To all leaders,

Subsequent to Bishop Dewane’s February 27 visit, he did return on April 19 to bless Christ the King Chapel for a standing room only congregation numbering well over 300. All of this is well recorded in a leading front page article in the May 8-21 edition of the Florida Catholic Venice Diocese. See www.thefloridacatholic.org.

Please also visit our chapel website at www.CHRISTTHEKINGSARASOTA.org. to see location, Mass times and more news on our first FSSP Apostolate in Florida, To all of you out there who are struggling with less than enthusiastic - and even recalcitrant - dioceses, yes we on Florida’s West Coast are well aware of how blessed we are and offer you a warm welcome if you choose to vacation in or move to Sarasota, Ft. Myers, or Naples.
Stan Valerga

I filmed, with permission from Dom Daniel Augustine Oppenheimer of the Augustinian Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, the Solemn High Mass that was offered on June 20, 2009 at St. Michael’s Abbey in Silverado, CA. Stay tuned for more parts of the Mass.

AMDG.
Laurence Gonzaga
President
Una Voce, San Bernardino

Preparatory to the Kyrie

Gloria to the Gradual

Gospel

Offertory to the Dignum Et Justum Est

The Preface up to the Prayers After the Consecration

Pater Noster to the Prayers at the Communion

Communion to the Final Blessing

Filmed by Una Voce San Bernardino
Laurence Gonzaga
June 20, 2009

Short Version (10 mins)

Full Mass (8 parts)

Filmed by Una Voce San Bernardino
Laurence Gonzaga
May 1, 2009

To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council. The use of the vernacular is certainly permitted, especially for the Liturgy of the Word, but the preceding general rule of the Council text says, ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1).

There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions. The most important directive is found in paragraph 262 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, the General Instruction of the new Roman Missal, issued in 1969. That says, ‘It is better for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people (versus populum).’ The General Instruction of the Missal issued in 2002 retained this text unaltered except for the addition of the subordinate clause, ‘which is desirable wherever possible’. This was taken in many quarters as hardening the 1969 text to mean that there was now a general obligation to set up altars facing the people ‘wherever possible’.

This interpretation, however, was rejected by the Congregation for Divine Worship on 25 September 2000, when it declared that the word ‘expedit’ (’is desirable’) did not imply an obligation but only made a suggestion. The physical orientation, the Congregation says, must be distinguished from the spiritual. Even if a priest celebrates versus populum, he should always be oriented versus Deum per Iesum Christum (towards God through Jesus Christ). Rites, signs, symbols, and words can never exhaust the inner reality of the mystery of salvation. For this reason the Congregation warns against one-sided and rigid positions in this debate.

This is an important clarification. It sheds light on what is relative in the external symbolic forms of the liturgy and resists the fanaticisms that, unfortunately, have not been uncommon in the controversies of the last forty years. At the same time it highlights the internal direction of liturgical action, which can never be expressed in its totality by external forms. This internal direction is the same for priest and people, towards the Lord-towards the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The Congregation’s response should thus make for a new, more relaxed discussion, in which we can search for the best ways of putting into practice the mystery of salvation. The quest is to be achieved, not by condemning one another, but by carefully listening to each other and, even more importantly, listening to the internal guidance of the liturgy itself. The labelling of positions as ‘preconciliar’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘conservative’, or as ‘progressive’ and ‘alien to the faith’ achieves nothing; what is needed is a new mutual openness in the search for the best realisation of the memorial of Christ.

This small book by Uwe Michael Lang, a member of the London Oratory, studies the direction of liturgical prayer from a historical, theological, and pastoral point of view. At a propitious moment, as it seems to me, this book resumes a debate that, despite appearances to the contrary, has never really gone away, not even after the Second Vatican Council.

The Innsbruck liturgist Josef Andreas Jungmann, one of the architects of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was from the, very beginning resolutely opposed to the polemical catchphrase that previously the priest celebrated ‘with his back to the people’; he emphasised that what was at issue was not the priest turning away from the people, but, on the contrary, his facing the same direction as the people. The Liturgy of the Word has the character of proclamation and dialogue, to which address and response can rightly belong. But in the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest leads the people in prayer and is turned, together with the people, towards the Lord. For this reason, Jungmann argued, the common direction of priest and people is intrinsically fitting and proper to the liturgical action. Louis Bouyer (like Jungmann, one of the Council’s leading liturgists) and Klaus Gainber have each in his own way taken up the same question. Despite their great reputations, they were unable to make their voices heard at first, so strong was the tendency to stress the communality of the liturgical celebration and to regard therefore the face-to-face position of priest and people as absolutely necessary.

More recently the atmosphere has become more relaxed so that it is possible to raise the kind of questions asked by Jungmann, Bouyer, and Gamber without at once being suspected of anti-conciliar sentiments. Historical research has made the controversy less partisan, and among the faithful there is an increasing sense of the problems inherent in an arrangement that hardly shows the liturgy to be open to the things that are above and to the world to come.

In this situation, Lang’s delightfully objective and wholly unpolemical book is a valuable guide. Without claiming to offer major new insights, he carefully presents the results of recent research and provides the material necessary for making an informed judgment. The book is especially valuable in showing the contribution made by the Church of England to this question and in giving, also, due consideration to the part played by the Oxford Movement in the nineteenth century (in which the conversion of John Henry Newman matured). It is from such historical evidence that the author elicits the theological answers that he proposes, and I hope that the book, the work of a young scholar, will help the struggle-necessary in every generation–for the right understanding and worthy celebration of the sacred liturgy.

