Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 11-13

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion (none yet) on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 11-13 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 8-10

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 8-10 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Personal: First Anniversary

My wife and I were married last June (2007); our first wedding anniversary came and went without fanfare, because she's been studying at Notre Dame University in Indiana for the past six weeks. Tomorrow, I'm flying out to her. Thursday morning, we drive to Niagara Falls. Friday night we arrive in Albany, NY. Saturday afternoon, my best man is getting married. Sunday we'll be back home.

I'm not bringing my laptop with me; I have no need for such a distraction. Have a good week(end), everyone.

Liturgy: Musings on accurate translation

Here's a comment I left on another blog a little while ago; it demonstrates the theological richness of the Latin prayers of the Mass, and thus the necessity to accurately convey that theology in the translation.

---

[This is an excerpt from the original post.] 12th Sun in OT. The 1997 version says "Lord God, teach us to hold your holy name both in awe and in lasting affection..." 2008 goes like this: "Grant us, O Lord, fear and love of your holy name always and in equal measure..." Key words that pop out , for me, are "teach" vs. "grant," "fear" vs. "awe," and "affection" vs. "equal measure."

Here's the Latin and my meager attempt at translating it:

Sancti nominis tui, Domine, timorem pariter et amorem fac nos habere perpetuum, quia numquam tua gubernatione destitus, quos in soliditate tuae dilectionis instituis.

"Lord, make us to have fear and love, equally and eternally [or: unending], for your Holy Name, for You never fail to govern those whom You establish firmly in your love."

(At least the 1997 translation is an improvement over the 1985 one: "grant us an unfailing respect for your name, and keep us always in your love", which doesn't match the verbs with the proper subjects and objects.)

As for your analysis, you're comparing the wrong words. The proposed 2008 version uses "fear" for "awe" and "love" for "affection". It uses "equal measure" for "both"; it also correctly binds "always" ("lasting") with both fear and love, rather than just love (affection).

As for "Teach" vs. "Grant"... in my opinion, even "grant" is a bit too weak here; the Latin says fac nos habere -- "make us to have" -- which identifies God's grace as the driving force. And there's more:

"Teach us to..." has the implication that once He has taught us, we can do it on our own; if you've been taught well enough, you don't need the teacher anymore. "Grant us..." makes it sound like merely a gift; getting a coat that's two sizes too big doesn't change us magically to fit into it.

But "make us to have" establishes the conversion -- the change -- needed in us to truly fear and love His name, equally and forever. God needs to produce this change in us; we need Him to make us anew.

Liturgy: Important news of the upcoming Missal translation

Here's what the USCCB is reporting today:

Vatican Approves New English Translation For The Order Of Mass

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has received approval (recognitio) from the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the new English-language translation of the Order of Mass (Ordo Missae).

This is the first section of the translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal. It includes most of the texts used in every celebration of the Mass, including the responses that will be said by the people.

In its letter, the Congregation pointed out that while the texts are binding, the approval “does not intend that these texts are to be put into use immediately.”

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation, explained the reasons for providing the text at this time. The purpose is to provide “time for the pastoral preparation of priests, deacons and for appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. It will likewise facilitate the devising of musical settings for parts of the Mass.”

The text is covered by copyright law and the Statutes of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

The more significant changes of the people’s parts are:

1. et cum spiritu tuo is rendered as “And with your spirit”
2. In the Confiteor, the text “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” has been added
3. The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure is different from the present text
4. In the Preface dialogue the translation of “Dignum et justum est” is “It is right and just”
5. The first line of the Sanctus now reads “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts”
6. The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei is “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

At this time, no date is available as to when the entire translation of the Roman Missal will be released.

Here's what Catholic World News (CWN) is reporting (with some different details):

Vatican approves new English translation for Mass

Vatican, Jul. 25, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has given formal approval to a new English translation of the central prayers of the Mass for use in the United States.

In a June 23 letter of Bishop Arthur Serratelli, the chairman of the US bishops' liturgy committee, the Congregation for Divine Worship announces its recognitio for the translation, which had already won the approval of the US bishops' conference, despite strong protests from some liberal prelates.

The new translation adheres more closely to the Latin of the Roman Missal. Since the 2001 publication of Liturgiam Authenticam, the instruction on the proper translation of liturgical texts, the Vatican has pressed for more faithful translations of the official Latin texts.

