So we have still nearly the entire paper of Father Gregory, because yesterday we have only discussed him. He was, in the first moment, was very, very disappointed. And then he heard our tapes, and then he was reconciled. We did it well. We did it well. We thank you very much for the kind suggestion you made. But no, we have... touch only three points, and there are also many, many, many points for the offertory. Chalice prepared before Mass, just on these days in memorials and ferias. I would ask, why? Why do you wish to prepare the chalice before the Mass? It was so in the Middle Ages, in many Gallican liturgies, and today still, until yesterday, the Dominican States, The Greeks are doing it, but why? Yes, you are right.

[01:11]

Therefore, it would not be necessary to make this big procession. It would be quite possible to let all on the table And then in a very simple way, the acolyte brings it to the priest without underlining it, you are not. But as a matter of fact, the procession doesn't, in that way, take up any time. While somebody has to do, what about the corporal? And really, from the standpoint of time, And it varies, of course, with the different priests who are coping. But it's the pouring of the water into the thing. That can take a, you know, it can be too much. Therefore, if is allowed to say so, you can prepare the chalices before the masts. We do it in Romso.

[02:13]

We do it in Maria Loxo. Therefore, the wine is already in it. And then it's not necessary to do it on the altar, but an acolyte or a deacon or somebody could do it on the table very quickly. But you must do it because you remember this custom solemnly already presented and explained and depended by some Cyprian. And it was also the reason because we in the Rome Commission did retain it. We retained it because such a custom found in every liturgy since the second century, not used also in the suppers of the Apostles, is a real, only a meal custom, what do you say, meal custom of the Jewish people. But because the Jewish people and our Lord and the first community did it, we retained it with the symbolic meaning explained by Saint Cyprian in his famous letter, 63 and so on. Therefore, we must retain it, but we must not emphasize it, you are not.

[03:14]

The reason we have bread back is for the people to put their bread in. You can do it. Yes, yes, you are not. Here you have any liberty to make it shorter, not to emphasize it. But the prayers said by the priest in a certain way are prescribed. Again, we were fighting against these prayers until the last moment. I can tell some bishops wished it. We were discussing if we, I said it already yesterday, if we were against the old prayers because they were not right. Anticipation of the canon. And they wished to do nothing. To present it as St. Justin says it, put it on the altar, saying nothing. But then the difficulty was if we don't. give some prayers most of the priests will not think nothing therefore it's better to present some prayers we could not find them therefore finally again we were meaning it's better not to say nothing

[04:31]

The Pope again insisted, you need some prayers. So, in the last day, when we came to the final, after two, three years, we could not find a solution. We heard the Pope wishes to introduce this prayer, penitential rite, offertorial prayers, and communion prayers. In the morning, I came to the Cardinal Gut, the Prefect, and said, your Eminence, I think, you must not think the Pope has spoken. Oh, yes, yes, yes, but I hope, I believe, you must not believe. The Pope has spoken. For me, as a small, little, not important consultant, I was finished. We were laughing, the cardinal and I. We came to the session, and then there was a very tense, how do you say, tense situation. And the youngest bishop then came and said, nearly some weeks or some months consecrated. We are not here to say yes.

[05:33]

We are here to expose our bishop's sentence. Let us say again, expose our difficulties to the Holy Father, and then he may decide and we shall obey. And in this situation, the bishops voted with great majority against these prayers. And then the poor of all Cardinal was disappointed and the Bungini went out and it was very right. So the Pope then in peace said, no, I believe it is better. I believe he was right after some years now. But you must not make a great thing of these prayers, but you cannot take them away. You cannot leave out. How would you leave? What would be the... practical way of doing them. She had them on the credence table, the chalices, and then the acolyte would put the water in.

[06:35]

Yes, or some deacon normally, but also the acolyte. But the priest could still be sitting at the chair saying no? He could, yes, and then the acolyte brings the things to the altar, as you did it this morning when the priest came to the altar, and then he must say, otherwise, You can disobey, and nobody will hinder you. But it's better to say something in silence, sometimes also aloud, if you wish. I never liked it to say that. I know, Bob, with the blessed are you, Lord, what prayer is. Isn't there a little prayer for pouring? Yes, and the acolyte or the deacon, the priest who is putting in water must say this prayer. OK, and then the priest, you could do it together. Also, per se, you know, two prayers. What's important?