I wish the book a wide and attentive readership.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Rome, Laetare Sunday 2003

My review of the book in 2007:

Book Review: 

Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (Paperback)

by Uwe Michael Lang (Author)

List Price: $12.95
Amazon.com Price: $11.01

Paperback: 156 pages
Publisher: Ignatius Press (February 28, 2005)
ISBN-10: 0898709865
ISBN-13: 978-0898709865

A little over three years ago, my interests in this mysterious “Latin Mass” was fostered by friends I met on online discussion groups. Little did I know that attending one of these “Latin Masses” would have such a profound impact on my future progress in the faith and in spirituality in general. At that time I had no concept of “schism” and “sedevacantism”, and I didn’t realize how controversial this “old Mass” has been and would become in the next few years. The first Latin Mass I went to was one celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, almost in my back yard of Colton, CA. My first thoughts were: (1) why is everyone so quiet?; (2) why is Father whispering; (3) why is Father not looking at us (except for those brief moments he says “Dominoes Nabisco” [Dominus Vobiscum]); (4) this music is amazing; and (5) the art is inspiring. I have since found a happy home in the most local indult, since at that time I found the SSPX to be in a less than regular situation with Rome.

This book focuses on one argument, and one argument alone, the direction of liturgical prayer. In my struggle to reconcile the differences between the old Mass and the so called “Novus Ordo”, I argued that “didn’t Jesus face the Apostles just like it is depicted in most renditions of the Last supper?” I have come to find out that the tradition of the earliest times was not to have the place of honor in the center, like it is today, but to have it in the right-most place, on the same side of the table, a table which is shaped like a U.

Another important point to note is that the tradition of all ancient religions was directional. The Jews had Jerusalem, Muslims had Mecca, and the Christians had East. Why is that? Well the sun was a symbol of the Son. While the sun gave us light energy which was a source of physical life on Earth, the Son is the Light of the World, which not only gives physical life, but also spiritual life. Remember, the early liturgies were said at dawn. As the sun rises in the East to meet us, so too shall the Son of Man meet us in the East. The book points out some Scriptural allusions to the significance of the East.

Also, as I spoke about in my review to Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Spirit of the Liturgy, there is significance to the priest facing the same direction as the people and that is, he is leading us to meet Christ. The posture is directional, progressive, towards our goal, our final destination. Whereas, as Ratzinger pointed out, facing the people is a posture which closes the community off up into itself, a “closed circle”, focused upon itself. Note, that this does not mean it is wrong to face the people; it simply means the ideal posture is facing East, because of its theological significance.

Since East gained theological significance, it became the architectural principles beginning in the second century. The apse was placed in the East, and the entrance in the West. Where this was not possible, the priority became facing the open window or door at the time of Consecration, which is, facing the sunlight, symbolizing the Son-Light.

This review is already getting to be too long, so, I will simply say, for those who wish to have a survey study of the early practice of liturgical direction ad orientem (facing the East), and even the early practice of versus populum (facing the people), this is the book for you. It is short and to the point. Highly recommended.

God Bless,
Laurence

Feast of St. John the Apostle, 2007

Father Donald Kloster

Sermon on the Latin Mass

Traditional Latin Mass Sermon, First Friday, Sept. 2008 at St. Pius X Catholic Church and School in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, Texas.

Milestones: Memoirs 1927 - 1977

The Regensburg Years

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical “reforms”. It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most decisive manifestation in the changes in the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.Consequences could only be tragic.

In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum - the missal of the city of Rome - was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognise the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every “community” must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life.

The disintegration of the liturgy.

A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognises the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.

Extract from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Milestones: Published by Ignatius Press.

[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's May 1999 Newsletter.]

The Traditional Latin Mass has returned to another parish in the San Francisco Archdiocese!

Trinity Sunday June 7th was the first monthly High Mass offered by Fr. William Young at Mater Dolorosa Church, 307 Willow Ave (& Miller), South San Francisco and was attended by over 200 souls. My boys and I were honored to serve for Father, who has been quietly offering the Traditional Mass for some time now, and also offers the weekly 12:15PM Sunday Mass at St. Vincent’s Home for Boys in San Rafael, north of San Francisco.

As I knelt in the sanctuary of Mater Dolorosa’s plain 1960’s interior, I was humbled by the quiet work of the young Filipino organizers who ensured the return of this “worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty” to their parish for “the praise and glory of His name” and “the benefit of all His Holy Church”. The congregation was ethnically diverse, yet we could pray together in the ancient language of the Church. This genuine and practical unity in the Faith has to be part of what Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI intends. Domine, non sum dignus!

At the present, the monthly Mass at Mater Dolorosa will be 6:30PM on the 1st Sunday of each month. For more information contact: Ando Perlas @ 650-892-5728

Slowly, but surely, the Traditional Mass is returning to San Francisco Bay Area parishes.

Fr. Jerry Brown, pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary in Brentwood (Oakland diocese) offers a weekly 5PM Sunday Mass at his parish.

Fr. Lawrence Goode, pastor of St. Francis of Assisi, East Palo Alto continues to offer a weekly Mass 6PM every Friday.

Fr. Jean Marie Moreau, ICKSP offers daily Masses at St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland and Fr. Pedro Ottonello, O.A.D, longtime and faithful chaplain, continues to offer three Masses a week at Our Mother of Perpetual Help in Santa Clara. Fr. Moreau recently offered Masses at the historic California Missions of Santa Clara and San Jose (Fremont) as well as a Sunday High Mass at Five Wounds Portugese National Church in San Jose.

Our Lord continues to increase His Grace, despite the unworthiness of the people of our time. May we respond with an increase in faith, hope and charity!

submitted by Doug Zeitz,
Una Voce Palo Alto, CA