The YouTube channel of EWTN recently published a video about the exposition of the Holy Lance at St Peter’s basilica on the first Saturday of Lent. This was formerly done on the Ember Friday, which was long kept as the feast of the Holy Lance and Nails, but since this feast is no longer observed, the exposition of the relic has been transferred to the following day, when the station is at St Peter’s. Each of the four massive pillars which hold up the church’s dome is dedicated to one of its major relics (apart from those of the Apostle himself, of course): the True Cross, a piece of which is kept there; the Holy Lance; the skull of St Andrew; and the veil of Veronica. The last of these is shown to the faithful on Passion Sunday, when the station is also at St Peter’s. Our good friend Jacob Stein from Crux Stationalis is interviewed, and talks about the importance of the station and the relic, the veneration of which starts Lent off by looking forward to the Passion on Good Friday.
Here is Jacob’s own video about the station of that day: as a reminder, his YouTube channel has new videos about the stations and other Roman customs several times a week at least.Monday, March 31, 2025
Sunday, March 30, 2025
The Feast and Sunday of St John Climacus
Gregory DiPippoThe Third Sunday of Lent is called the Sunday of the Adoration of the Cross; in place of the Trisagion are sung the words “We venerate Thy Cross, O Lord, and we glorify Thy holy Resurrection.” A cross is placed in the middle of the church, and “We venerate Thy Cross” is sung again three times, as all prostrate themselves before it, and then come forth to kiss it. The traditional Church Slavonic melody is in my opinion one of the most beautiful pieces in the repertoire.
The Fourth Sunday is dedicated to St John of the Ladder, whose Greek title (“tēs klimakos - of the Ladder”) is often improperly Anglicized as “Climacus”; he also has his own feast day on the calendar, March 30, which can falls on his Sunday, as it does this year, or near it, when Easter is later. (In 2019, on the Gregorian calendar, his feast day was on Saturday, and followed immediately by the Sunday dedicated to him.) The title refers to his popular and extremely influential spiritual treatise, the Ladder of Paradise, still commonly read, and especially in Lent, among Eastern Christians. The treatise is also known as the Ladder of Divine Ascent, and outlines thirty steps by which, through the acquisition and exercise of the various virtues, one may seek to ascend to attain to salvation. The icon of his feast shows him indicating the ladder by which a group of monks ascend to Heaven; with an important touch of realism, all versions of this icon show some of the monks being pulled off the ladder by devils with grappling hooks, and falling into the mouth of hell on the lower right.
Very little is known about St John’s origins and life, and even the exact period in which he lived has been the subject of academic debate. A letter of Pope St Gregory the Great in the year 600 is addressed to one John, the “abbot of Mount Sinai”; John Climacus certainly held this office at one time, and he is traditionally said to be the recipient of letter, and to have died at around the age of 75 a few years later. Others place his life at a later period, from roughly 580-650.
The Troparion: With the streams of thy tears thou didst till the barren desert, and with sighs from the depths of thy soul, thou didst render thy labors fruitful a hundredfold, and became a shining light for the world, resplendent with miracles. O John, our holy father, entreat Christ our God that our souls be saved.
The Kontakion: The Lord truly set you on the heights of abstinence, to be a guiding star, showing the way to the universe, o our Father and Teacher John.
Saturday, March 29, 2025
The Story of Susanna in the Liturgy of Lent
Gregory DiPippo
![]() |
Susanna as a lamb between two wolves, from the Arcosolium of Celerina in the Catacomb of Praetextatus, mid-4th century. |
![]() |
The so-called Greek Chapel in the Catacomb of Priscilla, second half of the second century. The stories of Susanna appear on the side walls, with white backgrounds. |
![]() |
The façade of Santa Susanna, by Carlo Maderno, 1603 |
(In Lent) a greater fast was ordered by the holy Apostles, taught by the Holy Spirit, so that by a common sharing in the Cross of Christ, we too may in some measure partake in what He did for our sake, as the Apostle says, ‘If we suffer with Him, we will be also glorified with Him.’ Certain and sure is the hope of blessedness promised to us, when we partake of the Lord’s Passion. There is no one, dearly beloved, who is denied a share of this glory because of the time he lives in, as if the tranquility of peace was without occasion for virtue. For the Apostle foretells us, ‘All that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution’; and therefore, there will never lack the tribulation of persecution, if the observance of godliness is not lacking. For the Lord himself says in his exhortations, ‘He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.’ And we must not doubt that these words apply not only to his immediate disciples, but belong to all the faithful and to the whole Church; who all heard of His salvation in the person of those present.
