Winter 2003

1
Contents
Features
8 Roman Landscape
by Alessandro Zangrando
10 Seeking Bad Advice
by Donna Steichen
16 A Matter of Preference?
by Thomas A. Droleskey
20 Facing up to F.A.C.E.
by Christopher A. Ferrara
Departments
28 Liturgy: Concelebration: Restoration or Innovation?
by Father Romano Tommasi
32 Scripture: The Bible and Historical Criticism The First of Two Parts
by Robert A. Sungenis
36 Sermon: Watch with Him
by Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.
38 History: The Middle Ages Rediscovered
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
42 Biography: David Goldstein: One Tough Catholic
by Steve OBrien
48 Literature: Nathaniel Hawthorne and Roman Catholicism
by Claudio R. Salvucci
52 Education: Restoring Catholicism in the Land of Saints and Scholars
by Father Alan Wilders
54 Book Reviews:
The Catholic Church and History by Hilaire Belloc
reviewed by Matthew M. Anger
Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer
reviewed by H. W. Crocker III
The Martyrdom of Edmund Campion and His Companions by William Cardinal Allen
reviewed by Michael Davies
64 Liturgical Life: The Founding of a Traditional Parish
by Alan L. Craig
Homeschooling
68 The Importance of the Imagination
by Laura Berquist
72 Not Suitable for Children
by Susan Lloyd
74 Mathematics and the Grandeur of God
by Marie Siobhan Boland
A Final Thought
76 Compromise or Principle?
by Patrick Delaney
Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas
Managing Editor: John W. Blewett
Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson
Contributing Editors
Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.
Ronald P. McArthur
Contributors
Elizabeth Altham Matthew M. Anger Father William Ashley
Father Ignacio Barreiro Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis
Father David R. Becker James Bemis
Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. Laura Berquist
Marie Siobhan Boland Patrick Buchanan
Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. Neri Capponi
Francis Carey Matthew Childs John Clark
William Coulson Thomas J. Craughwell H.W. Crocker, III
Leo Darroch Michael Davies Michael de Tar, M.D.
Brett Decker Patrick Delaney William Doino, Jr.
Thomas A. Droleskey Father Raymond V. Dunn
Alice Thomas Ellis Father Evaristus Eshiowu Edwin Faust
Christopher Ferrara Father Sean Finnegan
Father Kevin Fitzpatrick James K. Fitzpatrick
Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. John Galvin
Lord Brian Gill Cecile Bolling von Goetz
Richard Cowden Guido Norris Harrington
Father Brian Harrison, O.S. Father Ignatius Harrison
Kathleen Howley Kenneth Jones Father Peter Joseph
Hermann Kelly Joseph Kung Susan Lloyd
James Lothian Dino Marcantonio
Father Anthony Mastroeni Thomas McArdle
Andrew J. McCauley D. Q. McInerny Diane Moczar
Father John Mole, O.M.I. Thomas Molnar
John Muggeridge Anne Roche Muggeridge
Father Gerald Murray George Neumayr John Neumayr
Steve OBrien Julia Ann OSullivan James Patrick
Father John Perricone Jonathan Peters
Robert Phillips Father Joseph Ponessa John C. Rao
Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. Michael Rose
Jeffrey Rubin Claudio R. Salvucci
Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Virginia Seuffert Janet Smith Father Russell E. Smith
Thomas Gordon Smith Joseph Sobran James Spencer
Alfons Cardinal Stickler Donna Steichen Duncan Stroik
Robert A Sungenis Steven Terenzio Jeffrey Tucker
Daniel Van Slyke Alice von Hildebrand
Tom J. Walsh, M.D. Bruce Walters, M.D. David White
Father Alan Wilders David Williams
Father W. Ray Williams Charles M. Wilson
Kieron Wood John Wooten Alessandro Zangrando
The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture is published
quarterly in March, June, September and December by Keep
the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass are tax-deductible
in the United States. Simply make out a check to Keep the
Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass on the memo line. The
views expressed by The Latin Mass contributors are not nec-
essarily those of the publisher, the editors or Keep the Faith,
Inc. Please address all subscription requests or questions to:
The Latin Mass Keep the Faith, Inc. 50 So. Franklin
Turnpike, Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546
Phone (201} 327-5900 Fax (201} 327-7618
Subscription Rates:
1 year - $28.95 (four |ssues} |n Oanada $50.00 .S.
2 years - $57.90 (e|ght |ssues} |n Oanada $85.00 .S.
3 years - $86.95 (twe|ve |ssues} |n Oanada $125 .S.
Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars)
Single copy price: $7.25 (includes rst class postage)
Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail, submissions,
letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to:
The Latin Mass
391 E. Virginia Terrace
Santa Paula, CA 93060
E-Mail: jwblewett@msn.com
Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos-
sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document. We
do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to the editor
may be edited for length or clarity.
Copyright 2003 Keep the Faith, Inc.
On the cover and inside the back cover:
Crucixion by Simon Vouet. The reproduction on
the inside back cover is designed for display.
Winter 2003
Winter 2003 28
by Father Romano Tommasi
Liturgy
I
n my most recent article for The
Latin Mass, I examined two rituals,
the Prayer of the Faithful and the
Sign of Peace. Since the introduction
of the Mass of Paul VI, they have
been portrayed as ancient resto-
rations and thus great fruits of the li-
turgical reform. Subsequent liturgical
and historical scholarship, however,
suggest that these alleged restorations
should be described as novelties.
But perhaps the ritual invoked
as the most sacrosanct of
the restored rites is that
of concelebration (more
than one priest offering
Mass simultaneously at the
same altar). The word itself
creates defensiveness and
general discomfort among
bishops and priests. For
one thing, concelebration
creates uneasiness in the
Latin Church for monetary
reasons. Although the
Congregation for Divine
Worship considers two or 200
concelebrating priests as celebrating
one single Mass, nonetheless every
concelebrant may take the money
offered him by one of the faithful and
use his concelebrated Mass to fulll
the intention for which he received it.
In fact, a good priest friend of mine
in Rome had attempted to write his
license paper (the equivalent of a
masters thesis) in canon law on the
immorality of concelebrants taking
stipends since there is but one Mass,
and only one intention can be applied
to one Mass.
1
My priest-friends
moderator (faculty advisor), although
supportive, practically nullied his
desired topic, since he knew that no
faculty would ever accept the obvious
and logical conclusions that would be
made.
Secondly, there is discord among
priests and bishops for theological
reasons. Many critics of concelebra-
tion argue that the practice reduces
the number of Masses offered
throughout the world, thus diminish-
ing the application of the merits won
by Christ for the salvation and good
of the Church and the world.
Recall, however, that the purpose
of my series of articles has been
principally to look at the
reforms of the Consilium,
and their faithfulness in re-
storing the various elements
of the Mass to the Tradition
of the Fathers the task
they supposedly set out to
accomplish.
Article 57 of Sacrosan-
tum Concilium, Vatican IIs
document on the sacred
liturgy, correctly remarks
that Concelebrationhas
continued to this day as a
practice of the Church of both East
and West.
2
However, this presents a
problem of denition. For the Roman
(or Latin) Church, concelebration
when the Council restored
concelebration (via the Consilium), it
really only imposed the medieval Latin
Church ritual of co-consecration of the
host and chalice by several priests (which
occurred only at the ordinations of priests
and bishops). This was the only permitted
method of concelebration in the Latin
Church until 1965.
Concelebration: Restoration
or Innovation?
29 Winter 2003
Liturgy Concelebration: Restoration or Innovation?
means that several priests recite the
words of consecration at the same
time.
3
This was the practice at
ordinations according to the Roman
Pontical as reformed by St. Pius V,
and had been the case from at least
the thirteenth century (the era of St.
Thomas Aquinas) up to the Council.
The fact that the Holy See consid-
ered this as the denition of concele-
bration can be easily demonstrated by
the odd response given by the Holy
Ofce to a query regarding Oriental
or Eastern rite concelebrations. The
Latin Church did not recognize, or
have any recent memory of, what can
be called ceremonial concelebration.
This phrase refers to many priests
saying different parts of the Mass
(the Divine Liturgy in the East), but
only one would actually consecrate
the host and chalice.
Therefore, in the Orient, there was
a celebration of the Divine Liturgy
in which priests demonstrated that
they were in communion of faith
and ecclesial union by receiving
Holy Communion together at the
same Mass, but they did not repeat
the words of consecration together.
When asked if this activity could
be considered concelebration, the
Holy See responded in the negative.
The Holy Ofce response insisted
that the words must be said by each
individual celebrant.
4
Therefore,
when the Council restored con-
celebration (via the Consilium), it
really only imposed the medieval
Latin Church ritual of co-consecra-
tion of the host and chalice by several
priests (which occurred only at the
ordinations of priests and bishops).
This was the only permitted method
of concelebration in the Latin Church
until 1965.
