begotten Son’s most holy side did flow forth waters together with Blood, and Who didst sanctify the waters of the Jordan through the same Only-begotten Son, and didst vouchsafe all nations to be baptised in these waters, and didst finally institute the greatest sacraments in the substance of the waters: benignly and mercifully attend, and deign to ✠ bless and sancti✠fy this element of water, that crimes may be washed off and graces may be granted to Thy servants devoutly venerating the waxen discs plunged in this water, that they may merit to obtain eternal life with Thy elect. R. Amen.

This Collect complete, the Supreme Pontiff receives the Mitre, and, with the most senior Cardinal ministering the ampoule of Balsam, which the Sacrist hands to the Cardinal, the Supreme Pontiff pours the Balsam from the ampoule into the Water, in the form of a cross, saying:

Deign, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these ✠ waters through this holy pouring of balsam, and Our blessing. Here, thrice he signs with his hand, saying: In the name of the ✠ Father, and of the ✠ Son, and of the Holy ✠ Spirit. Amen.

Then, from another ampoule of Chrism, with the most senior Cardinal ministering, as above, the Supreme Pontiff pours the holy Chrism into the same Water, in the form of a cross, saying:

Deign, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these ✠ waters through this holy anointing of Chrism, and Our blessing. Here, thrice he signs with his hand, saying: In the name of the ✠ Father, and of the ✠ Son, and of the Holy ✠ Spirit. Amen.

The water blessed, the Supreme Pontiff, with a ladle or a silver spoon, takes from this water and pours into other fonts of water in the form of a cross, saying nothing: then he turns to the baskets in which are place the Agnus Dei, and standing close to them, the mitre removed, says:

V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray. O God the Author of all hallowing, Who didst look upon Abel’s lamb of sacrifice, Who didst vouchsafe that a ram stuck in the brambles should be sacrificed in the place of Isaac’s immolation as a foreshadowing of our redemption, and didst command Moses that a perpetual sacrifice should be offered in lambs, humbly we beseech Thee, that Thou mayest deign to ✠ bless and sancti✠fy these waxen figures fashioned with the image of the most innocent Lamb, that, in their presence, the crash of hailstorms, the storm of whirlwinds, the force of tempests, the rage of winds, the troublesome thunders may dissipate: and, just as the Angel, at the sight of the blood which Thy people had sprinkled on the upper door posts and on the side posts did pass over striking without harm upon the houses thus sprinkled, so at the sight of these images may malignant spirits flee and tremble, and may unprovided death not meet devout bearers of these images, may the human enemy not prevail against them, may no adversity reign over them, may no shadow incite fear in them, may no pestilential breeze or corruption of the air, nor epilectic or any other violent disease, nor storm or tempest of the sea, nor inundation of rivers or waters, nor conflagration of fires, inflict harm upon them: through the invocation of Thy Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord: Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

Let us pray. O Lord Jesus Christ, who art the true innocent Lamb, offered upon the altar of the Cross for the salvation of the world, by Whose death mankind was delivered from eternal death and diabolic power, and recalled unto life, deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate these waxen images of the Lamb, that those devoutly carrying them, out of reverence and honour to Thy Name, may be delivered from sudden death, and from all cunning and wickedness of infernal deceit: and may the pangs of mothers in childbirth be thus soothed, so a safe delivery with the mother be kept through the power of Thy Passion: Who livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

Let us pray. O nourishing Spirit, Who with Thy breath makest the waters fruitful and holy, and turnest their bitterness into sweetness, deign to ✠ bless, sancti✠fy, and con✠secrate these waxen lambs about to be poured forth with water and holy Chrism, that all their bearers, strengthened by the fortitude of Thy power, may rejoice in Thy consolation, Who art truly called the Paraclete, and, with the Father and the Son, livest and reignest, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

From the YouTube channel of British Pathé, some unused footage (without sound) of Pope St John XXII blessing Agnus Deis in 1959.

The Collects complete, the Supreme Pontiff places incense in the thurible, a Cardinal-Priest ministering the boat, blessing it in the usual way, while saying: Mayest thou be blessed by Him in Whose honour thou art burned.

Afterwards, he censes the Agnus Dei with three swings of the thurible: then he receives the mitre, is girded with a linen apron, and receives the upper apron, known in Italian as bavarola, sitting in the midst of two Cardinals at one of the fonts of blessed Water: the Cardinals, likewise girded with linen aprons, sit on either side at the farthest side of the same font, facing each other. Servers, on the other hand, and others, bring the Agnus Dei, in clean silver platters, to the fonts of blessed water, where they are submerged. The Supreme Pontiff, and the Cardinals assisting him, take the Agnus Dei out with silver spoons, and place them back in the same platters, in which they were brought, or in other platters, with the servers receiving and bringing them to the place prepared for this purpose, whereupon they put them on the tables, with clean cloths, prepared for this purpose, that moisture having been taken out, they may be dried. The other Cardinals summoned for this purpose, likewise girded with linen aprons, sit by the other fonts of blessed Water, and submerge the Agnus Dei brought by the servers, and take them out with silver spoons in the same way as above, and they are brought to the place already mentioned. With the Agnus Dei already baptised by the Supreme Pontiff and the Cardinals, the Supreme Pontiff, entering the chamber wherein the abovementioned tables are placed, and standing without mitre, says:

V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray. We beseech Thy immense mercy, O God almighty, that the bearers of these Lambs without blemish, which, being formed from virgin wax as a sign of the Conception of Thy Only-begotten Son our Lord, which was obtained by divine power without human contact, We have consecrated with sacred water and sacred Chrism through the merits of the Cross, delivered from all terrors, as well as conflagrations, of malignant spirits, of inundations, of lightning, of tempest, of untoward childbirth, and from all other dangers and diseases, may depart unharmed from this age, and rejoice with Thee in the age to come without end: Who livest and reignest in perfect Trinity, God: through all the ages of the ages. R. Amen.

These done, the Agnus Dei are placed in the baskets, and are distributed on Low Saturday after the chanting of the Agnus Dei at Mass.

The Voice of Tradition: Dom Prosper Guéranger’s “Anti-Liturgical Heresy”

Originally published at Adoremus Bulletin, this article by Richard Kaleb Hammond is more timely than ever, thanks to the recent invocation, by the Abbot of Solesmes and by Andrea Grillo, of Dom Prosper Guéranger as a supposed proponent, in advance, of the liturgical reform (!). We are all the more grateful to be publishing Mr. Hammond’s article in its original form, with many passages restored that had been edited out by Adoremus. It is also pertinent to note that, after 175 years, Guéranger's Liturgical Institutions, in which he speaks about the "anti-liturgical heresy," has finally been published in English. – PAK

Dom Prosper Guéranger has been called the “grandfather” of the Liturgical Movement, [1] a century-long effort within the Catholic Church to inspire deeper understanding and greater appreciation for the Liturgy of the Latin rite through liturgical piety, which Dom Alcuin Reid defines as “drawing one’s spiritual nourishment from active and conscious contemplation of the faith of the Church as it is celebrated and expressed in the liturgical rites and prayers throughout the annual round of seasons and feasts of the liturgical year, as distinct from the practice of an unrelated, however worthy, devotional exercise.” [2] Alongside his many other writings which contributed to this project, Guéranger summarized the errors which he and many future proponents of the Liturgical Movement sought to correct in popular approaches to the Liturgy through what he called the “anti-liturgical heresy.” [3]

The historical development of the Liturgy, including corruptions of it by heretics in the early Church, the Protestant Revolution, and the Jansenists and Gallicans of Guéranger’s own time, as well as the varied threads which would be woven into the Liturgical Movement in the twentieth century, can be measured according to Guéranger’s description of this heresy, which he divided into twelve distinct criteria:

(1) hatred of Tradition;
(2) substitution of ecclesiastical formulae for readings exclusively from Scripture;
(3) fabrication of innovative formulae;
(4) antiquarianism;
(5) demystification of the Liturgy;
(6) “pharisaical coldness” [4] in liturgical prayer;
(7) removal of all intermediaries (Marian devotion, communion of saints, etc.);
(8) replacement of sacred languages with the vernacular;
(9) simplification of rites and easing of religious duties;
(10) rejection of papal authority;
(11) laicization, denying the sacramental nature of the ministerial priesthood; and
(12) confusion of the roles of priests and laity in liturgical reform.

Hatred of Tradition, Sola Scriptura and Innovation

Guéranger begins his formulation of the anti-liturgical heresy with its most overriding criterion: hatred of Tradition. He explains that the Liturgy, “which is Tradition at its strongest and best”, acts as the buttress against all doctrinal error. As such, those in history who wished to introduce innovative doctrines only had to deform the Liturgy, to substitute the heritage of Tradition which it maintains for their own hymns, prayers, and lessons, for the faithful to be subjected to and formed in their falsehoods. Through these cunning and often subtle changes, “the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.”

Even with the corrective work of apologists, as in the Counter-Reformation, the faithful, for whom the liturgy is the most immediate and formative experience of Tradition, can still be easily led astray by these liturgical corruptions.

Liturgical innovators who seek to violate Tradition and form the faithful in false doctrines have tended to uphold one common criterion: the need for all the formulae of the Liturgy to derive exclusively from Scripture, as Guéranger explains:

This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition of which sectarians are always afraid. Then, there is the advantage of propagating and supporting their dogmas by means of affirmation and negation. By way of negation, in passing over in silence, through cunning, the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by way of affirmation, by emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other [from] the eyes of the unlearned.

Ultimately, this second criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy falls prey to the same weaknesses as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura: the choice of readings and even the canon of the Bible, as well as its interpretation, rely entirely upon “the caprice of the reformer, who, in final analysis, decides the meaning of the word itself.” On the other hand, the formulae inherited from Tradition reflect the infallible teaching of the Church and the integral meaning of Scripture; many of them were composed by saints and, like the creeds and definitions of the ecumenical councils, they codify and explicate the truth of God without bias.