Alluding gently to the fierce debates over English-language liturgical translations in the past decade, the Congregation for Divine Worship reports "no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture." The letter from the Vatican is signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news) and Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the Congregation.

The Vatican's binding approval covers only a portion of the entire Roman Missal. The entire process of translating the Roman Missal is expected to take at least until 2010. However, the prayers given the Vatican recognitio are the most common texts for the Order of the Mass.

The Vatican approval comes just after the US bishops' conference voted against approval of another installment in the series of translations that will be required to complete the overall project.

The new translation is not to be used immediately, the Vatican letter indicates. Instead the US bishops are directed to begin "pastoral preparation" for the changes in the language of the Mass. During this same period, the Congregation for Divine Worship notes, some musical settings for the text could be prepared.

Among the noteworthy changes that Catholics will notice when the new translation goes into effect are:

• At the Consecration, the priest will refer to Christ's blood which is "poured out for you and for many"-- an accurate translation of pro multis-- rather than "for all" in the current translation.
• In the Nicene Creed the opening word, Credo, will be correctly translated as "I believe" rather than "we believe."
• When the priest says, "The Lord be with you," the faithful respond, "And with your spirit," rather than simply, "And also with you."
• In the Eucharistic prayer, references to the Church will use the pronouns "she" and "her" rather than "it."
• In the Agnus Dei, the text cites the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," rather than using the singular word "sin."
• In the preferred form of the penitential rite, the faithful will acknowledge that they have sinned "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."

Throughout the translation of the Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer, the traditional phrases of supplication are restored, and the Church is identified as "holy"-- in each case, matching the Latin original of the Roman Missal.

And finally, here is what Catholic News Service (CNS) reports:

Vatican approves new English translations for constant parts of Mass

By Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The Vatican has given its approval to a new English-language translation of the main constant parts of the Mass, but Catholics in the pew are unlikely to see any of the approved changes at Masses for awhile to allow for catechesis on the reasons for the revisions.

The approved text, sent to the Vatican for "recognitio," or confirmation, after a June 2006 vote by the U.S. bishops in Los Angeles, involves translation of the penitential rite, Gloria, creed, eucharistic prayers, eucharistic acclamations, Our Father and other prayers and responses used daily.

But it is only the first of 12 units into which the third edition of the Roman Missal has been divided for translation purposes. It includes most of the texts used in every celebration of Mass including responses to the celebrant by people participating in a liturgy.

"In terms of the people's part, it's not gong to require too much adjustment," Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, told Catholic News Service July 25. "It's a refinement of the language, a clearer theological language.

"Not much of the people's part is changed, and I think once or twice after they use it, they will hardly notice the change," he said.

While the changes have been approved, Bishop Serratelli said it will be awhile before they become part of regular worship at Mass.

"I'm hoping for two years," he said. "I'm an optimist."

The lead time is needed to allow musicians to work with the text and to prepare music for various liturgical settings and seasons and to allow for the necessary catechesis explaining the reasons for the revisions to parishioners, the bishop explained.

The most significant changes approved by Rome include:

-- Whenever the priest says, "The Lord be with you," the people will respond, "And with your spirit." The current response is "And also with you."

-- In the first form of the penitential rite, the people will confess that "I have greatly sinned ... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." In the current version, that part is much shorter: "I have sinned through my own fault."

-- The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure of the prayer will have changes from the current text.

-- The opening of the Nicene Creed changes from "We believe ... " to "I believe ... "; other changes in the prayer also have been made.

-- Before the preface, when the priest says, "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God," instead of saying, "It is right to give him thanks and praise," the people will respond, "It is right and just."

-- The Sanctus will start "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts." The current versions says "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might."

-- The new response at the "Ecce Agnus Dei" ("Behold the Lamb of God") is: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

In 2001 the Vatican issued new rules requiring liturgical translations to follow the original Latin more strictly and completely -- a more literal translation approach called formal equivalence. The resulting new translation adheres far more closely to the normative Latin text issued by the Vatican.

Two other sections of the Roman Missal have come before the bishops. In November 2007 they approved a revision of all the Sunday and weekday Lectionary readings for Lent, but at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., and in subsequent mail balloting they rejected a 700-page translation of the proper prayers for Sundays and feast days during the liturgical year.

The rejected section is to come before the full body of bishops again at their November general assembly in Baltimore, along with two other sections totaling about 500 pages.