[07:37]

Here, again, there are many possibilities to be free to say what you like to say. But this scheme, per se, must be taken. Per se, must be taken. And it's not so bad. The difficulty is only, again, this prayer, blessed be you, Lord, again is anticipation of the canon, because the canon is this blessed you are, Lord. Thanks to you, Lord. But nevertheless, it's changed in a wonderful way. And in the end, I don't know who finally made it. And blessed are you, Lord, that it may be for us the bread and wine Also here, there's a certain kind of epithesis, which, per se, must be said in the canon. In any way, it is not very happy. Therefore, Monsignor Wagner, per se, responsible for the order of Misse, uses the most terrible words about this terrible mess.

[08:41]

What do they must obey? Perhaps with time insisting to change and so on. And therefore, because it is not a wonderful creation. Say it, I would say, say it in obedience, but don't emphasize it. Don't say it aloud. You can sing, you can remain silent. Sometimes the silence is very nice. Because people sometimes are protesting, we never have a silence. Here is the silence. Okay. Yes. You are doing it. You could, but I don't see the necessity.

[09:49]

It's a very difficult question. Per se, it would be possible to give the ministerium by the bishop or the abbot to these people which normally reads. Then you must practically give this ministerium to everyone. And then again, you are introducing clerical offices in the community. Why? You don't need that. It is not a clerical status. You are right. But nevertheless, we are agreeing. You can read without this ministry. You can read. Also, women can read. You don't need. And here was a big difficulty. These ministries have no meaning because all what you give in these ministries, you can do it without the ministry. And people received it only for two, three months to go on to become deacon.

[10:54]

Nevertheless, we provided the possibilities to some mature man, sacristan, and so on, who always are reading in a parish church, you can give this ministry by the bishop. It's true. Without any... obligation that then he must be nourished by the church. But to a man who always is reading in the passage where you don't have the possibility to change every day, but here you can change every day. You don't need it. And to give to entire community the minister to make them lectures, accolades, that would be, I would say, in a minor form, again, a clericalism. On the way to the next step, everyone made his deacon. Or else you could say, we need to, no. Everyone is changing. So you cannot say, we need to let us.

[11:56]

No, I didn't mean that. Therefore, because everyone can do it without the ministry, I would say, don't give it. But you must give it to the people who became deacon and priest. It's a station, step. Recently, we removed the pieces. Then you had three people around the altar, plus the one beneath the tree. There was four people around there, and it was not needed. But now I feel that we're doing just the opposite. Now we're only one, you know, only the acolyte is there and we're waiting for the acolyte to do his job. You are waiting? Waiting for the acolyte, you know, to bring the missile, to bring the challenge. But this morning, you waited. And I had an impression, it's very nice, very nice.

[13:02]

because you are waiting preparing yourself and solemnly, in a certain day, there is a certain solemnity. No, it's not too solemn. The priest is sitting down and this is one thing that we want to argue because in some ways he doesn't need a servant. You know, now that the Akkad has become his servant, now I... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, [...] when after this first solemn prayer in silence, Father Reiffel made it to be the solemnity according to the order of Romanos, then some accolades came and solemnly spread the, what do we say, the order, the papada order.

[14:03]

It's not so bad. Yeah, it sounds like that. We were waiting for him and Father Martin to do the same thing. Wait, amen, and wait. But in the same time, you are gaining the possibility for the entire community to wait together with the priest in silence, not looking to it. I mean, while the acolyte is preparing the altar and the gifts, we are all waiting, preparing in spirit, praying, we must prepare ourselves, that all this preparation could be the preparation of my soul to share in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist. We have the tendency. No, no, it must not. I remember in the old, I know how important

[15:09]

the respect for the corporal. And you have to fold it this way. But there is a bastion that makes it this way, turning it upside down, and . So simple. And . Yeah. For the corporal, For example, in Lach, we make it so. It may be allowed to give the example of Lach, because Van Rieferle is still, at least from the background, because he himself don't wish to interfere anymore. Therefore, we have no corporals. We have normal outer gloves, and then we put on these normal outer gloves a corporal before the mass, which covers the entire altar for all the chalices.

[16:13]

Therefore, during the mass, there is no preparation of copper any more. The altar is before the mass prepared. And then we are waiting until the gifts are brought. He brings them, Father Albert and some of the brothers brings the gifts to the altar. about one of the other consolidating priests also assisting in that work? Per se, you are right. Per se, there must be a deacon. Because we don't have a deacon, also in Maria Lac, we take a priest, assistant priest, who puts the water in the wine and who helps a little bit. But here, in this situation, my personal feeling is to wait together with the priest.