Posted Saturday, March 29, 2025
Labels: Ambrosian Rite, Lectionary, Lent, Stational Churches of Lent
A New Edition of the Monastic Breviary Available Soon
Gregory DiPippoThe printing house of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in Brignole, France, Éditions Pax inter Spinas, is pleased to announce the re-publication of the two volumes of the last edition (1963) of the traditional Latin Monastic Breviary.
The Breviary contains all that is necessary to pray the complete Monastic Divine Office of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline for each day of the liturgical year. In addition to the complete contents of the 1963 edition, an appendix will provide texts found in previous editions of the Breviary for those who wish to use them. Printed on bible paper in black and red throughout with gilt edges, 6 silk marker ribbons and a black flexible cover, these volumes shall be both worthy and durable.The Breviary is now in production with a publication date of 11 July 2025 (it may well be available earlier). All orders paid for by the publication date of 11 July will benefit from a €50 discount on the published price of €275,00 per set, post free worldwide. The Breviaries are not available as separate volumes. Discounts are available for orders from monasteries or other religious communities for orders of 5+ copies. Trade discounts are available for bookshops. Please contact us.
BREVIARIUM MONASTICUM vol. I 10.5 x 16.5cm, sewn flexible cover, 1680pp ISBN 9782956905523
BREVIARIUM MONASTICUM vol. II 10.5 x 16.5cm, sewn flexible cover, 1400pp ISBN 9782956905530
Special pre-publication offer until 11 July: 1 set (2 volumes) €225.00, post-free worldwide.
To order: www.monasterebrignoles.org/editionspaxinterspinas.html
Friday, March 28, 2025
A Mid-Western Saint from Rome: Guest Article by Mr Sean Pilcher
Gregory DiPippoThanks once again to our friend Mr Sean Pilcher, this time for sharing with us this account of the relics of a Saint from the Roman catacombs, which were brought to the cathedral of Dubuque, Iowa, in the 19th century. Mr Pilcher is the director of Sacra: Relics of the Saints (sacrarelics.org), an apostolate that promotes education about relics, and works to repair, research, and document relics for religious houses and dioceses. Sacra recently did an inventory and cleaning of the relics as part of the cathedral’s recently completed renovation.
In 1837 Pope Gregory XVI named Msgr Pierre-Jean-Mathias Loras (1792 – 1858), originally born in France, first bishop of the diocese of Dubuque. This territory was of considerable size, ranging over present-day Iowa, Minnesota, part of Wisconsin, and the Dakotas. Bishop Loras’ father, Jean-Mathias Loras, had been guillotined during the French Revolution for harboring priests. Two of his aunts and one uncle were also be put to death for sheltering priests in their home. Loras had a strong sense of his identity as a Catholic, and a knowledge that he would have to sacrifice much to spread the Faith. Once he was consecrated bishop, he set about learning all he could of his new diocese. There were three Catholic parishes, an Indian mission, and one priest.
![]() |
Roman Boy Martyr, Oxford Oratory. Photo courtesy of the Rev’d James Bradley, J.C.D. |
![]() |
Msgr Mathias Loras |
![]() |
The reliquary box brought by Bishop Loras from Rome. All photos of relics and reliquary courtesy of Katzie & Ben. Photography. |
![]() |
Eugène Louis Boudin, Le Havre, Brooklyn Museum |
![]() |
His Excellency Mathias Loras, First Bishop of Dubuque |
![]() |
The inscription from the grave marker, as recorded on the document given to Bishop Loras. |
![]() |
Another, unrelated Christian gravemarker, for reference. |
Fons et Culmen Sacred Liturgy Summit - July 1–4, Menlo Park, California
Jennifer Donelson-NowickaFons et Culmen Sacred Liturgy Summit gathers together Catholics who love Christ, the Church, and the Church’s sacred liturgical tradition for:
- insightful talks on the sacred liturgy, liturgical formation, and the sacred liturgical arts;
- and fellowship to build fraternal bonds through which the clergy, religious, and lay faithful can support the Church and one another in their promotion of the sacred liturgy.
Fons et Culmen
At the heart of the Summit is the solemn pontifical celebration of the sacred liturgy, both Mass and Vespers.
The conference liturgies feature a special emphasis on excellence in ars celebrandi, superb preaching, beautiful sacred music rendered from the Church’s treasury throughout the ages by a professional choir, and the opportunity to sing Vespers in common.
Clergy attendees, supported by letters of good standing, are welcome and encouraged to assist at conference liturgies.