When the bishops approved the first section in June 2006, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., called it "a truly important moment in liturgy in the United States." He then chaired the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, now called the Committee on Divine Worship.

Bishop Trautman said at that time that he did not expect the new Order of Mass to be implemented in the United States until the entire new Roman Missal in English had been approved by the bishops and confirmed by the Vatican.

According to the current schedule, the earliest that the Vatican could receive the final sections of the translation project would be November 2010.

The actual timetable will depend on the work of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, made up of representatives of the world's 11 main English-speaking bishops' conferences and decisions of the USCCB Administrative Committee in setting the agenda for the general meetings.

A two-thirds majority of the nation's Latin-rite bishops must approve each unit of the missal translation. After each section is approved, it is sent to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments for confirmation.

- - -

Contributing to this story was Nancy Frazier O'Brien and Dennis Sadowksi.

Prayer Intention: Conversation this weekend

This weekend, I am meeting with two non-Catholic Christians for a dialog about the trustworthiness of the Magisterium of the Church (specifically regarding doctrine concerning membership in the Church and salvation).

Please pray for me, that the Holy Spirit would give me the words to say; and for B. and T. with whom I am meeting, that the Holy Spirit would touch their hearts to be open and receptive to the Catholic faith.

You can see some of the dialog thus far, in the form of a paper (PDF) from B. and my response (MS Word).

Latin: Perhaps a motto

Volo melius servire

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 5-7

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 5-7 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Liturgy: Another Byzantine Divine Liturgy

I was in Harrisburg, PA, this Sunday, at St. Ann's Byzantine Catholic Church (called the "Jewel of the Eparchy" by the bishop). They had a surprise visit from their Metropolitan, who celebrated the liturgy for them.

Their church is distinctively Eastern (that is, not Latinized). The walls have large icons painted onto them depicting various scenes in the life of our Lord, his Blessed Mother the Ever-Virgin Theotokos Mary, and the Church. The iconostasis was beautiful and recently add gold trim added. The liturgy was heavenly, with angelic chanting from the choir (and especially their cantor, who has an amazing voice), the priests and ministers, and the congregation too.

After the liturgy, the parish held an American-Slavic Festival, drawing a very large crowd.

I thank Ed for inviting me to come out. It was a 300 mile trip (Princeton to Allentown -- to see my parents -- to Harrisburg and back to Princeton) that was well worth it.

Liturgy: How do the faithful take part in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist?

(This is jumping the gun a bit, since Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't mention this until article 48, but I think it's worth sharing anyway!)

Vatican II teaches that all the faithful, who have the baptismal priesthood, can offer Jesus to the Father and unite themselves to Jesus, the perfect sacrifice; furthermore, pastors need to teach their flock this great mystery.

"The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves..." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 48)

"Thus the Eucharistic Action, over which the priest presides, is the very heart of the congregation. So priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives." (Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 5)

The mystery was articulated at length by Pope Pius XII in his masterpiece encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei (from 1947, a good 15 years before the Council). If you ever have the time, I strongly suggest reading it! Let me give you a lengthy excerpt (from nn. 84-93) which I believe will help to bear fruit in your prayers, most especially those which you offer at Mass.

Oh, but first, a bit of terminology will help here. A sacrifice has two parts: the death of the victim and the offering of the victim. The death is often called immolation (from the Latin immolare which means "to sacrifice"), and this is achieved in the Mass with the words of Consecration ("This is my Body", "This is my Blood"). The offering of the victim is often called oblation (from the Latin oblata, a form of offerre, which means "to offer"). The priest, and he alone by virtue of his ordination, is the minister of the immolation; but as Mediator Dei explains, all of the faithful share in the oblation.

Now onto the quote:

(84) [W]e deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. ...

(85) However, it must also be said that the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense. ...

(86) "Not only," says Innocent III of immortal memory, "do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention." We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine's many statements on this subject. "The sacrifice," he says "is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him."

(87) Moreover, the rites and prayers of the eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the oblation of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: "Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;" but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same. ...

(88) Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. ... [T]hey participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.

(89) It is fitting, then, that the Christian people should also desire to know in what sense they are said in the canon of the Mass to offer up the sacrifice. ...