[17:16]

The priest is waiting together with the community. Meanwhile, an acolyte, an assistant, or you can say, this assistant is more or less this assistant priest. You don't need for it, really, the priestly dignity. You can do it also as a lame monk. Therefore, this is very nice. It gives this happy feeling. We have no hurry. We have time. We can prepare. We can pray. And the time is very short. And you don't need to see. But on the other side, You can see, because it is also a symbolic presentation, you must prepare yourself. You are admonished by these symbols, by this preparation. You are preparing yourself for the word, and the book. You are preparing yourselves for the celebration, for the sacrament, and then the priest comes and says a last word in silent praying, taking it for a moment, presenting it to God, or you can do it, presenting it to God, that it may become for us the food of life and so on.

[18:22]

And then he immediately starts again to say the lababo. We were fighting until the last moment against the lababo. Here, perhaps not the Pope, but some conservative people wish to introduce it because it has no meaning. We rushed our hand before. and we did not touch nothing, therefore it's not necessary. But the symbolic meaning of this word was wished by so many that finally it was introduced again, against our disposition to do it. You did it yesterday, today not? Oh, okay, fine, good. I believe you did not do it. But you did it, I have seen it, yes. And therefore, we must do it. And then, your invitation. And here, you know, somebody said, I don't know who said it, you perhaps. No, La Babo.

[19:23]

No, we must say it. Also here, I was fighting until the last moment against it. And I remember we came at once at our liturgical institute, back from Sopiaco to Rome, and I was sitting together with Father Massili. Then we touched this point, and for the amusement, how do we say, amusement, for the great pleasure of the entire bus, we were fighting, as Massili can fight, crying. He defends the orate fratres. He, very revolutionary progressive man, and I was against it. We both... lost our throat. Therefore, you see, there are different points. Finally, there is a compromise. You must say you cannot leave it out as you are doing it. And then, per se, there must be the answer.

[20:24]

In my monastery, in Germany, the bishops Don't wish the answer. Therefore, we are only inviting, and immediately follows the secret. You said it too soon. Or somebody said it too soon. Orate fratres, silence, continuation, without the answer. Because all these answers are German-Frankish addition after the Ordo Romanus Primus. And in a certain way, we were in our first preparation against these German, Frankish elements to go back to the old classic Roman liturgy. But then the conservative elements said, yes, we are agreeing, but not totally. Some elements of the Middle Age must be retained because they are not bad. Perhaps there is some proof. It is not necessary to destroy the entire Middle Age. He says, There must be an invitation of some answer, as it is always.

[21:27]

I don't remember his reasons, but in every way he is defending this introduction. For above, we must retain it. Here, Fr. Gregory is more revolutionary. When bread and wine are on the altar, Celebrant immediately says prayer over the gift. No prayer ever. So please, please. You cannot do that. No orat of heartless. No prayer ever. It would be very nice, and it was our intention to do so, but no, if you do so, then you go against explicit last votation. of this entire World Commission. Finally, we were discussing, per se, you must not know it, we were discussing, you are right, your idea is splendid, but then, after all this discussion, the Pope, and we were agreeing, we are ready to obey, and several Pope and Commission were deciding so, and no, it would be very, very...

[22:43]

unlawful, unlawful, yes, unlawful. If you know, go back to things we were not accepted. Here is the difficulty. These ideas are all marvelous, but you cannot do it now, because we reacted after long discussions where we have seen the rightness of dispositions. Was that a papal decision, too? Yes, yes. Therefore, we were, in a certain way, against all these three subjective elements, penitential, right, offertorium, prayers, and communion prayers. All things are German, Frankish traditions. Nothing is ultra, nothing is classic. And here again, after discussions, the bishops were a little bit divided, we must find the last decision.

[23:46]

And in the last decision, the poor pope said, also, I have a voice. And this voice gave this last decision. And then we were finally agreeing. What do you mean? You were agreeing that he had a last voice, or you were agreeing that he did right? No, the situation was so the bishops were divided. A certain majority was finally, in our opinion, against these prayers. And in this decision, the pope, perhaps influenced by some of his good friends, said, I wish to introduce and to retain these subjective prayers of the German Frankish. He does not know these terms about this German Frankish situation. And then we were, the bishops, again, in the last times with their votation, majority voting against it, but ready to obey. And then the pope says, no, I, after having regarded all, don't go with this small majority, but in the other way, by pastoral reasons. And I think he was.