Lectures
Featuring lectures from prominent prelates, clergy, and laity from around the world, the talks of the Summit will offer timely insight into the nature of the sacred liturgy, its ars celebrandi, liturgical formation, the sacred liturgical arts (music, art, and architecture), and the role of the sacred liturgy in the lives of the Church’s clergy and faithful.
Fellowship
Designed to foster conversation amongst attendees and speakers, the Summit schedule features time for shared meals and conversational fora.
The fora, moderated by conference hosts, will engage participants, prelates and clergy in attendance, and Summit speakers in discussion about the practicalities of the promotion of the sacred liturgy and liturgical formation in their parishes and schools.
Speakers and Liturgical Celebrants include:
- His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect Emeritus, Congregation for Divine Worship
- His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, Sri Lanka
- His Excellency Salvatore J. Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco
- His Excellency Michael C. Barber, SJ, Bishop of Oakland
- His Excellency Bishop Earl K. Fernandes, Bishop of Columbus, Ohio
- Dom Benedict Nivakoff, OSB, Abbot of San Benedetto in Monte, Norcia, Italy
- Abbot Marc Crilly, OSB, Abbot of St. Benedict Abbey, Still River, Massachusetts
- Rev. Lawrence Lew, OP, Dominican Order’s Promoter General for the Holy Rosary
- Dr. Jennifer Donelson-Nowicka, Director, Catholic Institute of Sacred Music
- Rev. Anselm Ramelow, OP, Professor of Philosophy, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology
- Dr. Michael Foley, Professor of Patristics, Baylor University
- Dr. Anthony Lilles, Professor of Spiritual Theology, St. Patrick’s Seminary
- Dr. John Pepino, Academic Dean, Veterum Sapientia Institute
- Dino Marcantonio, Architect, New York
- Rev. Joshua Neu, Assistant Professor of Scripture, St. Patrick’s Seminary, Menlo Park
- Rev. Vincent Woo, Assistant Professor of Canon Law, St. Patrick’s Seminary, Menlo Park
Directors of Sacred Music:
- Prof. Christopher Berry, Director of Sacred Music and Organist, St. Stanislaus Oratory, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- Dr. Jennifer Donelson-Nowicka, Director, Catholic Institute of Sacred Music
Organist:
- Dr. Aaron James, Director of Music, Toronto Oratory, Sessional Lecturer in Organ, University of Toronto
The music will be rendered by an all-professional choir assembled from around the U.S.
View the complete speaker lineup here.
View the complete musician lineup here.
View the complete schedule here.
REGISTRATION AND FAQ here.
Thursday, March 27, 2025
A Lenten Station Mass in the Roman Forum
Gregory DiPippo![]() |
The Stational Mass at Ss Cosmas and Damian in 2017; photo by the great Agnese. The forward tilt of the apsidal mosaic is determined in part by the fact that it was meant to be seen from a vantage point more than 20 feet lower than the current floor of the church. |
![]() |
Folio 35r of the Gellone Sacramentary ca. 780 AD. The Mass of today’s station at Cosmas and Damian begins with the next-to-last rubric; the prayers are not those of the Saint’s feast day. |
Wednesday, March 26, 2025
Do Priests or Religious Need Special Permission to Pray a Pre-55 Breviary?
Peter KwasniewskiMy Initial View
In the past, my standard line has been: There is no official statement that you can do this. If one can do it, it is because “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. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” It can be done because it is the Church’s venerable and immemorial lex orandi. If you are confident that this is true, then you have sufficient certainty that by fulfilling the obligation as it was fulfilled by countless saints before you, you too are fulfilling it today, in a way that is supererogatory inasmuch as it goes above and beyond the minimum that is required by current law.
However, I thought it best to solicit a variety of opinions from experts. I will now share their responses. As you’ll see, opinions differ, but a certain majority consensus emerges.
Expert Opinion #1 (a secular priest from an Ecclesia Dei institute)
“I am a bit more cautious when it comes to using an older version of the Office than an older version of the Missal, because I see a distinction between, on the one hand, something being the public prayer of the Church and, on the other, something fulfilling a positive obligation imposed by the Church through the power of the keys.
“I would say that if one were to pray the Office using an older version, it would still be the public prayer of the Church. But because the obligation to recite the Divine Office and its binding under the pain of mortal sin is something produced by positive ecclesiastical law, if the requirements as set forth by the law are not fulfilled, then the penalty is incurred. This is different from the Missal as there is, in general, no obligation under penalty to celebrate Mass—an exception being if it is required for the faithful to fulfill an obligation of attendance. For example, I would say that if Pius X had decided that secular clergy or clergy with pastoral responsibilities were bound to recite only Lauds and Vespers, they would fulfill their obligation and avoid sin by doing so, while if they went beyond this, it would still be part of the public prayer of the Church.