In place of these traditional formulae, and as his third criterion, Guéranger explains that the heretics “fabricate and introduce various formulas, filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error”. These innovations prove to be the true motive for the application of sola scriptura to liturgical Tradition.

Ironically, after discovering that Scripture cannot support all of their erroneous doctrines, even when picked and interpreted selectively, Guéranger notes that these substitutions of Scripture in place of traditional formulae are immediately accompanied by brand-new formulae which are “filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error, and thus the whole structure of the impious reform will become consolidated for the coming centuries.”

Antiquarianism

Alongside sola scriptura, liturgical deformers will also frequently refer to Guéranger’s fourth criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: antiquarianism. Asserting that only what is most ancient is truly pure, whereas later developments are those which “the errors and passions of man have mixed in”, proponents of antiquarianism claim to purge the Liturgy “from whatever is ‘false’ and ‘unworthy of God’.” Accordingly, as Guéranger explains,

they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.

Having removed everything that could testify to Tradition in its clearest terms, on the pretext that it did not reflect the “primitive” and pure teachings of the early Church, they replace them with their own formulae which lack the poetic beauty, theological depth, and doctrinal orthodoxy of the monuments of Tradition, thus “cutting them off from the entire past.”

This “pruning” can include the deletion of practices which are considered to be mere late “accretions” [5] yet are later proven not to be so, such as ad orientem prayer which “the early Church… regarded as an apostolic tradition”; indeed, “it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and, indeed, of private prayer).” [6] It would also involve the exclusion of cherished customs, such as the elevatio at the Consecration or the reading of the Last Gospel, which developed from centuries of pious devotion. By its rejection of later developments in Tradition, antiquarianism, in Guéranger’s words, “cut[s] them [the Christian faithful] off from the entire past.”

Pope Pius XII clearly refuted antiquarianism only a few years before the Second Vatican Council:

It is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device… one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See… This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. (Mediator Dei, §62, 64) [7]

Anthropocentrism and Demystification

A fundamental aim of the anti-liturgical heresy, in all its historical and modern forms, is the subjection of the Liturgy, and the Tradition which it monumentalizes, to human interests; this has sometimes been called anthropocentrism, in which “we want to find God on our terms, not on His terms; we want to worship Him in our way, not His way.” [8]

According to Guéranger’s fifth and sixth criteria, man, rather than God, is the center of the liturgy,[1] therefore all teachings, formulae, prayers and devotions which seem mysterious or arresting must be removed while any perceived obstacles to easy comprehension and external participation must also be “reformed.”

This dry rationalism often involves the elimination, simplification or deemphasis of sensible signs in order to demystify and didacticize the Liturgy, the effect of which is “the total extinction of that spirit of prayer, which in Catholicism, we call unction”, since “[a] heart in revolt can no longer love.” Following from this is the seventh criterion, in which man, “[p]retending to treat nobly with God… has no need of intermediaries”; thus is the intercession of the saints made superfluous in a Liturgy brought down to man’s level. In Dom Alcuin Reid’s words,

The ultimate result of this anthropocentrism, warns Guéranger, is “no more Sacraments, except Baptism, preparing the way for Socialism, which freed its followers even from Baptism. No more sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages, etc. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice as in every religion, but only a meal… No more religious architecture, since there is no more mystery. No more Christian paintings and sculpture, since there is no more sensible religion.” In the end, when the Faith centers on man rather than God, it is gutted of all meaning.

In this way, the Liturgy becomes wholly private and interior, with the sensible being neglected or outright condemned, as in the various iconoclasms throughout history. This demystification and anthropocentrism of the Liturgy result from the previous principles delineated by Guéranger, all of which subjected Tradition to human interests and preferences in conformity with the spirit of the age.

One of the most ubiquitous and effective methods of demystifying the Liturgy is the imposition of vernacularism, the eighth criterion of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy. By exchanging a sacred language with the vernacular, the sacredness and mystery of the Liturgy are essentially destroyed as it is reduced to the level of the commonplace. As a result, Guéranger says, it is insisted that “cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing.” In so doing, the Liturgy loses its universality, becoming particular to each culture according to language and hindering the ability to participate wherever one happens to be.

A vernacular Liturgy easily falls prey to the arbitrary customizations of the people, as well as confusions of doctrine between languages, whereas a sacred language maintains continuity with Tradition and unity within each of the six liturgical Traditions (rites) which trace back to the apostles and together make up the Catholic Church (“the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan or Byzantine”). [9] As Pope John XXIII taught (quoting Pope Pius XI), “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time… of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular” (Veterum Sapientia).

From a desire for expediency, vernacularism leads to Guéranger’s ninth criterion, the easing of other sacrifices in the life of the faithful, including “no more fasting, no more abstinence, no more genuflections in prayer” and the lessening of “the sum of public and private prayers”, all going toward the overall goal of this heresy to subject the Liturgy to man and thus break with Tradition.

