Dr Eric Vermehren de Saventhem, founding President of the International Una Voce Federation
Address given by
Dr Eric de Saventhem to the members of the International Una Voce Federation, in the United States, assembled
in New York
As
most of you know, UNA VOCE has gone through a testing time. The promulgation of
the new ORDO MISSAE brought us face
to face with what is fast becoming the loyal Catholic's problem number one: how
to combine filial submission to the Holy Father with respectful but open
criticism of some of his acts?
In
matters of such delicacy, the first need is to be precise, in our thinking and
in our words. When the Delegates of the fourteen federated UNA VOCE
associations met in Zurich
The
Church has always known a plurality of recognized rites and of liturgical
language. But that "Pluralism" -- to use the modern word -- grew out
of "respect for tradition": thus St Pius V himself, when he introduced the
uniform Roman Missal after the Council of Trent, specifically confirmed the
legitimacy of certain other rites of venerable origin and usage. Let me, at this
point, remind you that the much-decried unification and indeed uniformization of
the rites of the Mass which was achieved by the Missal of Pius V was undertaken
by that holy Pope at the express request of the bishops assembled in Council.
It was therefore not an act of curial high-handedness, or of Roman disregard for
rightful individuality of liturgical expression. The bishops themselves asked Rome
We
are just witnessing a repetition -- both of the proliferation of unauthorized
texts and of episcopal inability to cope with it. Perhaps we may also see a
repetition of that act of wisdom which, just over 400 years ago, made the
bishops ask the Pope to draw up and to enact "in perpetuity" the
uniform ritual of the Mass which was promulgated in 1570 and which has brought
such immense blessing to the Church.
The
pluralism of today is of a different ilk: it is the watchword and war-cry of
those who want to set tradition aside. That is why, in the midst of a new
proliferation of liturgical rites and texts, we witness the practical suppression
of the one rite which in perfect manner enshrines the Church's most sublime
treasure, the holy mystery of the Mass.
So
far, the suppression is achieved de
facto only and not de jure. Indeed,
it would be unthinkable for the old Ordo
Missae ever to be officially forbidden. To justify this, one would have to
argue that it was in some manner "wrong" or "bad" -- either
doctrinally or pastorally. To prove either would be tantamount to denying that
the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore inadmissible even to
suggest that the old Ordo might rightfully be outlawed.
But
the de facto suppression is
nonetheless real enough, and we must fight against it with all the means at our
disposal. One argument is of course the very "pluralism" which the
reformers constantly invoke: unless it embraces the continued existence of the
old rite, side by side with the new one, "pluralism" in the liturgy
is immediately exposed as sheer hypocrisy, thinly veiling both contempt of
tradition and the arrogant anti-Roman bias of national hierarchies and their
liturgical commissions.
Remember
that the three new Eucharistic Prayers, or Canons, were introduced, not in place
of, but in addition to, the old Roman Canon which was expressly confirmed and
even given pride of place (on paper) for Masses celebrated on Sundays. It is
therefore perfectly legitimate and reasonable to ask that the new ORDO MISSAE should, in the same way, be offered
as an additional, alternative way of celebrating Mass, and not as an outright
replacement of the old Rite of St. Pius V.
As
for the new ORDO, it has, as you all know, become the object of strong,
widespread, and extremely cogent criticism. This applies to the order and
prayers of the Mass itself, and to the so-called "Institutio Generalis" or "General Presentation of
the new Ordinary of the Mass". Rome
Is
such criticism wrong -- is it unseemly, coming from those who regard themselves
as loyal Catholics and as faithful sons of the Holy Father? After all: the new MISSALE ROMANUM was promulgated by the
reigning Pontiff himself, and it must therefore be assured that he considers it
to be not only free from error, but also free of potentially dangerous tendencies
and ambiguities, and that he regards its introduction as necessary for the
greater good of the Church. Let's look at this problem for a moment. Let us see
what happened to the more recent major documents of papal guidance for the
Church in matters of faith, morals, and liturgy.
You
remember "Mediator Dei",
with its grave warnings against the very liturgical aberrations which have
since become daily practice. You remember "Veterum Sapientia" of John XXIII, with its grave admonitions to
safeguard the use of Latin particularly in the Liturgy and in the seminaries.