“Touching on this topic, ‘Art. 9 §3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language’ (Universae ecclesiae, 32). This expresses that the obligation can be fulfilled using the ’62 Breviary. This does not really answer the question definitively, but it might help shape the direction the discussion might go and the points which need to be considered in answer the question.”
Expert Opinion #2 (a Benedictine monk)
“Would the praying of the pre-55 Breviary constitute a mortal sin if ecclesiastical discipline established that one must pray the 1962 Breviary? Frankly, I think this is the sort of positivist nonsense that got us into trouble in the first place.
“The promise at ordination is to pray the Divine Office. Period. The Paul VI Liturgy of the Hours is so edited and short that I do not know how someone could possibly incur sin by saying the John XXIII breviary instead, as it is much longer and more demanding. (Imaginary confession: ‘Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I have prayed 150 psalms in the Office this week rather than 62.25!’) So too, the older versions are still more demanding. (‘Bless me, Father, I have prayed the Octave of All Saints and enjoyed it! Can this really be a sin?’) Give me a break!
“In the early days of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Mayer was asked by a priest for permission to say the old breviary. His response was that no permission was needed because it is longer than the Breviary of Paul VI. Enough said. So too, the policy of positivism falls, for now Summorum Pontificum is abrogated. The Missal of 1962 is mandated by Summorum; yet it and all its predecessors are forbidden by Traditionis Custodes. Et cetera. Are we supposed to change our liturgical and devotional life with each new pontificate? Come on!
“If a seminarian wishes to pray more, let us thank God and concern ourselves with those who don’t pray the breviary at all.”
My response to the monk:
I am in full agreement. Thank you for your rant. Really, we should say this: The obligation of the cleric or religious is to honor God by praying the Divine Office, consisting of the psalms and other texts. As long as he is doing this in a manner “received and approved,” he is fulfilling that task.
However, it must be recognized that the stranglehold of legal positivism is very powerful, and St. Pius X mightily contributed to it with his over-the-top language when promulgating his own new breviary:
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, We first of all abolish the order of the Psaltery as it is at present in the Roman Breviary, and We absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the Canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, We order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the Psaltery in the form in which We have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican Printing Press. At the same time, We proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the Canonical Hours every day; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this Our disposition of the Psaltery.
We command, therefore, all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots and other Prelates of the Church, not excepting even the Cardinal Archpriests of the Patriarchal Basilicas of the City, to take care to introduce at the appointed time into their respective dioceses, churches or monasteries, the Psaltery with the Rules and Rubrics as arranged by Us; and the Psaltery and these Rules and Rubrics We order to be also inviolately used and observed by all others who are under the obligation of reciting or chanting the Canonical Hours. In the meanwhile, it shall be lawful for everybody and for the chapters themselves, provided the majority of the chapter be in favor, to use duly the new order of the Psaltery immediately after its publication.
This We publish, declare, sanction, decreeing that these Our letters always are and shall be valid and effective, notwithstanding apostolic constitutions and ordinances, general and special, and everything else whatsoever to the contrary. Wherefore, let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of Our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statue, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of His Apostles, Sts Peter and Paul.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1911, on November 1st, the Feast of All Saints, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
So, it seems to me, there must be a theological rationale for maintaining that something like this decree is null and void from the get-go. Not that Pius X’s breviary is thereby invalidated or rendered illegal, but his attempt to prohibit all contrary customs no matter how venerable seems like it would have to be null and void, if we take serious the concept of tradition and do not think it is totally subject to the will of the reigning pontiff (cf. Benedict XVI’s comments about the limits of the pope’s authority: “The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law.... The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times...,” etc.). If Benedict XVI is right, then the “sacred and great” principle takes precedence over attempts to thwart it.
One may sympathize with the hesitation of clergy or religious to take the line: “I am expressly disobeying the dictate of Pope N. in doing what I’m doing, because it rests on deeper and better principles than his.” One would, at very least, need moral certainty that one had properly understood the nature of the obligation owed to tradition in contrast with that owed to papal legislation. I am reminded here of an exchange at the trial of St. Thomas More: “What, More, you wish to be considered wiser and of better conscience than all the bishops and nobles of the realm?” To which More replied, “My lord, for one bishop of your opinion I have a hundred saints of mine; and for one parliament of yours, and God knows of what kind, I have all the General Councils for 1,000 years, and for one kingdom I have France and all the kingdoms of Christendom.”