[24:48]

Today, after years, I think he was right. It's not so bad. But you must not make a great, how do you say, hurry of it, a great thing of these prayers, as he sometimes himself is doing it. That is wrongly, because his counselors are not good. When he is celebrating, he says aloud, and with the microphone, you hear it in the entire St. Peter's Church, these private prayers. It's not necessary to say them aloud. Without microphone, nobody hears it in silence. They don't realize that. Especially the prayers before communion must never be said aloud. But he says it in the microphone. You can hear it. So, if you can go on to the next point. Do you not agree? No? Yeah, say your opinion.

[25:50]

No, I... Say it. It just... Well, I mean, it's a ridiculous thing. You should, because it's just a feeling that I'd have. It's not going to go away. It's just that sometimes the Pope is so arbitrary, it seems to me. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And you can say it. But he has the entire group of people. He's called together to advise him and to advise the bishops. When the entire group of people goes for one particular thing and then they say no. Yeah, you cannot say entire group. No, no, no. In this commission, first, the bishops are, the majority have been for these prayers. And then we, the consultors, were insisting, preparing, discussing, insisting in the bishops. Finally, a small majority was of our opinion, of the consultants.

[26:54]

Younger people and so on, and perhaps also we saw more the historical situations. And therefore, for years, we could not find a unity. And finally, the Pope, according to the rule of St. Benedict, did not chose the majority, mathematically, but he was... tasting the power of arguments. And so he then said, if you are regarding the history, Saint Justin says gifts are brought, presented. And immediately over the gifts, the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing Horatio Super Oblata, nothing Horatio Fratres. Immediately over the gifts, the great Eucharistic prayer as the Oriental Church is still doing it. So we wished to have it too. But then, after the 12th century, you find in Rome the Oratius of Plata, the first prayer.

[27:56]

Then, very quickly, in the Ordinus Romani, you find these little additions, Orate, Fratres, and so on. And then you find, after the 9th century, these prayers, these terrible prayers, going on. Never, never enough. Growing, growing. Pius V shortened it, only two or three. We took them away. But something, according to this entire always growing tradition, could be retained by pastoral reasons. You know, it's the argument of the Pope. He is following the tradition, following the tendency of this tradition, and creating prayers which are not so bad by pastoral reasons. No. A certain unity must be found for the skin. You are free in other points, but not in the skin. Therefore, today, the entire World Church is insisting to do so. Your English translation is insisting.

[28:57]

In the same point, it would be difficult, no, to go back to our decisions made by many consultants by the same reason which you are feeling. Your feeling, although our feeling was so. But no, we must... We must change, we must obey, to enjoy our liberty in other points, but not here precisely. And again, I would say, if you don't do it, the entire celebration is made well, is okay. Terrible are things which are made in the underground, where other things are made, terrible things, and you don't do it. are not so important. And nevertheless, also, it is not important things. I would say it would be better to take the normal scheme and help ourselves with silence, not emphasizing it, and so on.

[29:58]

And then, if you are agreeing, we can go on. Eucharistic prayer with preface. Here he says only On this day, Memoria and Feria, we always use Canon 2. If you allow, I would say I don't see the reason to use every day Canon 2, as we are doing it in my monastery. Here, I prefer the custom of St. Anselmo, that we are changing every day, also in weekdays, because we have so many weekdays. This monotony for a great part comes from this custom that we in all our weekdays, there are so many now, memorial days, the greater part of the year is only memorial days, that we always, as I said, is short, not too very nice, but too short, and always too much the same. Therefore, I would say, why not? Sometimes, very often, cannot fall, which, per se, cannot be used on high feasts, because, you know,

[31:02]

cannot change the preface for it. Because you must use a special greater preface. Per se, it's not excluded on normal Sundays to take the canon for, but it's a preface. But you cannot take it on Christmas, on Easter. Because here there is a certain unity in the beginning It's especially thanksgiving for the divinity itself and for the creation, and then the history of salvation in the canon itself. You would destroy the unity of this Eucharistic prayer if you would take another preface for canon 4. But nevertheless, you can take, say, in Rome, in one day, canon 1. Why not canon 1? Roman canon, which is very nice. Sometimes, no. Canon 2, canon 3, canon 4. Then you have every day already for four days change.