(90) First of all the more extrinsic explanations are these: it frequently happens that the faithful assisting at Mass join their prayers alternately with those of the priest, and sometimes - a more frequent occurrence in ancient times - they offer to the ministers at the altar bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and, finally, by their alms they get the priest to offer the divine victim for their intentions.

(91) But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.

(92) In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word "offer." The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.

(93) Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 1-4

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 1-4 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Star Wars Episode IV according to a three-year-old

This is adorable.

Liturgy: The Pope's new clothes

Check out the vestments designed for the Pope to wear during World Youth Day!

(H/T to Fr. Z)

Liturgy: Study Sacrosanctum Concilium at Catholic Answers Forum

At the Catholic Answers Forum (CAF), I've started a thread studying Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. As I've mentioned before on my blog, the Pope has invited the whole Church to re-visit this first document of the Second Vatican Council to grow in our understanding of this Most Blessed Sacrament, the Holy Eucharist. This document also speaks about the direction of the liturgical reformation that the Church was preparing to undertake.

If you would like to read along with us -- I'm posting the document, piece-by-piece, with commentary and questions -- feel free! The thread is here.

If you want to contribute questions or answers, you'll need to register with CAF (painless, really) and then register as a "Book Club" member (which might take a day or two to be approved). But anyone can read along without registering.

Scripture Reflection: Job

Job points to Christ.

I was at a non-denominational Bible Study last night; we were looking at the book of Job, chapters 32-37 (the speech of Elihu). Eventually we got around to asking why Job wasn't able to endure his suffering without finally lashing out against God (although not cursing Him, as Satan had hoped) at the instigation of his three "friends". I pointed out that, whenever Job lived (we don't know) and to whatever people he belonged (we don't know for sure, maybe he was an Aramean), the world was without the totality of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Suffering was seen simply as a punishment for wrong-doing (which Job had none of when he received his punishment), and there was nothing redemptive or holy about it. It couldn't glorify God. You could accept it, sure, but you couldn't see the good of it. Christ changed that for us. The epistles mention the redemptive value of suffering plenty! Even Jesus, in John's Gospel, asks the Father to "glorify" him, referring to his being "lifted up" on the cross. The crucifixion was the first stage of the glorification of Jesus Christ! Suffering on the cross was glory to God!

Job did not have this knowledge. I wouldn't say that God made "an example" of him, but I do believe the book of Job is there to point us, in the Old Testament, to the incompletion of the earlier covenants, and of the necessity for Jesus Christ who redeems us in his suffering and in our suffering. In Christ we can "offer up" our suffering as a sacrifice united to the body of Jesus on the cross; in Christ we can glorify God in our affliction. Revelation 3:19 tells us that the Lord God chastises and reproves those He loves. Let us bear our suffering nobly and humbly, glorifying God. Let Job serve as the example of who we were, and Jesus as the example of who we must become.

Ecumenism: From Preacherman's blog

If you're from Preacherman's blog, and you're willing to enter into dialog about my recent comment there, this is the place. Please, if you comment here, stick around to hear my response. And don't slander the Church; I will delete comments that are untruthful or vicious. (And I don't delete comments often!)

Tradition: Refounding and Restorationism

Here is yet another dangerous homily from Fr. Patrick Brennan on the occasion of the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. It pains me to hear him telling his congregation these things, because the dissent he feeds his parishioners will probably manifest itself as flat-out disobedience from them towards whomever is appointed their new pastor in a matter of months. My emphases are in bold; commentary is inside and outside of the homily.

1. A group called the Gnostics, they resisted Peter's leadership. They said he didn't have the right to be looked on as leader because of his denial of Jesus. And Paul, Paul also a flawed and sinful man. Paul persecuted the early Christians. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that Paul was right there participating when Stephen the deacon was stoned to death, was martyred. And yet Paul went on to become the first writer of the New Testament, and Paul more than anyone else in our history has taken Christianity and made it a livable spirituality, a way of life, a system of meaning that people can have conversions to. Peter and Paul, the "super-apostles", they really took the Jesus movement and ignited it. But two very human men. If they were here speaking today, I think both of them would say Jesus is the rock on whom we need to build our lives.

This is all quite fine: Jesus is the rock on whom we need to build our lives. Neither Peter (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-5) nor Paul (cf. Col. 2:6-7) would say otherwise. Scripture also testifies that the Church founded by Jesus was built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, and specifically Peter (petros = "rock", cf. Matt. 16:18-19), with Christ himself as the cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:19-20).

