Thoughts
on alterations in the liturgy by Cardinal John Henry Newman...
Thoughts
on alterations in the liturgy by Cardinal John Henry Newman...
“I have cautioned the priests, the hierarchy in My Son’s Church, to remove their pride and arrogance from their beings and their hearts. Their way has become a way of the world, governed by man and not by his God. This new way will only lead to total destruction, of not only the souls but the body.” – Our Lady of the Roses, October 6, 1978
John Henry Newman, one of the best-known religious writers and preachers of the 19th century, was a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism at the age of 44 and later became a Cardinal. The following is Newman's "Thoughts on alterations in the liturgy respectfully addressed to the clergy":
Attempts are making to get the Liturgy altered. My dear Brethren, I
beseech you, consider with me, whether you ought not to resist the alteration of
even one jot or tittle of it. Though you would in your own private
judgments wish to have this or that phrase or arrangement amended, is this a
time to concede one tittle?
Why do I say this? because, though most of you would wish some immaterial
points altered, yet not many of you agree in those points, and not many of you
agree what is and what is not immaterial. If all your respective
emendations are taken, the alterations in the Services will be extensive; and
though each will gain something he wishes, he will lose more from those
alterations which he did not wish. Tell me, are the present imperfections
(as they seem to each) of such a nature, and so many, that their removal will
compensate for the recasting of much which each thinks to be no imperfection, or
rather an excellence?
There are persons who wish the Marriage Service emended; there are others who
would be indignant at the changes proposed. There are some who wish the
Consecration Prayer in the Holy Sacrament to be what it was in King Edward's
first book; there are others who think this would be an approach to Popery.
There are some who wish the imprecatory Psalms omitted; there are others who
would lament this omission as savouring of the shallow and detestable liberalism
of the day. There are some who wish the Services
shortened; there are others who think we should have far more Services, and more
frequent attendance at public worship than we have.
How few would be pleased by any given alterations; and how many pained!
But once begin altering, and there will be no reason or justice in stopping,
till the criticisms of all parties are satisfied. Thus, will not the
Liturgy be in the evil case described in the well- known story, of the picture
subjected by the artist to the observations of passers-by? And, even to
speak at present of comparatively immaterial alterations, I mean such as do not
infringe upon the doctrines of the Prayer Book, will not it even with these be a
changed book, and will not that new book be for certain an inconsistent one, the
alterations being made, not on principle, but upon chance objections urged from
various quarters?
But this is not all. A taste for criticism grows upon the mind. When we
begin to examine and take to pieces, our judgment becomes perplexed, and our
feelings unsettled. I do not know whether others feel this to the same
extent, but for myself, I confess there are few parts of the Service that I
could not disturb myself about, and feel fastidious at, if I allowed my mind in
this abuse of reason. First, e.g. I might object to the opening sentences;
"they are not evangelical enough; CHRIST is not mentioned in them; they are
principally from the Old Testament." Then I should criticise the
exhortation, as having too many words, and as antiquated in style. I might
find it hard to speak against the Confession; but "the Absolution," it might be
said, "is not strong enough; it is a mere declaration, not an announcement of
pardon to those who have confessed." And so on.
|
|
Now I think this unsettling of the mind a
frightful thing; both to ourselves, and more so to our flocks. They have
long regarded the Prayer Book with reverence as the say of their faith and
devotion. The weaker sort it will make skeptical; the better it will
offend and pain. Take, e.g. an alteration which some have offered in the
Creed, to omit or otherwise word the clause, "He descended into hell."
Is it no comfort for mourners to be told that CHRIST Himself has been in that
unseen state, or Paradise, which is the allotted place of sojourn for departed
spirits? Is it not very easy to explain the ambiguous word, is it any
great harm if it is misunderstood, and is it not very difficult to find any
substitute for it in harmony with the composition of the Creed? I suspect
we should find the best men in the number of those who would retain it as it is.
On the other hand, will not the unstable learn from us the habit of criticising
what they should never think of but as a divine voice supplied by the Church for
their need?
But as regards ourselves, the Clergy, what will be the effect of this temper of
innovation in us? We have the power to bring about changes in the Liturgy;
shall we not exert it? Have we any security, if we once begin, that we
shall ever end? Shall not we pass from non-essentials to essentials?
And then, on looking back after the mischief is done, what excuse shall we be
able to make for ourselves for having encouraged such proceedings at first?
Were there grievous errors in the Prayer Book, something might be said for
beginning, but who can point out any? cannot we very well bear
things as they are? does any part of it seriously disquiet us? no--we have
before now freely given our testimony to its accordance with Scripture.