The monk’s reply:
“Yes, moral certainty is what one needs. But that comes easily enough when positive law twists and turns back on itself every few years. Pius X was a little over-the-top on authority, perhaps understandably so. Today, when authority changes the teaching of the Church on the definitive revelation of God in Christ, on marriage, on Holy Communion, on the death penalty, on the “blessability” of same-sex unions, etc., it is hard to say that using a fuller, older breviary can be considered grave matter, let alone mortal sin. Trads often lack ecclesial, historical and theological perspective, alas. Following rules—even stupid ones—is often easier than thinking.”
Expert Opinion #3 (diocesan priest and canon lawyer)
“At first glance, it would seem that the command to pray the office must be fulfilled by the use of an edition that has been promulgated and proposed for its fulfilment. From this perspective, only the Paul VI office or the John XXIII office would fulfil the obligation, especially from the vantage of ‘public prayer of the Church,’ i.e., not something done out of personal devotion.[i]
“However, while it is true that the legislation (in Summorum Pontificum Art. 9 n. 3) only specifically mentions the 1962, I still think there is room for the pre-conciliar breviary. Two aspects argue in favor of this: antinomy and lacuna legis.
“Some would argue that this matter falls into an issue of antinomy—two laws or norms belonging to the same juridical ordering, which take place in the same space and attribute incompatible legal consequences to a certain factual situation, which prevents their simultaneous application; in other words, a factual situation with two or more legal consequences that are incompatible because of two rules. So, one might look for a ‘legislative silence’ that would speak in favor of the freedom to use an older breviary. Silence is of far greater canonical value than most people realize.
“Moreover, a failure to specifically proscribe the recitation of the pre-55 breviary would lend support to its use based on the well-established canonical practice of respecting custom; indeed, the elucidation of this issue should be based on analogous situations, e.g., what happens with the missal. Even in this iconoclastic period we are living in, the Church has allowed the use of pre-’62 ceremonies, and even though there is no obligation to celebrate Holy Mass, nevertheless, one could say that the (at times) explicit and (at other times) implicit approval of pre-’62 ceremonies suggests that the breviary could also fall into this approval, even with silence on the subject.
“I would also argue that odious and dishonest things are not to be presumed in law, and since the prayer of an older, at one time normative breviary is certainly not odious, and the use of it in no way bespeaks a desire to contravene the mens legislatoris, one could in good conscience pray the pre-55 breviary.
“Furthermore, I would add that in the modern legislation for the preconciliar liturgy—Summorum Pontificum, Traditionis Custodes, etc.—there is no explicit prohibition of the use of the earlier breviaries, and one could argue that this falls into the well-established legal principle of ‘odiosa sunt restringenda, favores sunt amplianda’: odious laws—in other words, those that restrict a right or freedom—must be interpreted strictly, in favor of those who are subject to them; while favorable laws must be interpreted broadly.
“Finally, we should take into consideration the actual state of affairs in the mess of the postconciliar world. After Vatican II, monastic communities were allowed to experiment and make up their own divine office. You can find this out by visiting almost any community at random: they are all doing different things. There is a principle in the Church: ‘office for office.’ I was visiting an abbey in another country and I noticed that their monastic office was different. I wondered aloud to the prior if praying it would suffice to fulfill my obligation, and he said: ‘office for office,’ meaning, I could substitute the office prayed in common in the abbey for the office I would have prayed from the breviary (so, their morning prayer for my morning prayer, etc.). I do not know how far this notion of ‘office for office’ could be taken, but it seems to suggest that the Church regards it as sufficient if a priest or religious offers the daily round of prayers and praises in any accepted (or even tolerated) form.”
Expert Opinion #4 (another Benedictine)
“I was not convinced by the Benedictine’s first opinion. When he calls the priest’s opinion ‘legal positivism,’ is he denying that this is a matter of positive law? Or is he saying that even though it is a matter of positive law, it should be obvious that this particular law (requiring the Pius X office or the ’62 office) is beyond the authority of the legislator?
As far as I can see, the only real argument he gives (in his first response) is that the old office is much longer than that of Paul VI. To me, this is not convincing. If I am bound by a lawful superior to go to Texas, I don’t fulfill my duty by going to China on the grounds that it is a harder trip. The comparison is not simply ‘more’ in the sense that option 2 includes everything option 1 includes, plus some. That would be different. For the question is not, can a priest pray the whole Paul VI office and then pray the pre-’55 in addition, but rather, can he replace the one with the other? If the Church is a visible body with a visible head who has a real legislative authority, one must allow that positive laws can exist and should be obeyed, even when they are bad laws (I don’t mean sinful, but just mistaken or dumb, or otherwise flawed).