2. John Cardinal Newman was declared venerable by John Paul II before he [Pope John Paul II] died [obviously]. That means he's on the way to canonization, to sainthood. By John Newman said something in the 19th century: he said there was not a papacy, and there were not bishops, while the Apostles still walked the earth. [More on this below] Other historians have picked up on that theory and say there probably was not a Bishop of Rome for 100 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. [Other historians recognize there were Bishops of Rome, like Clement.] Rome was governed by a group of priests, a group of elders, and Rome compared to the other churches in the East, was not even considered a church of great esteem early on. [When?] But then [when?] Rome began to take on a position of power and authority. Why? Because Peter and Paul, who were held in equal reverence and esteem, were martyred there. Rome was the city of Peter and Paul, the two heroes of the early Church.

What John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote in Development of Christian Doctrine, chapter 4 ("Instances in Illustration", section 3 ("The Papal Supremacy"), paragraph 2, was this:

For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope's authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves.

Cardinal Newman, interpreting (fallibly) the writings of the New Testament as well as the epistles of St. Ignatius, says that there was no "display" of a Bishop or Pope. That is true enough; there was display of the Magisterium of the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, though (cf. Acts 15). The Apostles were the "primitive" bishops, and there was no Pope until there was a church in Rome to have a Bishop! Newman is a bit off, since the Apostle John was still alive close to the end of the 1st century, and there is evidence of Clement being a successor of Peter in Rome long before John finally died. St. John himself laments that someone in a particular church is disregarding his (John's) authority there (cf. 3 John 9). Even earlier than that, Pauline and Petrine epistles refer to priests (presbuteroi, that is, "presbyters", also rendered as "elders") and bishops (episkopoi, that is "overseers"). I would guess that the language of "bishop" and "pope" was stressed more and more to distinguish between literal Apostles and the post-Apostolic leadership.

There is also literary evidence of Rome being held in high regard in the early (pre-Constantine) Church; one example is the epistle of St. Ignatius to the church in Rome, "worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed [most] holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father" of whom he goes on to say "Ye have never envied any one; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]." I do not know exactly how early Fr. Brennan was restricting his analysis.

3. But then some things began to shift, especially after the 4th century. Devotion to Peter, and the tradition about Peter, began to prevail over Paul. A tradition began to spread that indeed Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and different powers that were assigned to different parts of the Church around the world began to concentrate on the Bishop of Rome, and we began to see emerge the papacy as we know it today, reaching its zenith in the Middle Ages.

Is this insinuating that the tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, which "began to spread" later, was a false one?

4. Now I don't intend this history to be a critique of the papacy. What I'm trying to present today on the Feast of Peter and Paul, is that Jesus did not start a rigid, monolithic institution. [Can we use some different adjectives, though? Jesus did start a single visible institution, with standards for membership and the potential for world-wide growth!] The Church is something that evolved and developed over history. And different roles, like the papacy, and the role of bishop, and the role of priests, evolved. [But there were always priests and bishops, unless Fr. Brennan is insinuating that the Eucharist back then wasn't what it is today (or even in the time of St. Ignatius). It is true that roles developed and evolved; for example, deacons didn't exist at the start.] And that same spirit of flexibility and evolution and development must be present in our Church too, if the Church is going to face the future, if the Church is going to be relevant in the future to younger people. [What happens if the Church becomes "relevant" to younger people... but becomes "irrelevant" to older people?] Flexibility, development, evolution.

There's going to be a contradictory theme to this homily: the Church evolved and developed, and the Church needs to continue evolving and developing, but some of that evolution and development needs to be erased. Essentially, we need to "evolve" and "develop" the Church back to how it was in the time of Saints Peter and Paul, but then continue evolving and developing. It's fine to "go back in time" 1950 years, but not to "go back in time" to 1950, basically. (Not that I advocate restoring the Church to what it was in 1950, but simply that recovering Church practices from the 1st century seems to take precedence over recovering Church practices from the early 20th century.)