But it may be said that "we must conciliate an outcry which is made; that some
alteration is demanded." By whom? no one can tell who cries, or who
can be conciliated. some of the laity, I suppose. Now consider this
carefully. Who are these lay persons? Are they serious men, and are
their consciences involuntarily hurt by the things they wish altered? Are
they not rather the men you meet in company, worldly men, with little personal
religion, of lax conversation and lax professed principles, who sometimes
perhaps come to Church, and then are wearied and disgusted? Is it not so?
You have been dining, perhaps, with a wealthy neighbour, or fall in with this
great Statesman, or that noble Land-holder, who considers the Church two
centuries behind the world, and expresses to you wonder that its enlightened
members do nothing to improve it. And then you get ashamed, and are
betrayed into admissions which sober reason disapproves. You consider,
too, that it is a great pity so estimable or so influential a man should be
disaffected to the Church; and you go away with a vague notion that something
must be done to conciliate such persons. Is this to bear about you the
solemn office of a GUIDE and TEACHER in Israel, or to follow a lead?
But consider what are the concessions which would conciliate such men.
Would immaterial alterations? Do you really think they care one jot about
the verbal or other changes which some recommend, and others are disposed to
grant? whether "the unseen state" is substituted for "hell,"
"condemnation" for "damnation," or the order of Sunday Lessons is remodelled?
No;--they dislike the doctrine of the Liturgy. These men of the
world do not like the anathemas of the Athanasian Creed, and other such
peculiarities of our Services. But even were the alterations, which would
please them, small, are they the persons whom it is of use, whom it is becoming
to conciliate by going out of our way?
|
|
I need not go on to speak against
doctrinal alterations, because most thinking men are sufficiently averse to
them. But, I earnestly beg you to consider whether we must not come to
them if we once begin. For by altering immaterials, we merely raise
without gratifying the desire of correcting; we excite the craving, but
withhold the food. And it should be observed, that the changes called
immaterial often contain in themselves the germ of some principle, of which they
are thus the introduction:-- e.g. If we were to leave out the imprecatory
Psalms, we certainly countenance the notion of the day, that love and love only
is in the Gospel the character of ALMIGHTY GOD and the duty of regenerate man;
whereas the Gospel, rightly understood, shows His Infinite Holiness and Justice
as well as His Infinite Love; and it enjoins on men the duties of zeal towards
Him, hatred of sin, and separation from sinners, as well as that of kindness and
charity.
To the above observations it may be answered, that changes have formerly been
made in the Services without leading to the issue I am predicting now; and
therefore they may be safely made again. But, waving all other remarks in
answer to this argument, is not this enough, viz. that there is peril?
No one will deny that the rage of the day is for concession. Have we not
already granted (political) points, without stopping the course of innovation?
This is a fact. Now, is it worth while even to risk fearful changes
merely to gain petty improvements, allowing those which are proposed to be such?
We know not what is to come upon us; but the writer for one will try so to
acquit himself now, that if any irremediable calamity befalls the Church, he may
not have to vex himself with the recollections of silence on his part and
indifference, when he might have been up and alive. There was a time when
he, as well as others, might feel the wish, or rather the temptation, of
steering a middle course between parties; but if so, a more close attention to
passing events has cured his infirmity. In a day like this there are but
two sides, zeal and persecution, the Church and the world; and those who attempt
to occupy the ground between them, at best will lose their labour, but probably
will be drawn back to the latter. Be practical, I respectfully urge you;
do not attempt impossibilities; sail not as if in pleasure boats upon a troubled
sea. Not a word falls to the ground, in a time like this. Speculations
about ecclesiastical improvements which might be innocent at other times, have a
strength of mischief now. They are realized before he who utters them
understands that he has committed himself.
Be prepared then for petitioning against any alterations in the Prayer Book
which may be proposed. And, should you see that our Fathers the Bishops
seem to countenance them, petition still. Petition them. They will
thank you for such a proceeding. They do not wish these alterations; but
how can they resist them without the support of their Clergy? They consent
to them, (if they do,) partly from the notion that they are thus pleasing you.
Undeceive them. They will be rejoiced to hear that you are as unwilling to
receive them as they are. However, if after all there be persons
determined to allow some alterations, then let them quickly make up their minds
how far they will go. They think it easier to draw the line
elsewhere, than as things now exist. Let them point out the limit of their
concessions now; and let them keep to it then; and, (if they can do this,) I
will say that, though they are not as wise as they might have been, they are at
least firm, and have at last come right.