Once a sacred language has been abandoned, “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 said in the way one speaks on the marketplace.”

While Guéranger focuses on Latin, which he describes as “the bond among Catholics throughout the universe [and] the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit”, this can also be applied to the Eastern rites which often use ancient or specialized forms of vernacular languages to inspire reverence and preserve Tradition, [10] as well as to the Ordinariate Divine Worship which employs archaic English for similar purposes.

Throughout history, anti-liturgical heretics have consistently rejected the unique office of the papacy as the guarantor of orthodoxy, the sign of universality, and the final arbiter of conflict, substituting themselves as the sole authority to customize the Liturgy and interpret Scripture.

Guéranger lists this usurpation as his tenth criterion, a means of rebelling against the ‘tyranny’ of the papacy in favor of localism and individualism. Heretics in the early Church, the Orthodox, Protestants and Old Catholics have adhered to this principle; similarly, today dissident Catholics also reject the papacy, either by denying the doctrines of the Church in liberalism or by asserting that the post-conciliar papacy is illegitimate and the papal seat vacant (sedevacantism).

From this follows the eleventh criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: the laicization of the priesthood as a whole. When the Liturgy is rationalized and brought down to the merely human level, a sacramental priesthood, acting in persona Christi, is impossible. One consequence of this anti-clerical “presbyterianism” is Guéranger’s twelfth and final criterion, wherein he warns against “secular or lay persons assuming authority in liturgical reform”. He recognized that this inevitably leads, like vernacularism, to “the Liturgy, and consequently dogma, [becoming] an entity limited by the boundaries of a nation or region.” [11]

As Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has noted, the laicizing of the priesthood, in doctrine or in practice, leads, like vernacularism, to “the Liturgy, and consequently dogma, [becoming] an entity limited by the boundaries of a nation or region.” [2] It is also not infrequently responsible for the confusion of roles in the Liturgy, by which tasks proper to the ordained are appropriated by laypeople. [12]

Both of these final criteria blur the distinctions between the universal baptismal priesthood and the special ministerial priesthood, thus subjecting liturgical Tradition to the local and individual preferences of the laity. In so doing, much of the mystery and universality of the Sacraments is destroyed through a false democratization, as in laypeople distributing the Eucharist at Mass or boldly approaching the altar and self-communicating in the hand. [3]

Tradition as Living Organism

From these negative criteria of the anti-liturgical heresy, Dom Alcuin Reid deduces positive principles which clarify and affirm liturgical Tradition

[corresponding to 1st and 2nd criteria: to] protect the place of non-scriptural texts in the organic whole of the Liturgy; [3rd] innovate rarely and only where necessary; [4th] reject antiquarianism out of respect for the living, developed Liturgy; [5th] protect all that speaks of the supernatural and of mystery in the Liturgy; [6th] similarly, protect the nature of Liturgy as prayer and worship lest it be reduced to a didactic exercise; [7th] treasure the role of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints in the Liturgy; [8th] reject vernacularism; [9th] resist the temptation to sacrifice the Liturgy for the sake of speed; [10th] rejoice in liturgical unity with the Church of Rome; and, [11th and 12th] to respect the particular liturgical roles and authority of the ordained. [13]

Answering the anti-liturgical heresy requires a thorough understanding of liturgical Tradition in light of these positive principles. The Liturgy must develop organically, as Vatican II taught: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (Sacrosanctum concilium, §23)

Guéranger also summarized this rule: “Progress in Liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.” [14] Likewise, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “the Liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and… innovation must be for good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition”, [15] reflecting the truth that “Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of the centuries”. [16]

The Liturgy must be understood not as a mere communal meal, Bible study or prayer-meet but as the approach of penitent sinners on their knees to Calvary, where Christ the High Priest offered Himself as the spotless victim on the altar of the Cross to the Father for the forgiveness of sins, and as the sanctification of the faithful through participation in the Heavenly Liturgy. (Sacrosanctum concilium, §7-8)

Recovery and Restoration

As the Liturgical Movement progressed, it broke into two distinct strains: one faithful to Guéranger’s clear understanding of liturgical Tradition, and another which embraced both antiquarianism, following the “corruption theory” proposed by Jungmann according to which only what is most primitive constitutes authentic Tradition, and anthropocentrism, insisting on the need for a “pastoral Liturgy” which should be “fashioned to meet the needs of contemporary man.” [17]

In response, Cardinal Ratzinger observed, “Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism—which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism—are both equally wrong. These two might be described as unholy twins.” [18]

Tradition, then, is not merely a remnant of the early Church or the wholesale adaptation of the Faith to suit the times but the accumulated devotion of the saints across the centuries handed on to future generations. Accordingly, the goal of Pope St. Pius V’s institution of the Tridentine reforms was not to introduce any radical innovations but only to “[restore] the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers” while still permitting the continuation of any rite “which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years” (Quo primum), thus recognizing medieval contributions as legitimate organic developments of Tradition. [19] The same purpose also guided the orthodox fathers of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum concilium, §23).