“The monk’s second reply (to your implied objection from Pius X) is more to the point. As far as I can see, the moral certainty that we can stick to the old stuff arises predominantly from the evidence that the new stuff is not simply ‘less,’ or that it does away with a 1,000-year-old tradition, but that it is really somehow against the faith. I don’t mean that the breviary itself of Paul VI contains heresies. Rather, I think one can look at the whole shebang since Vatican II, look at the current pontificate, and reasonably conclude that there is an evil and anti-Catholic trend which encompasses, more or less clearly, all the reforms in the past several decades. The result would be a strong doubt about the obligation to comply, and at least a reasonable guess that sticking to pre-reform prayer is safe, despite what the pope says.
“I don’t want to downplay the importance of tradition, but the fact stands that there is no clear teaching (as far as I know) about the limits of papal authority. For instance, we have no council that says ‘if anyone says a pope can change a tricentennial liturgical custom, let him be anathema.’ And, in fact, the texts we do have tend in the opposite direction.
“As far as I can see, there is no way to know with certainty that Pius X overstepped his authority and that his decree was null. And, as a side note, I am not convinced that this is a purely post-Vatican I problem either. Gregory VII tried aggressively to replace the Mozarabic liturgy with the Roman Liturgy, invoking his papal right to do so. At the same time, I think there is a good deal of evidence to reasonably conclude—notice, I do not say conclude with certainty—that the traditions prior to Vatican II can be safely used, based on the overwhelming evidence that the Church has tended in an anti-Catholic direction since that time.
“The diocesan canonist’s opinion is more convincing to me as well, but for different reasons. It acknowledges that this is a matter of positive law but seeks to answer the question within the framework of positive law. I am not qualified to assess the argument canonically but it seems reasonable. As the aforementioned moral argument is sufficient (in my mind at least), I don’t really bother with trying to find solutions within the letter of the law.”
My response to the last (and in general):
I think the logically possible approaches are well summarized in the expert opinions 1, 2, and 3.
Does a pope have authority to require a certain form of prayer? I think the question is ambiguous. If the form he requires represents a radical break with the form required for centuries and centuries, then we might have a problem on our hands—one that could result in a true crisis of conscience. This is where the fateful combination of legal positivism and ever-expanding ultramontanism presses comes in, for the question is rendered easy if you say the pope has absolute authority over everything liturgical (except for a highly distilled “form and matter” of sacraments), and that the only duty of the subordinate to obey his will (or his whims).
But since this is not the way the Church has behaved throughout her history—in fact, it is the opposite of the way she has behaved—and there are sound theological, anthropological, and moral reasons to think that this cannot be right, one may arrive at the position of the Benedictine monk who says it is absurd to believe that praying a traditional “received and approved” form of the liturgy could be wrong, or ruled out as sinful.
The Texas/China analogy fails because, in fact, we are talking about different forms or versions of the same thing, namely, the divine office by which the hours of the day are to be sanctified through the recitation of psalms and prayers. A form that is both more ancient and more extensive would satisfy a requirement that one must do something of the same kind that is more recent and more restricted. The only way it could be maintained that a later form must replace an earlier form is if there was something wrong with the earlier form.
Indeed, this is why, when Urban VIII changed all the breviary hymn language, the religious communities (Benedictines, Cistercians, Dominicans, some others too) simply begged off and said they were content with the language of the hymns as they existed in their own offices. The new language and the old could exist side-by-side. Nor did that pope, or any other, dare to force the matter. That’s because there once was respect for autonomy and diversity, as opposed to now, when everyone talks about these things but no one actually respects them.
The fact that there is no explicit statement that the pope cannot cancel out “received and approved rites” of venerable standing is because it would have seemed ridiculous to our forebears to think that he could. You might remember the episode at Vatican I:
Now before the final vote on Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I, several Council Fathers were concerned that they would be voting for a doctrine that would give the pope absolute and unqualified jurisdictional authority. Various (documented) discussions were given by members of the Deputation of the Faith assuring the Council Fathers that this was not a correct understanding of the doctrine. That is, they (the Relators of the Deputation) stated that the pope, in his jurisdictional authority, does not have absolute and unqualified jurisdictional authority. One Council Father, however, an American named Bishop Verot of Savannah, apparently was not convinced, and requested that specific qualifying statements (to the effect that the pope’s jurisdictional authority is qualified) be inserted into the texts of the schemas. He was told that the Council Fathers had not come to Rome “to hear buffooneries.” In other words, if this bishop had understood the theological context of the schema, he would not have put himself in such an embarrassing situation. (Brill, Great Sacred Music Reform, 47n25)I rather regret that it seemed so obvious to the fathers of Vatican I, because I think the qualifying language that Bishop Verot wanted would have been exceedingly useful at present. Of course, when the German bishops got around to explaining Vatican I to Prussia, they did add a number of valuable clarifications, though again, their document suffers from vagueness (just what does “human arbitrariness” amount to? What does it look like? How do we know it when we see it?—assuredly, it seems that today we know it when we see it, because popes have gone so far off the deep end in this or that instance). I tried to bring some clarity to this topic in my lecture “The Pope’s Boundedness to Tradition as a Legislative Limit: Replying to Ultramontanist Apologetics.” Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire also discusses this point in his tract Does “Traditionis Custodes” Pass the Juridical Rationality Test? (to which the answer is, no).