We hear many complaints about the Burial Service, as unsuitable for the use for
which it was intended. It expresses a hope, that the person departed, over
whom it is read, will be saved; and this is said to be dangerous when expressed
about all who are called Christians, as leading the laity to low views of the
spiritual attainments necessary for salvation; and distressing the Clergy who
have to read it.
Now I do not deny, I frankly own, it is sometimes distressing to use the
Service; but this it must ever be in the nature of things; wherever you draw the
line. Do you pretend you can discriminate the wheat from the tares?
of course not.
It is often distressing to use this Service, because it is often distressing to
think of the dead at all; not that you are without hope, but because you have
fear also.
How many are there whom you know well enough to dare to give any judgment
about? Is a Clergyman only to express a hope where he has grounds
for having it? Are not the feelings of relatives to be considered?
And may there not be a difference of judgments? I may hope more, another
less. If each is to use the precise words which suit his own judgment,
then we can have no words at all.
But it may be said, "everything of a personal nature may be left out from
the service." And do you really wish this? Is this the way in which
your flock will wish their lost friends to be treated? a cold
"edification," but no affectionate valediction to the departed? Why not
pursue this course of (supposed) improvement, and advocate the omission of the
Service altogether.
Are we to have no kind and religious thoughts over the good, lest we should
include the bad?
|
|
But it will be said, that, at
least we ought not to read the Service over the flagrantly wicked; over those
who are a scandal to religion. but this is a very different position.
I agree with it entirely. Of course we should not do so, and truly the
Church never meant we should. She never wished we should profess our hope
of the salvation of habitual drunkards and swearers, open sinners, blasphemers,
and the like; not as daring to despair of their salvation, but thinking it
unseemly to honour their memory. Though the Church is not endowed with a power
of absolute judgment upon individuals, yet she is directed to decide according
to external indications, in order to hold up the rules of GOD'S
governance, and afford a type of it, and an assistance towards the realizing it.
As she denies to the scandalously wicked the LORD'S Supper, so does she deprive
them of her other privileges.
The Church, I say, does not bid us read the Service over open sinners.
Hear her own words introducing the Service. "The office ensuing is not to
be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent
hands upon themselves." There is no room to doubt whom she meant to be
excommunicated, open sinners. Those therefore who are pained at the
general use of the Service, should rather strive to restore the practice of
excommunication, than to alter the words used in the Service. Surely, if we do
not this, we are clearly defrauding the religious, for the sake of keeping close
to the wicked.
Here we see the common course of things in the world. We omit a duty.
In consequence our services become inconsistent. Instead of retracing our steps
we alter the Service. What is this but, as it were, to sin upon principle?
While we keep to our principles, our sins are inconsistencies; at length,
sensitive of the absurdity which inconsistency involves, we accommodate our
professions to our practice. This is ever the way of the world; but it
should not be the way of the church.
I will join heart and hand with any who will struggle for a restoration of that
"godly discipline," the restoration of which our Church publicly professes she
considers desirable; but GOD forbid any one should so depart from her spirit, as
to mould her formularies to fit the case of deliberate sinners! And is not
this what we are plainly doing, if we alter the Burial Service as proposed?
we are recognizing the right of men to receive Christian Burial, about whom we
do not like to express a hope. Why should they have Christian burial at
all?
It will be said that the restoration of the practice of Excommunication is
impracticable; and that therefore the other alternative must be taken, as the
only one open to us. Of course it is impossible, if no one attempts to
restore it; but if all willed it, how would it be impossible; and if no one
stirs because he thinks no one else will, he is arguing in a circle.
But, after all, what have we to do with probabilities and prospects in matters
of plain duty? Were a man the only member of the Church who felt it a duty
to return to the Ancient Discipline, yet a duty is a duty, though he be alone.
It is one of the great sins of our times to look to consequences in matters of
plain duty. Is not this such a case? If not, prove that it is not;
but do not argue from consequences.
In the meanwhile I offer the following texts in evidence of the duty.
Matth. xviii. 15-17; Rom. xvi.17; 1 Cor. v. 7-13; 2 Thess. iii. 6,14,15; 2 Tim.
iii.5; Tit. 10,11; 2 John 10,11; /pre
THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY
Testimony of St. Clement, the associate of St. Paul, (Phil. iv. 3.) to the
Apostolical Succession.
The Apostles knew, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that strife would arise for
the Episcopate. Wherefore having received an accurate foreknowledge, they
appointed the men I before mentioned, and have given an orderly succession, that
on their death other approved men might receive in turn their office. Ep.
i. 44.
Testimony of St. Ignatius, the friend of St. Peter, to the Episcopacy.
Your celebrated Presbytery, worthy of GOD, is closely knit to the Bishop, as the
strings to a harp, and so by means of your unanimity and concordant love JESUS
CHRIST is sung. Eph. 4.