A rediscovery of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy criteria, and their application to contemporary liturgical theology and practice, can help to fulfill the original goals of the Liturgical Movement and restore liturgical Tradition, including those venerable elements, such as ad orientem worship and the use of a sacred language, as well as the received forms of liturgical prayers and rites, which have fallen into disuse.

Kaleb Hammond holds a B.A. in English and Theology from Holy Apostles College & Seminary, Cromwell, CT, where he is now pursuing an M.A. in Theology. He is a writer for Missio Dei and has been published at Adoremus Bulletin, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, St. Austin Review and Catholic Insight. A convert to the faith, he grew up in Georgia but now lives in Indiana with his family.

NOTES

[1] Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2^nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 381. Kindle.

[2] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 58-59.

[3] See Prosper Guéranger, “The Anti-Liturgical Heresy,” at Catholic Apologetics, at catholicapologetics.info.

[4] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 55.

[5] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 46.

[6] Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2018), loc 816. Kindle.

[7] The propositions of the illegal 1786 Synod of Pistoia, eighty-five of which were condemned in the 1794 papal bull of Pope Pius VI Auctorem fidei, were Jansenist attempts to make the Liturgy rationalized and anthropocentric according to the aims of the Enlightenment. They included having only one altar in each church, no recitation by the priest of anything chanted by the choir, “[f]orbidding relics and flowers on the altar”, reciting the Offertory and Canon aloud, “forbidding numerous devotional and pious practices, including the rosary,” simplifying the Liturgy and translating it into the vernacular. “The people rose up and rejected the imposed reforms.” See Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 49-50.

[8] Peter Kwasniewski, The Once and Future Roman Rite (Gastonia, NC: TAN, 2022), 117. Kindle.

[9] Edward McNamara, “Why So Many Rites in the Church,” at EWTN (25 October 2016), at www.ewtn.com.

[10] E.g. “[L]iturgical Greek… Church Slavonic… old literary Georgian… literary Coptic… Ge’ez… classical Syrian and Arabic [and] classical literary Armenian.” See Peter Kwasniewski, “The Byzantine Liturgy, the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo – Two Brothers and a Stranger,” at New Liturgical Movement (4 June 2018), at www.newliturgicalmovement.org.

[11] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 55.

[12] See Peter Kwasniewski, Ministers of Christ: Recovering the Roles of Clergy and Laity in an Age of Confusion (Manchester, NH: Crisis, 2021).

[13] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 55-56.

[14] Quoted in Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 56.

[15] Joseph Ratzinger, introduction to Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2^nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 20. Kindle

[16] Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, vol. 3 of The Penguin History of the Church (London: Penguin, 1990), 119; cf. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, loc 1952.

[17] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 151.

[18] Ratzinger, introduction to Organic Development, 10.

[19] Reid, Organic Development, 2^nd ed., 39-41.

The Oratory of Ss Cecilia and Valerian in Bologna

Since at least the last decades of 8th century, April 14 has been kept in the Roman Rite as the feast of three martyrs named Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus. Valerian is said to have been the fiancé of St Cecilia, converted by her, after which he in turn converted his brother Tiburtius; Maximus was a soldier, one of several who witnessed the other two first beaten and then beheaded for the Faith, and was himself rewarded the crown of martyrdom after converting. Their legend has long been known to be historically unreliable; in a Roman breviary printed in 1529, their office has three fairly lengthy hagiographical lessons, excerpted in part from the legend of St Cecilia, but in St Pius V’s edition, these are reduced to two very short ones.

In the heart Bologna, less than half a mile from the cathedral, stands a small oratory dedicated to Cecilia and Valerian, commissioned for the use of a confraternity by the city’s de facto ruler, a nobleman called Giovanni Bentivoglio. Beginning in 1505, a group of several painters who worked in his court were commissioned to fresco the walls with pictures of the main stories of the martyrs’ legend. (The series was completed within a year, just in time for an army led by Pope Julius II to invade Bologna and drive the Bentivoglios out of it; Giovanni died in Milan two years later as a prisoner of the French king.) The frescos, which are in a fairly good state of preservation, show the strong influence of the school of Perugino, from which emerged the most important painter of that period, Raphael. Some of the attributions given below are not very certain.

The Betrothal of Cecilia and Vaerian, by Francesco Raibolini, (generally known and Francesco Francia, or just il Francia in Italian.) 

According to the story, on their wedding night, Cecilia informs Valerian that she is a Christian, and has vowed to God to remain a virgin, and furthermore, that she is protected by an angel who will defend her if necessary. This inspires Valerian to inquire from her about the Faith, after which she sends him to Pope St Urban I, who is hiding from persecution in the region of the catacombs, to be baptized. (Urban was Pope from 222-230. Painting by Lorenzo Costa.)

The baptism of Valerian, by Giovanni Maria Chiodarolo and Cesare Tamaroccio.