Now, if it could be shown that anything demanded by a pope was contrary to the faith or to sound morals, that in itself would be a reason to say no to it and to stick with what was there before. This, evidently, is what we must do with something like Amoris Laetitia. But it seems also true to say that if something demanded by a pope is followed by a period of uninterrupted institutional chaos or decline, it becomes suspect by that very fact; or (perhaps this is to say the same thing) that in a period of institutional chaos or decline, it is legitimate to maintain the “status quo ante,” much as Lefebvre maintained that he realized he had to stick with the missal prior to the deformations of the 1960s that led to the Novus Ordo of 1969. (Sadly, neither he nor the Society has ever quite figured out that the changes in the 1950s were part of the same process of deformation, and therefore should have been rejected for exactly the same reason. It was the same people with the same principles who were behind both phases, before and after the Council.)
This is really all the light I have, and it may not be much. It seems to me that at this time in particular, when the postconciliar autodemolition of the Church is plain for all to see, there is no reason to doubt anymore that the liturgical revolution—which had its ill-starred conception in Pius X’s hyperpapalist revamp of the breviary, its ominous childhood in Pius XII’s rewriting of Holy Week, and its monstrous adulthood in the ruptures of Paul VI—is something that cannot be of God, cannot be truly “of the Church,” and cannot be for the good of souls.
Granted, each stage is worse than the one before, such that, as I argue in chapter 12 of Once and Future Roman Rite, there are fewer objections one can make to earlier stages and more to later ones, which also implies that adhering to the earlier is less problematic than adhering to the latter (e.g., praying the breviary of Pius X is not as bad as using the Holy Week of Pius XII, and using the Holy Week of Pius XII is not as bad as using the missal of Paul VI). But since there is a real continuity of principles, one is fully justified in taking the whole series as a single process, and saying, as a matter of coherent traditionalism: I will pray the breviary and the missal as they existed prior to this revolutionary process.
Benedictines are fortunate in this regard, as they have the unchanged cursus psalmorum of St. Benedict, nice editions of their choir books, and an altar missal from the first half of the 20th century. All this is “ready to go” in a way that makes the Roman situation look terribly messy by comparison. That’s why I’m not surprised that a number of secular clergy have become or seek to become Benedictine oblates: it gives them a direct channel to a full set of traditional liturgical books still in use in a fair number of abbeys in communion with the Holy See.
NOTE
[i] A clause in Rubricarum instructum of Pope John XXIII seems intended to close the lid on the issue (mind you, only for those with an obligation to the Divine Office): no. 3, “Item statuta, privilegia, indulta et consuetudines cuiuscumque generis, etiam saecularia et immemorabilia, immo specialissima atque individua mentione digna, quae his rubricis obstant, revocantur.” However, the pope left an exclusion clause in no. 3: “quae his rubricis obstant.” What exactly this amounts to would need further investigation.
Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Early Bird Registration Discount for CMAA Colloquium Ends March 31st!
Jennifer Donelson-NowickaEarly bird registration discount ($50 for colloquium, $50 for Vocal Intensive course, $150 off for Chant Intensive) ends March 31st!
Here’s a special invitation from our new president, Fr. Robert Pasley.
The Church Music Association of America is pleased to announce our 2025 Summer Courses: Chant Intensive and Vocal Intensive. These 5-day courses in the beautiful University of St. Thomas facilities in St. Paul, Minnesota, will immerse beginner to advanced singers, chant conductors, and clergy in the beauty of the Church’s treasury of sacred music, and are ideal for for singers, conductors, cantors, or teachers.
The CMAA Summer Chant and Vocal Intensives are intended for beginning and continuing students, and all those who love and appreciate the central role that sacred music plays as the prayerful song of the Roman rite—not only at cathedrals and basilicas, but in any parish.