5. I've mentioned before the work of Gerald Arbuckle, his great classic book, "Refounding the Church". [Subtitle: "Dissent for Leadership". I kid you not.] Arbuckle says in his book "Refounding the Church", in every age, the church has to go back to its founder and ask the question, "What was the founder about... Jesus?" Well he was about the reign of God. [And everything that reign entailed, not just the "social justice" aspect of it; salvation from sin was awfully high on his list.] In every era, the Church and parishes like ours, have to ask the question, "Okay, Jesus was about the reign of God... what structures, what systems do we need in 2008 to preach him and to preach his vision of the reign of God?" The Church needs to be evolving, the Church needs to be developing; this parish needs to be evolving, this parish needs to be developing. For ever-new challenges and new ages. As the parish ages, as we move into our 25th year as a parish.

I've just purchased this book (used copy for $3.50) from someone on Amazon. I'm curious to see how it renders dissent as leadership. If you get a chance, look at the sample pages Amazon has. It's got a three-page chart showing the differences between the pre-Vatican II, post-Vatican II, and "Restorationist" (explained below) mindsets. It is general and caricatured; it also assumes the "either/or" rather than "both/and" mentality. Here are some examples:

Of the "culture of the Church", it says: before Vatican II = closed; after Vatican II = open; restorationist = "closing to dialogue; fear of dissent". Just what type of dialog is this about?

Of the "structure and authority", it says: before Vatican II = "Hierarchical - vertical authority structures, under Pope; centralization of papacy, Curia; 'creeping infallibility'"; after Vatican II = "Hierarchical - collegial authority: Pope and bishops; local church restored; collaborative emphasis at all levels"; restorationist = "Desiring a milder form of pre-Vatican II structures". Perhaps the author did not read Lumen Gentium which says, in n. 22:

The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

I suggest you read the whole document, especially the explanatory note attached to it which clarifies the notion of collegiality it espouses.

A third example describes the liturgy this way: pre-Vatican II = "Latin; theatrical; congregation passive; uncreative; legalistic/rubrical"; after Vatican II = "Vernacular; simple; congregation active; creative"; restorationist = "Creativity not encouraged" (is that all?). Again, a reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium is in order.

Vatican II never desired to get rid of Latin from the Mass. Furthermore, the Church has been staunchly opposed to "creativity" and "experimentation" in the liturgy because it impedes the universality of the Rite and endangers the proper transmission of the faith to those present. Pope Paul VI said the completion of the liturgical reform in 1969 would put an end to experimentation. And as I mentioned in a previous post, the Church was on guard against abusive "creativity" even during the 1970s and 1980s. I also think "theatrical" better describes the "creative" Masses celebrated in the Ordinary Form, involving clowns, dancing, secular-sounding music, etc.

A fourth example about the priesthood describes the three-way transition as "Cultic" to "Preacher of Word; builder of believing/worshiping/justice-oriented community" to "Role: confused". As for their relation to the laity, the transition is "superior" to "co-operation" to "confused". I think, perhaps, the author is confused. Just what the author means by "cultic" is undefined (although perhaps covered in greater detail in the book). I would hazard a guess it does not include preaching or building of community. Does the preacher/builder definition include a sacramental aspect? I would sure hope so.

A final example describes the Eucharist this way: from "Holy Communion / Mass / Sunday obligation" to "Union of faithful, centered on the Eucharist, symbol and source of unity" to "Vatican II directions not developed; fear of inculturation at local levels". Now I'm confused! Did Vatican II really do away with the notions of "Holy Communion" and "Mass"? And it is not possible for the Eucharist to be the "union of faithful, centered on the Eucharist". The Eucharist has always been the "symbol and source of unity" -- the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the source and summit, as Vatican II put it, and the "source and center of Christian piety" as Pope Pius XII put it in Mediator Dei n. 201. Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical on the Holy Eucharist which described it as "the source and chief" (Mirae Caritatis, n. 6). As for the directions of Vatican II, Pope Benedict has recently called us to re-examine what Vatican II said about the Eucharist, particularly in Sacrosanctum Concilium, so I think we're headed towards a truer realization of the Vatican II "direction".

6. In the late 19th century the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared by Vatican I at the encouragement of Pope Pius IX. That doctrine teaches when the Pope speaks [teaches] on issues of faith and morals, we must listen, we must obey, we must conform. [Are those bad words?] At the time of the doctrine of infallibility being passed, there was another theory of infallibility on the floor of the First Vatican Council. And that doctrine of infallibility said this: Yes, there's this theory of the inerrancy of the Pope -- we're not going to deny that, we'll not take that on -- but another connotation of infallibility is: the Church will never fail. [I think the Church knew that the whole time. Do Matthew 16:18 and 28:20 ring a bell?] The Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We'll have problems, we'll have difficulties, we'll have challenges, we'll have growth spurts, but the Church of Jesus Christ will endure through the power of the Holy Spirit. [Amen!] I encourage us this morning to look at the value of both understandings of infallibility. The latter one I think is very livable and very existential: the Holy Spirit is with our Church. The Holy Spirit is with our Church. [The former one is also very livable, because it gives us assurance in the things our Church teaches us concerning the faith and morality.]