Therefore, the question must be
asked: was the Consiliums restora-
tion really returning to the Fathers
or was it yet another historical aber-
ration? Did Vatican IIs Consilium
(the committee appointed to renew
the liturgy) restore the Roman rite
and its method of concelebration?
Once again we are forced to take
a jog down the memory lane of
history.
First of all, the term Roman rite
is predicated on the Latin Churchs
ritual following the transition from
Greek to Latin (circa A.D. 380).
Therefore, one must be careful in ap-
pealing to pre-fourth century sources
as proof of co-consecration (concel-
ebration). Incredibly, however, there
is no evidence of co-consecration
of host and chalice among the early
Fathers of the Church. References
to Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius
of Antioch (c.105), Justin Martyr
(c.158), and Hippolytus of Rome
(c.200) all prohibit co-consecration
of host and chalice as occurs in the
new Mass since, as some even explic-
itly admit within
their writings, the
celebrant made
up the words of
the Eucharistic
Prayer, or Canon.
Therefore,
without yet having the benet of a
set missal, each celebrant would have
said the Scriptural words of consecra-
tion in a slightly different manner,
which accounts for the different
consecratory formulae in the various
Oriental and Occidental (Western)
liturgies.
5
Thus, we are left with
the Apostolic Fathers doing ritual
concelebration only, while the Canon,
or at least the consecration, was done
by one bishop or priest only.
6
Moreover, we are given the
impression by St. Gregory the Great
that he knew nothing about the prac-
tice, especially through the testimony
of St. Fortunatus.
7
In all liturgical
literature from the apostolic until the
medieval period one would look in
vain to nd a single reference to an
example of sacramental concelebra-
tion, or co-consecration.
8
The fth to the eighth centuries
can be considered the Golden
Age of our Latin liturgy. The Liber
Ponticalis tells us only some detail
of ceremonial concelebration, during
which celebration all the priests
have an individual paten.
9
Strangely,
this practice was not restored by the
Consilium.
10
The text from this period that most
clearly unmasks the Consiliums
neglect of history when pursuing the
restoration of the liturgy comes
from the quasi-ofcial ceremonial
books of the papal liturgy known as
the Ordines Romani. In these texts
we are told that the Pope, by himself,
says the Eucharistic Prayer, while all
concelebrants bow profoundly in
silence and remain silent until the
end of the Canon.
11
Remember, this
was the Roman liturgy before foreign
elements (French or Gallican) were
said to have been
introduced and
thus, according
to the Consilium,
deforming the
original purity
of the Roman
liturgy. In fact, it is only after the
Gallican period that we see any evi-
dence that concelebrants actually said
the Canon of the Mass, particularly
the words of consecration, along with
the bishop or the Pope.
12
In fact, this
phenomenon of co-consecration is
often attributed to the rise of scholas-
ticism and the theological explication
that a priest only celebrates when he
consecrates.
13
Lastly, even by traveling to the
Orient and viewing eastern liturgies
that date from the post-apostolic pe-
riod of the second to ninth centuries,
we nd absent any type of co-conse-
cration. Only in the Constantinople
of the ninth or tenth century can we
even attempt to demonstrate that the
Canon was recited by the concel-
ebrants. Even today, nearly all of the
Oriental Churches have retained their
traditional non-consecratory concel-
there is no evidence of
co-consecration of host and
chalice among the early
Fathers of the Church.
Winter 2003 30
Liturgy Concelebration: Restoration or Innovation?
ebration. The bishops and
priests merely share some
of the prayers of the Mass
in common while the main
celebrant says the Canon or
the consecration of the bread
and wine. It is only due
to pressure from the Latin
Church that Orientals really
began to adopt the Roman
practice of co-consecration
of bread and wine. This is
the practice that exists with
the Uniate or Greek Catho-
lics, and has possibly been
the impetus for the same
practice with some Russian
Orthodox and Armenians.
14
The conclusion here is
that there is not even an Ori-
ental precedent for the restored rite
of concelebration as imposed by the
Consilium. The only precedent was
the Latin practice of co-consecration
that had been used only for ordina-
tions since the thirteenth century, and
was never even mentioned before the
eighth century.
15
Rather, a seemingly
later medieval practice was imposed
on the Latin Church. Again, the irony
is that if the periti (experts of the
Consilium) had followed their own
principles, concelebration should
have been viewed as a corruption of
the original Roman rite. This same
medieval development was imposed
on the Uniates or Greek Catholics es-
pecially under Benedict XIV.