[32:03]

We find, I find, if we say no after so many years, again the canon, a young lay liturgist, he says the Roman canon is a potpourri gallican. A potpourri. You know it. A gallican potpourri. Louis Bougier and Dombote are fighting against this expression. There are some limits in the Roman canon. It's not very perfect, but nevertheless, it's a wonderful thing, not abstaining its limits. Therefore, from time to time, to take it is very, very nice. What would be the ideal path for faith science? Three. Three? Or four. Or one. One, three, four. One, three, four. 2 is too short on Sundays, I think. Nevertheless, if you have spoken too long, you can also take a Canon 2. Don't you think that the reason here for wanting to use Canon 2, for most of these, for pure fact, is shorter?

[33:17]

Okay. I agree with it. I'm just saying that I think that's the reason. It is. It's purely for back and forth. We're going to get out. Marsili in Rome says Canon 2 is a little bit too short. Canon 3 is nothing else than classwork of Father Vagagini. Exercise paper of Father Vagagini. That's true. He made it. And therefore, he says canon four is the best. Second, it's destroyed because we changed the real canon of . He's known what he's saying. Therefore, in a certain way, especially very often, the preface is taken away, then it is really mutilated, destroyed.

[34:19]

And canon four is very well made, also by . We made it all together. Nevertheless, it's very well made. And canon first. Therefore, Canon 2 and Canon 3, which are mostly used, are not so bad, not so good. It's also good. Therefore, changing, changing, but using all the one and four. Per se, also, again, it's not terrible. But nevertheless, it is against the explicit rubric, and it is against the... tendency of the composer who wish to have a totality. And this totality is not given. Nevertheless, you are right. In the canon itself, there is also a certain totality. You are beginning again, so if you do it. Here, it is not so much the obedience.

[35:20]

like also the obedience to the Roman prescriptions, to the prescription of the universal church. But in these prescriptions, in these laws, there is some spiritual truth in it. It is prescribed because the intention of the composers, of the redactors, was to give this totality. The number four seems to be very, very accurate. Also. You know, I can tell it too, but it's not too long. We wish to have a fifth canon in the first beginning. And we proposed for this fifth prayer of St. Basil in the form of Alexandria. Perhaps, according to the modern research, the oldest of the Oriental canons. And we liked it very much. And then we were discussing, can we do that if we, with time, must translate it in modern languages?

[36:28]

Can we have the explicit epictesis to change this bread and wine in body and blood of our Lord after the consecration? Can we say that in the presence of our faithfuls? We cannot, because our faithfuls would be scandalized. They are bowing down for the consecration, and then still praying, send your Holy Spirit to me to change this bread in the body. It's difficult to explain it. Then we thought it would be possible, perhaps, to put this efficacy before the consecration. Or it would be all right. We cannot do that, because then our original brothers will say, you terrible Latin people. You don't believe in the rightness, in the reality of our form. Therefore, we were voting 50-50, and then the Pope said, no, it's better not to do it. was dangerous, perhaps with time, and so we must, because our actual theology tends to say, consecration is made by the entire canon. Where are two important points, epicles and consecration, and nevertheless, we are adoring already the gifts after the consecration.

[37:36]

So for our occidental mentality, logical mentality, it is better to have the epicles before the consecration. But here, there is no difficulty. And now, in point six, our father, with introduction, immediately followed by, for thine is the kingdom. You could say, in a certain way, we spoke about it already yesterday, discussing your points. In a certain way, for thine is the kingdom is already the embolism. In the first moment, We, the Germans, were proposing this form of our beloved Protestant separated paravan as the unique embolism. But then again, a certain traditional element wish to have some prayers which are in every Latin liturgy, Spanish, Dalit, Roman, and so on.

[38:39]

Here again, I would say, why do you wish to suppress Why does he propose it? To shorten? No. There's no reason. Therefore, I would say again, why not take this old traditional form, which now is shorter. It's not more so long. The sins are excluded, and so on. I would not... counsel to omit this and also if somebody comes a bishop then you must also in the presence of this bishop omit if you are changing in the presence of a bishop or some over dangerous person then you are not sincere you are not sincere you cannot do it

[39:47]

You cannot do a thing in the secret and not do it in the, you must do always the same, I think. Again, after our father and doxology, first celebrant immediately says the peace of the Lord and all, exchange the pacts. without the peace prayer. Here again, your feeling is right. We were fighting against these prayers. Subjective prayers made obligatorious only by Pius V. Until this time, it was quite free to do it. And she said many prayers. It was introduced. We were discussing. And now after these questions, finally, the decision was made to say one prayer aloud to others.