7. Quickly... Peter and Paul, equal in reverence in the early Church, have come down through history to represent two different sides of the Church. Peter obviously represents the organizational, institutional dimension of Church, Paul represents the dynamism of the Church. Paul writes a lot about charisms, he writes about the nature of community. John Paul II before he died, [obviously!] in an encyclical Redemptor Hominis, [see below] said the most scripturally accurate model of Church is the Church is a community of learners, a community of disciples. That's the model of Church that Paul preached. [The hierarchical Church is not an obstacle to the Church as a "community of disciples".] And the Church is more than just a community of disciples: the Church is sacrament to the world, herald, prophet, teacher, moral authority, agent of justice, agent of mercy. [And Bride of Christ, and Body of Christ, and Household of God.] We should never allow one image of the Church to prevail over other images of the Church. [So don't let images that may stress Her non-hierarchical nature overpower those images that make that hierarchical nature clear.] The fact that we celebrate the Feast of Peter and Paul together today is a lesson in itself that these many different sides of the Church must be held in a healthy balance and tension. Otherwise we get into mistaken notions of [the] Church.

Pope John Paul II has not released any encyclicals nor announced any canonizations after his death, just for the record. In Redemptor Hominis n. 21, he writes:

Indeed, the Church as the People of God is also-according to the teaching of Saint Paul mentioned above, of which Pius XII reminded us in wonderful terms -- "Christ's Mystical Body". Membership in that body has for its source a particular call, united with the saving action of grace. Therefore, if we wish to keep in mind this community of the People of God, which is so vast and so extremely differentiated, we must see first and foremost Christ saying in a way to each member of the community: "Follow me". It is the community of the disciples, each of whom in a different way -- at times very consciously and consistently, at other times not very consciously and very inconsistently -- is following Christ. This shows also the deeply "personal" aspect and dimension of this society, which, in spite of all the deficiencies of its community life -- in the human meaning of this word -- is a community precisely because all its members form it together with Christ himself, at least because they bear in their souls the indelible mark of a Christian.

I have no argument at all with what the Pope has written here. The minute the Church ceases being the community of disciples, She has ceased to be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And as disciples of Christ, we are bound to "observe all that [he] has commanded [us]" (Matthew 28:20). That includes respecting the hierarchy of the Church; it's not like the Pope isn't a disciple!

Oh, and like Fr. Z, I really can't stand this trend of dropping definite articles from words like "Church", and "Eucharist".

8. I mentioned Gerald Arbuckle. Arbuckle in addition to introducing the notion of refounding the Church in every age, also coined the term "restorationism". He said beginning in the 90s, he felt there was a movement in the Church to push the Church back before Vatican II. [The extremist movement to overturn Vatican II is one thing; the "reform of the reform" movement, the "New Liturgical Movement", is another. The latter seeks to properly implement what Vatican II mandated regarding the liturgy.] Now remember why Vatican II was called: Vatican II, when I was in high school, was called an ad fontes movement, back to the fonts. Vatican II was an attempt to discover what was the nature of the Church of Peter and Paul. [While it did look to the past -- the whole history of the Church -- it was also concerned with aggiornamento, that is, "updating".] "We've become too institutionalized," the Council leaders said in the 1960s. "We're leading too much with the organization, with the institution; we've got to get back to the Church of Peter and Paul." [These are not exact quotes, of course, but when was this sentiment conveyed? Was this Pope John XXIII's vision? I'd say no.] Arbuckle is saying in this period of restorationism -- the 90s and the early 2000s -- some people are trying to push us back to the Council of Trent, back to the Council that articulated things in the 16th century. [Trent hasn't been abrogated or nullified. Vatican II quoted them. The Catechism quotes them.] I don't know if you saw in the local Chicago Catholic newspaper, The New World: the Pope is encouraging every parish to have a Latin Mass. [Amen!] Is that really the Church we want [choose your next words very carefully...] to return to? Arbuckle says at the heart of restorationism is nostalgia: nostalgia so that we don't have to do the hard work of refounding. [So if the Pope says it's not for nostalgia that he's doing this, but Arbuckle says it is, whom should I believe? Does Arbuckle know the Pope's mind better than the Pope himself?]