You remember "Mysterium Fidei"
with its clear condemnation of certain new interpretations of the mystery of
Transubstantiation. You remember the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy,
promulgated by Pope Paul VI, with its clear guidance on the retention of Latin
as the primary language for the Liturgy, and with its carefully circumscribed permission
for the use of the vernacular in certain parts of the Mass.
The
last twenty years have given us a great many instances of the reigning popes
expressing their clear and unequivocal disapproval of certain ideas, certain
tendencies, certain practices, certain suggestions and attitudes which were
manifesting themselves within the Church. Almost all have been totally disregarded
-- by lay people, by priests, by bishops and cardinals, and indeed: at the very
top itself, where more than one reigning pontiff has gone against the clear injunctions
of his immediate predecessors.
After
this digression, let me return to UNA VOCE and its two primary preoccupations:
Latin, with Gregorian Chant, and the Tridentine Mass.
It
is totally wrong to label us as reactionaries, as people who cling stubbornly
to the ways of yesterday, whose minds are closed to necessary and beneficial
reform, or whose personalized concepts of liturgical prayer reflect the
individualism of a past age. On the contrary: our insistence that in the
Liturgy we should use a specific liturgical language and a specific liturgical
form of music, and that for the Mass we should continue to use a rite whose
inspiration is theological rather than sociological, hieratic rather than
communitarian -- this insistence is in reality an act of forward-looking
"contestation".
Contestation
against an impoverished notion of what liturgy is. Liturgy is surely more than
the "dialogue between God and His peopIe". It is the hierarchically
ordered enactment of the sacred in profane reality. Liturgy is indeed a sacred
action. As such it is essentially scriptural. To claim that liturgy has become
"more scriptural" thanks to more and more varied readings from the
Bible, and to the liberal use of psalms for antiphonal and responsorial chants,
is misleading when at the same time liturgy is being robbed of most of the
words and gestures and accessories that denote the sacrality of the action and
that convey this sacrality to the participants and call forth a response from
their hearts rather than from their heads.
Contestation
also against an impoverished concept of the priesthood. Just ask yourselves
this: would the "crisis of the priesthood" have occurred and assumed
the terrifying dimensions which we witness every day, if the priest had
remained the "minister of the altar" (instead of the people), acting
"in persona Christi"
instead of being a mere president of an assembly? And Latin, just because it
has for so long been a language reserved for ecclesiastical use and
particularly for use in the Liturgy, gave tangible expression to the
essentially supra-natural character of the Sacrament. We have few means, anyhow,
of making manifest to our senses -- that is to the ears, the eyes, the nose,
the mouth, and the touch -- the essential difference between a sacred action and
a profane one. Latin, vestments, incense, the wafer of the Host, the priest's
joined thumbs and forefingers after the consecration, the prohibition for
lay folk to touch the sacred vessels or the consecrated species -- all these
were necessary and in most cases spontaneously chosen means of manifesting that
essential difference. And because of this, they gave a unique purpose and
dignity to the celebrating priest and to his self-chosen isolation in celibacy
-- another "sign" of the essential distinction between the
"ministerial" priesthood of the ordained minister of the altar, and
the apostolic general priesthood of every baptized Catholic. To do away with
the "signs" always affects the thing they signify, and this is why
the recent liturgical reforms are among the principal causes of the crisis of
the priesthood.
Faced
with all this: what can -- what should -- we do?
Above
all: we must gain new members for UNA VOCE. Not for the sake of bigger numbers,
but to strengthen our mutual resolve, and to tackle more effectively the
numerous tasks which await us. What are these tasks?
Firstly:
to preserve among ourselves, and to spread beyond this limited circle,
familiarity with liturgical Latin. This is required by the Council itself.
Latin liturgical texts should be understood -- and for that you don't have to
become a Latin "scholar". It is another virtue of this priceless
"dead" language that, in the form in which it has come down to us as
the Latin of the Church, it is an easy language, infinitely easier than most
modern languages. And if even these can be mastered reasonably well in a few
months for basic understanding, then that goes a fortiori for ecclesiastical Latin. Basic knowledge of the
Church's own language gives timelessness to our sense of belonging and provides
a link particularly with the great saints of the past. Even if we make but little
use of our knowledge outside the liturgy, the fact of being familiar with
Church Latin will strengthen our "sensus
ecclesiae". And, since priests are nowadays so eager to emulate the
laity, our interest in Latin may even bring it back into the seminaries. So
here is something which your chapters can and should do: to organize courses
for ecclesiastical Latin, with particular emphasis on liturgical texts.