16
Fur-
thermore, the reformers never took
into account that the Latin Church
had a tradition of priests concelebrat-
ing only with bishops, and
not with other priests!
17
In effect, it must be
sadly admitted that the Latin
Church never actually went
through a restoration of
the rite of concelebration
according to the Tradition
of the Fathers
18
as the Ro-
man Missal claims. Rather,
it is another example of how
a few experts decided to
inict their personal prefer-
ences on the Church, and
under the guise of history to
nd favor and acceptance of
their arbitrary introduction
of a novelty. An esteemed
scholar of the Byzantine
Liturgy, Robert Taft,
19
has
said it best regarding this so-called
reform in the Latin Church. It has
long been a theological device to
turn eastwards in search of support-
ing liturgical evidence for what one
has already decided to do anyway.
Something like this was at work in
certain pre-Vatican II discussions on
the possibility of restoring concelebra-
tion in the Roman rite.
20

Fr. Romano Tommasi received his
Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.)
from the Pontical University of San
Anselmo in Rome.
the irony is that if the
periti (experts of the
Consilium) had followed
their own principles,
concelebration should
have been viewed as a
corruption of the original
Roman rite.
Notes
1 See 1983 Code of Canon Law (Latin Church), canons 946-
48.
2 DOCUMENTS ON THE LITURGY 1963-1979, Conciliar,
Papal and Curial Texts, International Commission on
English in the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville
1982. DOL 1 (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 57.1).
3 EPHEMERIDES LITURGICAE, commentarium bimestre
de re liturgica, Roma, 1887ss: Indice Ephemerides liturgi-
cae 1887-1986, Edizioni Liturgicae, Roma 109 (1998) pp.
138-139. Piero Marini, IL <<CONSILIUM>> IN PIENA
ATTIV IN UN CLIMA Favorevole (Ottobre 1964-Marzo
1965).
4 ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, ed. H.Denzinger, H.,
-P. H..Unermann, Herder, ed., Freiburg i. Br 1991. See
#3928: Decr. S. Ofcii, 8 Mart. (23 Maii) 1957De valida
concelebratione.
5 JUNGMANN, JOSEPH, The Mass of the Roman Rite:
its origins and development, 2 vol. New York, Benzinger
Brothers, 1951 (1st English edition. Trans. Francis A.
Brunner). vol. 1, p. 296. pp. 30-31.
6 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia, ed. professori
del Ponticio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, 5 vol., Piemme,
Casale Monferrato 1998. Edizione Italiana. (vol 3, pp.
309-310).
7 ZOFFOLI, ENRICO, La Messa Unico Tesoro e la sua
Concelebrazione (pro manuscritto), Roma , Arti Grache
G.A.D.I snc, 1991, pp. 7-9.
8 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia, ed. profes-
sori del Ponticio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, 5 vol.,
Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998. Edizione Italiana. (vol 3,
pp. 308). Available in English as the Handbook for Liturgi-
cal Studies published by Pueblo. Here St. Anselmos faculty
admit that concelebration is not necessarily an ancient
practice.
9 Ibid., pp. 310-11.
10 BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Collegeville,
Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1st English edition.
Trans. Matthew J. OConnell), p. 28.
11 manuscript LES ORDINES ROMANI DU HAUT MOYEN
AGE II, LES TEXTES (Ordines I-XIII), SPICILEGIUM
SACRUM LOVANIENSE, ETUDES ET DOCUMENTS
FASCICULE 23, cura Universite Catholique et Colleges
Theologiques O.P. et S. J. de Louvain, Michel Andrieu, 18,
Rue Juste Lipse, Louvain 1971. Ordo I], # 88 (Latin only).
12 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, vol. 3, p. 311.
13 Taft, Robert F. Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgi-
cal Understanding (2nd revised edition). Pontical Oriental
Institute: Rome, 1997. P. 125-132.
14 Ibid., 111-118.
15 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, vol. 3, p. 312.
16 ZOFFOLI, ENRICO, La Messa Unico Tesoro, p.12.
17 SCIENTIA LITURGICA, vol. 3, p. 315.
18 INSTITUTIO GENERALIS EX EDITIONE TYPICA
TERTIA CURA ET STUDIO CONGREGATIONIS DE
CULTU DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
EXCERPTA, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano
2000. General Instruction of the Roman Missal A.D. 2000,
no. 9.
19 Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J.
20 Taft, Robert F. Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgi-
cal Understanding (2nd revised edition). Pontical Oriental
Institute: Rome, 1997. P. 111.