[40:53]

You can't say that peace prayer sign. Oh, yes, you could. Even if a bishop or some other dangerous person was here. I must say, I did not yet realize that you don't say it. Or did you say it? I don't know. I see, okay. Therefore, it's not important. And then, Lamb of God and fraction, okay. And then, immediately after Lamb of God or bringing of hosts, First Celebrant says, this is the Lamb of God, or the formula he chooses. And all reply, Lord, I am not worthy. Therefore, he proposed to omit the preparation prayer. In a certain way, it's ridiculous to say this prayer. You are right. But nevertheless, the idea was also perhaps the bonum commune, the common good, is suggesting to do it.

[41:55]

The idea was if we don't propose at least one or two prayers, the greater part of priests will not think nothing. The danger is to do it. It is really so. There is only a meal where we are sitting and eating and drinking together. Some remembering that we are doing, we must not fear the body of our Lord. Nevertheless, it is a terrible mystery. It's the body of our Lord. It's dangerous. Therefore, I would say it in silence. Give a moment of peace, of silence. The faithfuls are in the wonderful situation. They can pray what they like to pray. The first celebrant must say it. You can say it in peace, in silence. In Rome, we are doing it very slowly, and we have a moment of time.

[42:58]

Or the priest must wait to the Lamb of God until this is finished, and so on. Again, I think in all these decisions which have been made against The opinions of these avant-gardeists, of these progressive liturgists, there is some pastoral feeling. And for the good of the entire church, it would be better that everyone is conforming himself to this pastoral feeling, doing it. It's not so bad. But you can protest against it. And he proposed no communion song on these days. But then he made a notice, given the number of communicants at Mount Xavier, a communion song is probably appropriated, I think.

[44:05]

Again, I must say, our custom in Maria Laque is to sing in Latin still, not still, the antiphons of the new missile, according to the distribution of the orthocantus missae, where for every day is given from the treasure of the old Roman gradual tradition, a corresponding antiphon, corresponding to the gospel of the day. This antiphon is changing from day to day, during the entire year, and you are singing the antiphon in which you are singing a motif of the gospel, realized in the communion. Here we meet our Lord who heals us because we are blind. He touches and he heals us because our faith is great. In the communion, there's a wonderful realization of the mystery which we are celebrating. You have the tendency, so far as I have seen, to sing a canticle of praise, thanksgiving, encountering the Lord, and because you don't have many, you have a feeling that it's always the same.

[45:09]

Is it not so? I'm not sure. Have you changed this? But the new Graduale Romanum is corresponding to the Ordo Cantus Missae. They are only printing, but in this Ordo Cantus Missae is set in numbers. The only difficulty is it is in Latin. Therefore, again, you don't understand it. Yes, it's a difficulty. Oh, you are understanding it, but the papers don't understand. So far, I don't know the solution. But nevertheless, I feel you cannot omit in this great assembly a song. Yes, sometimes also a silence could be very nice. Pious and edifying and impressing silence.

[46:16]

Normally, I would prefer this song. You are free. In every case, the silence after it. And then again, prayer after communion at the chair of the first Taliban. It's quite possible. You are not obliged to go to the altar. You can do it. You must not. We don't go to the altar. The first Taliban leaves the altar after having... distributed Holy Communion, he kisses it, goes to his chair, remaining in silence, and of a sudden, he says the prayer. You have many possibilities to do that, what you are preferring. On our side, it's very nice. If you are going to the altar, inviting by this movement, everyone to rise up and so on. And then he is bringing it all together.

[47:21]

The above arrangement involves silent sign of the cross, omission of penitential light, omission of offertory prayers, lavabo, pray, brethren. Therefore, he's very strong against your practice and against what I was saying. Omission of embodiesment, prayer for peace, and prayer before communion. The Albert primate liked the above arrangement very much and used it himself when he celebrated Mass for us. Therefore, you can do it. And the primate was quite right. He cannot change immediately the light. And then he must say, as I am said, it was our opinion to do so. Your feeling is right. But my difficulty is, can you, after, that we felt so? after our feeling, can you still know after all these decisions go back? I don't believe that you can. You can protest against this central authority.