When he returns to Cecilia, Valerian is able to see the angel, who then crowns them both with wreathes of flowers. (Painting by Bartolomeo Ramnghi, known as Bagnacavallo, and Biagio Pupini.)

Valerian converts his brother Tiburtius, after which they are both arrest, tortured, and then taken out of the city and beheaded. (Painting by Amico Aspertini.)

The burial of Valerian and Tiburtius, also by Aspertini.

Cecilia stands before the prefect of Rome, a man named Almachius, and disputes with him over the truth of the Christian faith. (By Bagnacavallo and Pupini.)

The (attempted) martyrdom of Cecilia by beheading; “attempted” because, as the legend tells it, the inept executioner was unable to do his job properly, and thus wounded her horribly by striking her with the sword three times without killing her. Roman law forbade a fourth blow, and she was thus free to go, and would die of her wounds several days later... (by Chiodarolo and Tamaroccio)

during which time she gave all her wealth and possessions to the poor. (This is represented by Costa very unrealistically, as if she were unwounded.)

The burial of Cecilia, by Francia.

Art, Beauty, Creativity and Inspiration #3: Is Beauty in The Eye of The Beholder?

Or are there standards by which we can measure it?

Detail of Portrait of Cornelius Van Der Geest, by Anthony Van Dyck, Flemish, 17th century.

This is the third in a four-part series exploring a Christian philosophy of art and beauty. In the first post, I examined what art is and what makes it good and Christian. Last week, I looked at the traditional process of artistic creation and the effect that beauty has on us when we apprehend it - how it wounds us with desire for something beyond itself, ultimately for God. This week, I take up what is perhaps the most contested question in all of aesthetics: how do we know whether something is beautiful? Is beauty subjective - merely in the eye of the beholder, or is it an objective quality that can, at least in principle, be discerned and judged? Or is it a bit of both? I argue that while individual judgments differ, tradition provides the most reliable collective measure of what is truly beautiful, far more reliable than the fashions of any single generation or person (…even me!) or the opinions of university elites. Next week, I will conclude with the practical questions of beauty and utility and consider whether or not the creation of beautiful things is simply too expensive to justify.

How Do We Know What is Beautiful?

This is not always easy to answer with certainty, so we must look to tradition for help here.

We follow the traditional assumption that when we apprehend beauty in the world around us, we are discerning a property that belongs to the objects regarded. Consistent with this, we call beauty an objective quality. The subject—the person who views the object—makes a personal judgment on its beauty. To categorize beauty as an objective quality is not to say that everyone makes the same judgments. Clearly, there is a varying subjective element to the apprehension of beauty, as we all know, because there are differences of opinion about what is beautiful.

There is no contradiction in recognizing that there may be a differing subjective response to the same objective quality. There are several reasons two people might look at the same object and differ in their sense of its beauty. It might relate to the proper functioning of the senses: someone who is colorblind will very likely have a different sense of the beauty of something than someone who differentiates colors well.

A second reason concerns legitimate differences in the perceived goodness of the object. Some things can be good for one person but bad for another. The sound of a babbling brook, for instance, has the beauty of the sweetest music to the man who is dying of thirst, but is horrifying to a man who is drowning and sees the water level in the pond rise due to that brook.

A third reason relates to the person’s attitude toward God. Given that beauty is a sign of the divine, someone who hates God will hate beauty also and so be disinclined to accept that it is beautiful. The power of beauty to delight any particular person depends on whether or not God delights or repels him. It is important to note, therefore, that when we stated earlier that it is intrinsic to beauty to delight us, the assumption is that the person is properly ordered in his desire for God, which, in practice, will not always be the case.

Nevertheless, these subjective responses do not undermine the principle that beauty is an objective quality too. The fact that we may have differing abilities to apprehend that quality does not change the fact that we are responding to a reality - the form and appearance of the object itself. It is just as with any physical property that might be investigated by natural science. For example, two different scientists determine an object’s mass differently depending on the quality of the equipment they use to measure it, but that doesn’t mean the object has two different masses. It simply means that it is difficult to determine the mass precisely. So it is with beauty. The fact that it is difficult to know for certain that something is beautiful doesn’t undermine the principle of objective beauty.

Until the modern era, very few people dissented from the idea of beauty’s objectivity. For example, the philosopher most often cited by Catholics on the nature of beauty is St. Thomas Aquinas, who consistently treats it as an objective quality.

According to St Thomas, to be able to apprehend the beauty of an object, we need to know certain things about it:

First, we must know what we are looking at (if we are discussing visual beauty) and its purpose—this is called clarity. If we look at something and have to ask, ‘What is it?’, then it lacks this property of clarity, and we will struggle to determine whether it is beautiful.

Once its purpose is clear to us, we intuitively judge how well suited it is to that purpose and how good or noble that purpose is. When we judge whether something is well-suited to its purpose, we are considering a property known as integrity.

Then, we judge how appropriately its various parts are arranged within it to have high integrity—this is called due proportion. When it has a due proportion, all the parts are arranged within the object so that it can be well suited to its purpose.