There are those who profess to acknowledge a Bishop, but do everything without
him. Such men appear to lack a clear conscience. Magn. 4.
He for whom I am bound is my witness that I have not learned this doctrine from
mortal men. The Spirit proclaimed to me these words: "Without the
Bishop do nothing." Phil. 7.
With these and other such strong passages in the Apostolical Fathers, how can we
permit ourselves in our present <practical> disregard of the Episcopal
Authority? Are not we apt to obey only so far as the law obliges us?
Do we support the Bishop, and strive to move all together with him as our bond
of union and head; or is not our every-day conduct as if, except with respect to
certain periodical forms and customs, we were each independent in his own
parish?
"The
plan for your salvation was given. It was a simple plan of faith, faith in
what has been given to you in the past! You mock the past in Tradition! You
set yourselves to build a new church. The gates of hell shall never prevail
against My Church!
"Man shall not judge My Church on the actions of man, for man
now is taking it and building a church for man, not to honor his God, the
Eternal Father, not to honor and prepare his soul for the entrance over the
veil! No! He is now wasting valuable time in promoting a mode of humanism
and modernism. You are feeding the nature, the carnal nature of mankind,
while you are starving their spirit.”
- Jesus, May 15, 1976
Our Lady of the Roses awesome Bayside Prophecies... http://www.tldm.org/../Bayside/ These prophecies came from Jesus, Mary, and the saints to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, NY, from 1968 to 1995.
A
RENEWAL?
"I
gave you My human life upon earth, and what have you done? You crucify Me again
in My own House, My Church! You crucify those who stand in righteousness in My
Church and cast them out, as you rebuild My Church. For what? A renewal? And
what are you renewing? What is your renewal? What are you renewing? Have you
found fault with My way? Shall you create a new way of man? I say unto you, you
blaspheme! You have cast yourself out of the light into the darkness, O pastors.
"I cannot at this time give you, My child, dates. It would be of no merit
to give the date now that you ask, My child. That will be given to you in
secret. Let others speculate, but I say unto you, you must be prepared at all
times, for it will come upon you suddenly.
"There is no reason to modernize My Church. Discipline must be returned.
"My Mother has
made many visits to earth, crying out to you to stop now, turn back, do penance,
make atonement for your sins. And what has She met but derision, lukewarmness,
and arrogance!” – Jesus, February 1, 1978
THIS
NEW WAY
“I have cautioned the priests, the hierarchy in My Son’s Church, to remove their
pride and arrogance from their beings and their hearts. Their way has become a
way of the world, governed by man and not by his God. This new way will only
lead to total destruction, of not only the souls but the body.” – Our Lady,
October 6, 1978
Directives from Heaven...
D127
-
Vatican II 
PDF
D161
-
The Great Apostasy
PDF
D193
-
Turn back: You are on the wrong road
PDF
D211
-
Changes,
Part 1
PDF
D212
-
Changes,
Part 2
PDF
Articles…
“Kneel before your God in the Eucharist”
http://www.tldm.org/News5/kneeling.htm
Vatican on kneeling for holy Communion
http://www.tldm.org/vatican%20letter.htm
The case for the Latin Mass
http://www.tldm.org/news5/latinmass.htm
Should women cover their heads in Church?
http://www.tldm.org/news6/veils.htm
Pope John Paul II recommends praying the St. Michael
Exorcism
http://www.tldm.org/news6/exorcism.htm
Restore the high altar
http://www.tldm.org/news5/main%5Faltar.htm
"You cannot separate Tradition from your Faith"
http://www.tldm.org/news6/tradition1.htm
Vatican II, part 1: Infiltration
of the Church
http://www.tldm.org/News6/VaticanII-1.htm
Vatican II, part 2: Dark clouds forming before Vatican II
http://www.tldm.org/News6/VaticanII-2.htm
Vatican II, part 3: the satanic revolution gains momentum at the Council
http://www.tldm.org/News6/VaticanII-3.htm
Home | Introduction | Prophecies | Directives | Order Form | Testimonies | Veronica | News | Photos | Bible | Magazine | Newsletters | Radio Show |
We encourage everyone to print or email copies of this web page to all the Bishops and all the clergy. Also, send this page to as many people as possible.
The electronic form of this document is
copyrighted.
Quotations are permissible as long as this web site is acknowledged through
hyperlink to:
http://www.tldm.org
Copyright © These Last Days Ministries, Inc. 1996 - 2003 All rights
reserved.
P.O. Box 40
Lowell, MI 49331-0040
Revised:
August 02, 2004