[48:27]

My question is again, I don't believe it's convenient to protest because at least since the fourth century, you remember this African Council of 393, in the presence of Saint Augustine. Nobody must use the new prayers, Eucharistic prayer on the altar, without having discussed them with instrucciores fratres, with brothers who are better instructed, of bishops. Therefore, correctio fraterna. Don't use liturgical prayers. Don't do nothing on the altar without having discussed it with your brother, of bishops, not priests. And this fraterna correctio, brotherly correction, during the centuries was given to a central authority.

[49:32]

And this central authority, finally the Pope, the Congregation of the Knights, gave his entire Nearly, not totally, his entire power to this commission composed by bishops of the entire world, helped by consultants of the entire world. And he then finally gave some final decisions. Can we go against this fraterna correction made in such a wonderful way according to our tradition? That would... The whole thing that this... It may last for quite a while. Maybe not 400 years ago. No, no, no, no. But for the moment, I think it would be better for certain reasons also to give us certain peace. and it never really comes apart.

[50:42]

To help in this situation, I would think at least for five, 10, 20 years, let us use this math book, which was made with so many difficulties. Especially because if you are using it really, you have so many possibilities for spontaneity. Use them. But in these certain points, in these fundamental points, in the Ordo Missae, I would more or less, yes, I would really follow the Ordo Missae given by the Pope. Do the penitential right. Use it. And because we are sinners, perhaps I have told it already. I don't know. Sometimes I'm repeating things. I was speaking openly as consultor against the penitential right, saying, yes, we need penance. But we must do it on Saturday night or in the morning of Sunday. And this wonderful Yugoslavian bishop, a born bishop, what do we say in English? Bishop of some years, 12 priests in his diocese and many, many, many, many, many, many peasants.

[51:48]

He said to me, Father, I have my faithful only on Sunday with me and I wish to do parents with them. It's good because we can do penance if we do penance on Saturday night, but the people cannot do it. They need it in the church, in the mass itself. Otherwise, they don't do it. And again, the tendency is no. For many who are using it, this penance is right. It's enough. We don't need to go to confession. It's a new exaggeration. Oh, no. there was some way a transition of the center of influence and liturgy from monks to preachers. I mean, for a while, at least, they didn't think they were liturgists, right? But now, once again, this sort of pastoral feeling.

[52:49]

Yes, you are right. But nevertheless, we can say most of our liturgical principles was accepted. But it is true that in the last years, the pastoral involvement was growing very strongly. The movement, at least since the Second War and since Assisi, the great conference, was made very pastoral, so pastoral that many now are protesting against element too much pastoral. And we are very often saying, we, the monks, we don't need these pastoral elements. Yes. In a certain way, you can say so. But if you are celebrating the Sunday and also during the fifth April, you must also accept these pastoral elements. You need them also yourself. But nevertheless, with time, perhaps after 20 years, we can discuss it again and then think we, the monks, we have so many possibilities.

[53:56]

Compline and... Nevertheless, we took away prime. We took away complaining. We have no more exam of conscience. When do we pronounce in our monastic day today, in the psalms? But all this too general. Here we have a moment where we every day in the mass itself can make our exam and so on. And if we are doing it well, really, that would be the Same as we did it 50 years ago when we must go to confession every week. It was too much. No, every day we must not go to confession, but every day we must at least, there is good thing we are sinners, have mercy on us. Yesterday was not very good, so and so on and so on. Exam, very short. And then, okay, we are prepared. The difficulty of this modern... evolution is only, we don't need, never anymore, the confession.

[55:00]

Because this right is giving entirely sacramental absolution, it's not right. But this act, penitential right, is inviting us to do penance, to have an act of contrition, and according to our traditional doctrine, with the act of contrition, every sin is taken away, also big sins. Nevertheless, mortal sins must be confessed still. But nevertheless, this act of contrition takes away the sins. Therefore, I would say again, more or less, let us follow this order with elasticity, using all this possibility to change, not to do the same, to change the words, to introduction. For example, if you are every day using another formula for the introduction to our father, it's quite right, because the missile itself gives at least three, four, five examples not to oblige us to do it, but here's a model.