The assumption here is not that people systematically consider these elements, one after another, before deciding whether something is beautiful. On the contrary, people just react instinctively and instantaneously to what they see, and in a moment, they see beauty, or they don’t. What St Thomas is describing through his own observation is what properties are present in things that many people, in general, see as beautiful. Similarly, knowing that beauty consists of these sub-categories does not help us to ascertain by reason what is beautiful, for in judging each aspect - clarity, integrity, and due proportion - we are still making personal judgements in regard to each sub-category. We can be no more certain in our judgment of these sub-categories than we can in our judgment that the whole is beautiful.

So, where can we look in order to ascertain what is beautiful? Is there any authority that we can trust? The traditional approach to resolving this difficulty is to seek a broad consensus. So, we can begin to create a measure of beauty that might be accepted by all by considering the common reaction to beauty. When we fully apprehend something as beautiful, we delight in it because we can see its goodness in the context of God’s purpose. St Thomas Aquinas observed this phenomenon and then based his definition of beauty on it. He told us that pulchra dicuntur quae visa placent, which means ‘things that give pleasure when they are perceived are called beautiful’. Here, he is telling us the ‘common sense’ of beauty. There is no assumption here that all people individually form the same opinion when observing a single object or react in the same way when they see something beautiful. Rather, he is describing the ideal that emerges from the general pattern of observation of many people.

Portrait of Dora Maar, by Pablo Picasso, Spanish, 20th century... an ugly portrair of a beautiful woman? (Picture by myself, taken at the Musée Picasso.

This description of the essential elements of beauty assumes an interrelatedness between the observer and the observed object. Accordingly, for someone to be able to observe an object, that object must radiate information about itself to us so that we can perceive it with our senses. For this reason, beauty is often defined alternatively as the radiance of being.

When something is lacking in one or more of these things, we take less delight in its appearance, and we might call it ugly. Ugliness is considered to be a ‘privation’ of beauty. So when viewed in this way, ugliness is not actually a property that anything possesses; rather, something is ugly when it is not as beautiful as it ought to be. Ugliness is, therefore, a sign to us that the object is not fully what it ought to be.

There are various reasons something might be judged ugly.

The object might be distorted or damaged somehow, and so lacks due proportion and integrity because it cannot fulfill its intended purpose. Alternatively, it might be that it can fulfill its intended purpose, but that purpose is evil.

It might be that we are not fully apprehending the object, and it lacks clarity. Perhaps the object is not radiating sufficient information about itself to us, as might be the case in the dark. Alternatively, our senses may be impaired. A blind man cannot appreciate the beauty of a painting.

Even if the object is beautiful and our senses are good, we might misunderstand what we are seeing. This can be, for example, because our intellects are not fully equipped to process information from the senses, or because, even with our sinful natures, we misjudge or reject the good we see. (All these considerations become particularly complex in the judgment of the beauty of people, and we will discuss this later.)

In the properly ordered world, all things would be as they ought to be, and we would have the capacity to recognize this. In such a world, all would be beautiful, for all things exist and are made by God or man to contribute in some way to His glory.

However, we live in a fallen world in which many things are not perfect, and our capacity to judge such things is also impaired, so there appears to be much ugliness in the world. Nevertheless, an imperfect object is still good, even if not as good as it should be. It is still beautiful, even if not as beautiful as it should be. Notwithstanding these imperfections, all aspects of Creation can serve as signs that point us toward the good and our role in the world. We are called to participate in God’s creative work and direct our efforts to the perfection of all things through cooperation with grace. To the extent that we achieve this, we will be good stewards of the world, elevating the natural world by fashioning matter into beautiful art and architecture, and by creating beautiful gardens, farms, homes, and cities. To the degree that we achieve this, contemporary culture will also be beautiful, surpassing even the beauty of the wilderness - the natural world untouched by humans - for we are raising the wilderness up to something higher.

Five Grotesque Heads, drawing by Leonardo da Vinci, Italian 15th century... a beautiful portrait of five ugly men?

The Importance of Tradition to a Culture of Beauty

I have argued that beauty is an objective quality but that people can, for various reasons, differ in their ability to apprehend it. This, in turn, leads to different opinions about what counts as good art and what counts as bad art. When there is a difference of opinion, one might ask, “How do we know who is right? What standard is there to help us make such a judgment?”

This is not an easy question to answer. In another context, if we were considering the morality of someone’s action, for example, we might look to the Magisterium or to scripture directly for an authoritative judgment. Murder is wrong, for example, because Scripture tells us so.

However, God has not revealed an equivalent ‘Ten Commandments of Beauty’. As a consequence, rational arguments that one thing is more beautiful than another or that my judgment is more accurate than yours are usually fruitless because there is no accepted visible standard to back up such a claim.

Moses Receiving the 10 Commandments, Anonymous, 12th-century, from St Catherine’s Monastery, Mt Sinai, Egypt. God gave us moral clarity through revelation…why couldn’t he have revealed principles for beauty too?