Summer Courses - June 17–21, 2025
(A bonus: to get the extra discount for this course, use the promotional code INTENSE25 at checkout; valid through March 31.)
Learn more about the intensive courses and register here.
- Extensive training in Gregorian chant under a world-class faculty, with choices of chant classes for beginners to advanced, for men and women.
- Chant specialty breakout sessions on Gregorian modes and chant conducting
- Music specialty breakout sessions for organists and sessions on new music, vocal pedagogy, education, and chant theory, among others.
- Choral experience with one of three choirs singing sacred music of the masters such as Bruckner, Healey Willan, Stanford, Mozart, Guerrero, Langlais, Gallus, Bianciardi, Lasso, Victoria, Saint-Saëns, Gombert, and Dering, as well as a newly composed Spanish Mass Ordinary by Breck McGough. You’ll learn with our gifted faculty.
- Daily liturgies with careful attention to musical settings in English, Spanish and Latin
- Individual training in vocal production and technique (by appointment only)
- A one-of-a-kind Book of Scores, including chant and polyphony
- Book sales from the CMAA warehouse. We offer discounts on our books to CMAA members.
The Annunciation 2025: Dante and the Virgin Mary
Gregory DiPippoThe specific date of birth of the great poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) is unknown, but this Thursday, March 27th, is the anniversary of his baptism, which took place during the Easter vigil of 1266. The language which we call “Italian” today originated as the dialect of his native region of Tuscany (more specifically, of the city of Florence, but with some small differences), essentially because of his best known work, The Divine Comedy, along with those of two other Tuscans, Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-75) and Francesco Petrarch (1304-74).
In the concluding cantos of the Divine Comedy (Paradiso 31-33), Dante is guided to the final vision of “the Love that moves the sun and the other stars” by St Bernard of Clairvaux, who at the opening of canto 33, delivers this beautiful prayer to the Virgin Mary. (Translation by Alan Mandelbaum.)more humble and sublime than any creature,
fixed goal decreed from all eternity,
you are the one who gave to human nature
so much nobility that its Creator
did not disdain His being made its creature.
That love whose warmth allowed this flower to bloom
within the everlasting peace—was love
rekindled in your womb; for us above,
you are the noonday torch of charity,
and there below, on earth, among the mortals,
you are a living spring of hope.
Lady, you are so high, you can so intercede,
that he who would have grace but does not seek
your aid, may long to fly but has no wings.
Your loving-kindness does not only answer
the one who asks, but it is often ready
to answer freely long before the asking.
In you compassion is, in you is pity,
in you is generosity, in you
is every goodness found in any creature.”
![]() |
An illustration of the Divine Comedy by Giovanni di Paolo (1403 ca. - 1482), in a manuscript now in the British Library. At the left, Beatrice, Dante’s guide through heaven, introduces him to St Bernard, while at the right, the Angel Gabriel speaks to the Virgin Mary; below them are St Peter and St Anne. (Paradiso XXXII, 133-135; public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.) |
tui beata Filii,
sublimis et humillima
præ creaturis omnibus,
Divini tu consilii
fixus ab aevo terminus,
tu decus et fastigium
naturæ nostræ maximum:
Quam sic prompsisti nobilem,
ut summus eius Conditor
in ipsa per te fieret
arte miranda conditus.
In utero virgineo
amor revixit igneus,
cuius calore germinant
flores in terra cælici.
Patri sit et Paraclito
tuoque Nato gloria,
qui veste te mirabili
circumdederunt gratiæ. Amen.
es astrum, Virgo, superis,
spei nobis mortalibus
fons vivax es et profluus.
Sic vales, celsa Domina,
in Nati cor piissimi,
ut qui fidenter postulat,
per te securus impetret.
Opem tua benignitas
non solum fert poscentibus,
sed et libenter sæpius
precantum vota prævenit.
In te misericordia,
in te magnificentia;
tu bonitatis cumulas
quicquid creata possident.
![]() |
Perhaps the most famous painting of the Annunciation by a Tuscan artist, a fresco of Fra Angelico in the convent of San Marco, the second Dominican church of Florence, 1442. |
of that peace which, for many years, had been
invoked with tears, the peace that opened Heaven
after long interdict, appeared before us,
his gracious action carved with such precision,
he did not seem to be a silent image.
One would have sworn that he was saying, “Ave”;
for in that scene there was the effigy
of one who turned the key that had unlocked
the highest love; and in her stance there were
impressed these words, “Ecce ancilla Dei,”
precisely like a figure stamped in wax.