[56:07]

Do it so, so, and so. You can do it so, so, and so. Because the most of us are not able to do it, we have four formula. But here the monks must be able, The poor priests are not able to do it. But we are able to do it. Let us hope so. Father, in Europe, is there much preaching done from the chair? In Europe? Chair? No, no, no. The chair is finished. The chair for the pulpit. No, no, no. See, in Sicily, you can preach from the chair or from the pulpit. One of the two. The vestige. The priest's chair. Normally, in Europe, we are praying There, where is the microphone? And the microphone sometimes stays on the ambo. What do we say? Pulpit. And sometimes stays on the chair. That's quite the same. It depends from the local situation sometimes. And sometimes we prefer the pulpit because we are nearer to the faithfuls.

[57:11]

That is the only reason. You must have some contact. But never anymore from the big council. What's that? Cancel. The big council, as we had it formally, three meters over the heads, sometimes touching the Holy Ghost on the top. It's not likely that there would be, once again, something like the monastic violence. Yes. It's difficult to say. The difficulties against the new Missal are the difficulties especially of the Abbot of Fongambo and the Cistercians who wish to have a monastic right. This idea, per se, is not bad. And you could try to find this monastic right. Yes, many have these ideas. Only he took the way which is terribly false. He said, because we wish to have not the pastoral Missal of Paul VI,

[58:14]

we are retaining the monastic missile of Pius V. And it was forbidden to him. But for the moment, there is no monastic right. Again, I ask you, where are the monastic elements you wish to have? No, I don't know. For example, you could say in a certain way, because we are praying the entire day, we must abbreviate the introduction. Yeah. You can say so. Shorten it. No, no, no. So far as I know, there is no mess right to the reception of the Carthusians.

[59:19]

And the Carthusians too were invited to reform their things and also say, because what they did are terrible Frankish German things. Frankish German, medieval. And this line of the Carthusians seems to us old because he is older than Pius V. Very venerable is the Cistercianites. But all theseites, Cistercians, Dominicans, the Cartusians, are awful things of the Middle Age, of the 10th century already, very venerable. Therefore, also, these peoples must change to an older, a classic form. And therefore, the Dominicans already freely, but the other way. The Cistercians were not allowed. to take all their minutes here they wished. They can insist because they had a proper right. We never had a proper right.

[60:20]

And Bonini in the congregation says, because you never, the Benedictines, had a proper right, therefore today you must follow, as you did it before, the Roman right. This is in Switzerland. They had really a proper right already 20, 30 years ago, also they left it in the 16th, 17th century, but at least they restored it. Therefore, with a certain right, they can say, we wish to retain our monastic uses. Also here, the monastic uses of the Cisacians are medieval, French-German, incense. They say, I don't kneel, very fine, only boring. So, they start doing it. And here again, where are monastic elements? You could say, abbreviating, if you say, as somebody in these days said, we hear so much of the word of God. It's too much. Let us take it away.

[61:22]

I could not agree with that. You can never hear enough of the word of God. Vigils, laws, mass, refectory, it's not too much. But you can do it as Father Raphael, who reads the entire Holy Scripture in one, two years, in choir, mass, and effectively you can compose it together in a wonderful order. It is one of his most wonderful works, always arranged in Holy Scripture so that you are beginning individuals, continuing dinner, continuing supper, and sometimes continuing complaining, and so it's not too much. And therefore, where are monastic rights? For example, here, for the presidential right, I would say, too, where is in our monastic daily life, today still, after the renovations, a place for penance? Only in the mess.

[62:29]

Privately, oh yes, I believe. But we must do this. The council was insisting in the communitarian aspect of penitence. We must do it. Yes. But you don't have it. You are right. There is a real chapter. We could say, as we did before, 10 years ago, you are not obliged to make them immediately after a penitence. You made it already. Nevertheless, you must think to your faithfuls, who have not been present. You can say you must exclude the faithfuls, and you can do many things. But you don't wish to exclude the faithfuls. You, here in Mount Xavier, you are insisting very much in Biden. And therefore, Penitenti and I, you are not insisting every day in this idea. Let's discuss our conscience.

[63:29]

which was said in various forms, you put an ideal and you are able enough to confront yourself with this ideal, today, love, compassion, is enough to say it, did I have yesterday compassion? In this silence. Therefore here, the penitential right could be made so in so many different ways that it's not tiresome to do it. And therefore, again, I would say, let us try to follow these slides after so many difficulties, at least for 20 years. And let us hope that in these 10 and 20 years, we can change which was not made well and not retain it again 400 years as we did it with the missile of Pilate V. There were special reasons on Protestant Reformation. The mentality today is entirely different.

[64:32]

But it is for the moment also to fight against these exaggerations of the progressives.

[64:39]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_81.22