Do
not think, though, that Latin in the Liturgy has to be understood by everybody
before it can regain its rightful place. The prevailing emphasis on rational
understanding of every word spoken at the altar or ambo is another one of those
impoverishments which we "contest". But it behoves us to make the
extra effort of learning Church Latin not least in order to enable us to pass
on to our children that minimum of linguistic knowledge which was previously
part of their ordinary religious instruction.
Secondly:
Gregorian chant should be practiced. If you cannot do it in church, set up a
choral society. Where this is too difficult, the chapter could hold regular
meetings at which records with Gregorian chant will be played, so that your
ears -- and those of your children, or of friends whom you can bring along more
easily to this kind of gathering than to a formal UNA VOCE meeting -- should
remain or become familiar with its beauty, and remain, or get attuned to, its
unique quality of prayerfulness.
Thirdly:
members of UNA VOCE should be reasonably well-rounded in the Church's doctrine
on liturgical matters and should know the basic pattern of liturgical history.
Too often we are left defenceless – for mere lack of basic knowledge -- when
arguing with fellow Catholics or with priests who have read all the latest
books. Chapters should organize study groups and lectures, and headquarters
should disseminate basic knowledge through their newsletter, and should provide
chapters with a selected biography for the use of group leaders or individual members.
Fourthly
-- and this is most important: REACH THE YOUNG. Without knowing it yet, they
desperately need a liturgy that is richer in content and expression than mere
"dialogue" (of which they get more than enough in all other spheres
of Church life), mere entertainment or even catechesis -- richer than
togetherness or an exercise in "sensitivity" (or should we say
"insensitivity") training. They need the atmosphere of withdrawal, of
recollection, of the true "laus Dei"
which is totally different from brashly praising the "Lord of the Universe"
through man's own feats or progress. They need the encounter, indeed: the confrontation
with the "sign of contradiction", re-presented every day in the
"Mysterium Tremendum" of
Holy Mass .
A
renaissance will come: asceticism and adoration as the mainspring of direct
total dedication to Christ wiIl return. Confraternities of priests, vowed to
celibacy and to an intense life of prayer and meditation will be formed.
Religious will regroup themselves into houses of "strict observance".
A new form of "Liturgical Movement" will come into being, led by
young priests and attracting mainly young people, in protest against the flat,
prosaic, philistine or delirious liturgies which will soon overgrow and finally
smother even the recently revised rites.
It
is vitally important that these new priests and religious, these new young
people with ardent hearts, should find -- if only in a corner of the rambling
mansion of the Church -- the treasure of a truly sacred liturgy still glowing
softly in the night. And it is our task – since we have been given the grace to
appreciate the value of this heritage -- to preserve it from spoilation, from
becoming buried out of sight, despised and therefore lost forever. It is our
duty to keep it alive: by our own loving attachment, by our support for the
priests who make it shine in our churches, by our apostolate at all levels of
persuasion.
May
God give us courage, wisdom, perseverance -- and may He strengthen and deepen
more now than ever before our love for the Church and for Her, Whom the Holy
Father solemnly proclaimed "Mater ecclesiae" -- Mary, the Blessed
Mother of God and our most holy Queen and Mother.
We have seen, too, in our time a flourishing of priestly and religious societies dedicated to celebrating the ancient rites of the Church with devotion, care and love.
Above all, the prophetic words of the Founder have been fulfilled in the promulgation to the universal Church, by motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, on 14 September 2007, the Feast of the Holy Cross, the pontifical decree Summorum Pontificum which openly declares what Dr de Saventhem himself had already understood, that the traditional rites had never been abrogated (numquam abrogatam).
It is particularly fitting, given the immense amount of patient work that Dr de Saventhem and his wife expended in gradually helping to bring about the restoration of the position of the traditional rites which came to fruition in that motu proprio. His work, and that of the Federation, contributed significantly to creating the environment in which the motu proprio was issued.
Let us never forget to remember him and his wife, Elizabeth, in our prayers.
JB
August 2014