Some might ask: what about the criteria already mentioned—integrity, clarity, and due proportion—can I apply them to obtain a definitive answer?

These can help to a degree, but the difficulty here is that we still have to make a personal judgment on the degree of integrity, clarity, and due proportion that the object possesses, and so are effectively left with the same difficulty, except multiplied by three!

The capacity of unaided human reason to judge beauty is so variable that we cannot be sure of the validity of any single judgment.

All is not lost, however. Just because it is difficult to be sure that any single human judgment is good, it doesn’t mean that we have no measure at all. We know that human nature is drawn to beauty just as it is to the common good; thus, we can examine the broad patterns of most people’s likes and dislikes over time in society to consider what is beautiful. We might term this the ‘common taste,’ analogous to concepts such as common sense, common law, and the highest of these, the common good.

The common good is not a physical good that is to be divided up so that a small part is given to everyone; rather, it is a metaphysical principle, the Good, which is ultimately God, to which we are all drawn naturally - although we can exercise free will in rejecting the call of God. It is termed the common good because when someone does what is good, it is good for the person and, simultaneously, good for society as a whole.

The ‘common taste’ or, put another way, the common sense of what is beautiful, is that standard that emerges over time and in consideration of most people in a society. It is a tradition that preserves and passes on this common taste over generations. As cultural phenomena, artistic traditions can vary across societies, even while retaining universal principles. For example, within the iconographic tradition of sacred art, each national church tends to develop its own style, so that Greek icons are distinct from Russian icons, which are distinct from English Romanesque icons. These are different traditions of iconography, each beautiful in its own way.

Therefore, the best way to determine whether a work of art is beautiful is to ask what tradition tells us about it. That is to say, if something has been considered beautiful by many people for a long period of time, then there is a greater chance that it is beautiful than for those objects that people appreciate for a short period of time. Tradition is not an infallible guide, but I suggest a more reliable guide than a panel of elite intellectuals in a university art department…or even, dare I say it, sacred art writers on Catholic blogs!

In consulting tradition, we consider the society for which a beautiful object was intended. So we would say that the cosmos was made for all men to behold. If we want to consider whether or not the cosmos is objectively beautiful, we ask ourselves if men have generally thought that it was.

Similarly, in sacred art, the best guide to the goodness of the style is its impact on the worshipers for whom it was intended. Does it, overall, draw people to God as intended? The pool of people to draw on in this latter category is much smaller than ‘all men’, and so the reliability of the judgment of the effect will be less certain, but it is still the best that we have.

Popular Culture vs Tradition

This appeal to general opinion will likely disturb some readers who, sensing that popular art and popular culture are low-brow and superficial, worry that it is an overreliance on democracy and popularity. Doesn’t this just tend to the lowest common denominator, rather than an elevated common taste, one might ask? In the short term, the answer is, very possibly yes. However, if we give at least as much weight to the past as to the present, we have a chance, at least, of overcoming the vagaries of fashion. The next generation will not know much of what is popular today. However, some popular items will remain known and appreciated in subsequent generations, and these are more likely to be truly beautiful. Chesterton called this approach of considering past and present opinions the ‘democracy of the dead’. The more we look at the art that transcends its own time and has been considered beautiful by many people in the society for whom it was intended, the greater chance we have of being able to choose the best.

I would argue that we should be so respectful of tradition that, in judging the best art, we should adopt a general principle referred to by Benedict XVI as a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’1. By this principle, the default position is always with tradition. We assume that tradition has the best answer, content, and style unless we have compelling evidence to the contrary. If current needs are identical to those of the past, we conform to tradition. Where needs differ, we may respond accordingly and adjust accordingly to the extent those needs are met. The artist’s whim is not considered here. This principle was articulated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei when he said the following:

What we have said about music applies to the other fine arts, especially to architecture, sculpture and painting. Recent works of art which lend themselves to the materials of modern composition, should not be universally despised and rejected through prejudice. Modern art should be given free scope in the due and reverent service of the church and the sacred rites, provided that they preserve a correct balance between styles tending neither to extreme realism nor to excessive “symbolism,” and that the needs of the Christian community are taken into consideration rather than the particular taste or talent of the individual artist. (Mediator Dei, 195)

These principles guide our judgment. There is room for much variation, individual expression, and taste while remaining in conformity with the principles Pius articulates. This is true of all artistic traditions. A tradition is not defined by unbending rules that cannot be adapted to different situations. Rather, every identifiable tradition, such as the Baroque, Gothic or iconographic traditions in art, conforms to core principles that characterise it unwaveringly, but those principles can be applied differently according to different needs. Indeed, it is the mark of a living tradition that it can always adapt to contemporary needs without contravening the principles that define it.

The Ghent Altarpiece (Adoration of the Mystic Lamb), completed in 1432 by Hubert and Jan van Eyck, Flemish, is one of the most visited and influential artworks in the world, housed in St. Bavo’s Cathedral in Ghent, Belgium