This is not the first time Fr. Brennan has contrasted "refounding the Church" with "restorationism". He wrote about it in his parish bulletin back in May 2005 as well. He is also hostile towards Latin, whether in the Extraordinary Form (which he caricatured in a previous homily) or the Ordinary Form. He openly questions here whether a Church which celebrates Mass in Latin, ad orientem, etc., is a Church worth having. If that Church returns, he seems to be asking, do we want to belong to it? The negative answer to that question results in schism, plain and simple.

Would he mind explaining what's inherently wrong with Mass in Latin in general, or with the Extraordinary Form in particular?

9. [Fr.] George Kane is offering a course this fall on the vision [and "Spirit", no doubt] of Vatican II. [If the budget gets approved, I'm sure it'll include actually looking at the documents!] I hope some of you will attend that course, and I'm grateful to [Fr.] George for doing that, but more than just the course in the fall, remember, John XXIII called Vatican II to open the windows of the Church because "it's gotten dusty in here", he said, and the Church needs fresh air. [That's for sure. Fresh air with a hint of incense!] The Church needs the movement of the Holy Spirit. I hope, Holy Family, that you will always keep the vision of Vatican II alive in this parish. John XXIII opened the windows; keep the windows open.

I am frightened to think what the subject matter of such a course will be. What sources will Fr. Kane use? The documents themselves, taken in context? That would be an eye-opener...

Caption: What is the Pope saying?

Fr. Z hits another home run with this caption thread.

Bible Study: Philippians

Starting at the end of September, and going through Advent, the Young Adult Bible Study I facilitate will be looking at the Second Reading from Mass, which is almost always going to be a letter from Paul. The first several weeks will be devoted to the letter to the Philippians (reading the whole letter, not just what we hear in Mass).

After learning more about lectio divina today at the "Called to Lead" conference, I've decided I'm going to read the letter, chapter by chapter ("paragraph by paragraph", really) slowly and carefully, meditating and praying on each part. See, I've learned today that Scripture won't say anything to me unless I treat it as though it were written to me.

So when I begin the Bible Study in the Fall, the theme will not be "Paul's Letters to the So-and-So's". It will be "Paul's Letters to Us". I think it's especially poignant for young adults, because we are a lot like the church communities that Paul was writing to. They were fledgling, they were struggling, they had questions about their faith, they had temptations on every side... and Paul had the right words for them. There's no reason to think that he doesn't have the right words for us.

Ask me about the Bible... I'm Catholic!

That conference was phenomenal. I normally avoid institutional Bible study material... but I am SOLD on this. The Bible Timeline is incredible. Believe it or not, it's basically the same method for studying Scripture that the Catholic Church used almost a thousand years ago (but which kind of got lost along the way).

The Great Adventure Bible Studies series have a simple goal: to make people say, "You know a lot about the Bible... you must be Catholic!" I am psyched about this. I've learned things that I can bring into the Bible Study I facilitate already at another parish, and I can't wait to start the Bible Timeline study at my own parish.

Here are 22 pages of notes (126 K, in MS Word format) that I took at the lectures I attended. These are the topics:

• Friday
• Keynote: Scripture in the Life of the Church – Dr. Tim Gray
• Eight Keys for Unlocking Scripture – Dr. Ted Sri
• How to Facilitate a Small Group – Dr. Tim Gray
• Bible Study Materials and Resources – Thomas Smith
• Panel: Stump the Bible Scholars – Jeff Cavins, Dr. Tim Gray, Dr. Ted Sri
• Saturday
  
• A Biblical Walk-Through of the Mass – Dr. Ted Sri
• Increasing the Effectiveness of Your Bible Study: Problem-Solving Workshop for Study Leaders – Dr. Tim Gray & Jeff Cavins
• Why Study the Bible Timeline – Dr. Tim Gray
• Geography of the Bible – Jeff Cavins
• Increasing Your “Prophet” Margins – Thomas Smith
• Lectio Divina: The Ancient Technique for Praying with Scripture – Dr. Tim Gray
• The Living Timeline: The Story Continues in You – Jeff Cavins