Why do we eat the Body and Blood of our Lord?

This is an answer of mine from the Catholic Answers Forum.

---

What is the initial reason why we would want to consume the blood and body of our beloved Christ?

Hmm... what is the initial reason? I would say because the Lord Himself commanded it. (cf. John 6:29-58; Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Why did He command it? Or, more deeply, why was it under the signs of bread and wine that Jesus commanded us to receive His Body and Blood? Why would He have us consume His Body and Blood? Well, God knows... but He had been preparing Israel for it for centuries.

Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (long before Israel existed and had priests), offered God a thanksgiving offering of bread and wine, and he blessed Abram. (cf. Gen 14:18-20) And the letter to the Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek was a foreshadowing of Christ. (cf. Heb 7) Melchizedek's name means "king of righteousness", and Salem (shalom) means "peace".

God later tested Abraham, asking him to offer his only beloved son as a holocaust on a mountain. As they went up the mountain -- Isaac carrying the wood for his own sacrificial death on his back -- he asked his father where the lamb for the sacrifice was, and Abraham replied that God would provide Himself the lamb. God did provide an animal for sacrifice in place of Isaac... but it was a ram, with its head caught in a thicket of thorns. (cf. Gen 22)

When God delivered Israel from captivity in Egypt, He instituted a ritual sacrificial meal for them, by which each family was to acquire a spotless, unblemished lamb, to kill it without breaking its bones and to spread its blood upon the doorposts of their homes; the angel of God's wrath, seeing the blood, would pass over them. The family was also to eat the flesh of the lamb. But this was not God's lamb... (cf. Exo 12-13)

In time, another ritual was instituted for Israel, the Yom Kippur ("day of atonement") ritual. Two lambs or goats were chosen, one to be slaughtered in sacrifice, and the other to have the sins of all of Israel placed upon its head and to be sent out into the wilderness to die. This was the "scapegoat", the one who receives the blame and punishment for the sins of others. (cf. Lev 16)

On the shores of the Jordan, John the Baptist called out to all who would hear him, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) He was speaking of Jesus, the only beloved Son of God. (cf. Matt 3:17) Pilate found Jesus to be without fault or blemish. (cf. John 18:38) At His crucifixion, our Lord was crowned with thorns and carried the wood for his own sacrificial death on his back. (cf. John 19:2, 17) His bones were not broken. (cf. John 19:31-36)

St. Paul says that "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor 5:7)  ["Paschal" means "Passover"]

St. Paul asks, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

St. Peter says that we "were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." (1 Pet 1:18-19)

St. John saw in Heaven "a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain." (Rev 5:6)

The angels in Heaven say "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev 19:9)

(And why do we drink His blood? Israel was forbidden to consume blood, since the life is in the blood. (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14) That was to prepare them for the only blood they should consume, the Blood of Him Who has eternal life.)

That's my King... do you know him?

That's My King! from Albert Martin on Vimeo.

The Bible says

  my King is.the King of the Jews,

            He's.the King of Israel,

            He's.the King of righteousness,

            He's.the King of the ages,

            He's.the King of heaven,

            He's.the King of glory,

            He's.the King of Kings,

      and He's.the Lord of Lords.

That's my King. I wonder, do you know him?

My King is a sovereign King.

No means of measure can define his limitless love.

  He's enduringly.strong.

      He's entirely.sincere.

     He's eternally.steadfast.

He's immortally.graceful.

  He's imperially.powerful.

He's impartially.merciful.

Do you know him?

   He's.the greatest phenomenon

          .that has ever crossed the horizon of this world.

   He's.God Son.

   He's.a sinner's savior.

   He's.the centerpiece of civilization.

   He's.unparalleled.

   He's.unprecedented.

He is.the loftiest idea in literature.

He is.the highest personality in philosophy.

He is.the fundamental doctrine of true theology.

   He's.the only one qualified to be an all-sufficient savior.

I wonder if you know him today?

  He supplies strength.to the weak.

           He's available.to the tempted and the tried.

         He sympathizes.and He saves.

           He strengthens.and sustains.

                  He guards.and He guides.

                    He heals.the sick.

              He cleansed.the lepers.

               He forgives.sinners.

           He discharges.debtors.

               He delivers.the captive.

                He defends.the feeble.

                He blesses.the young.

                  He serves.the unfortunate.

                He regards.the aged.

               He rewards.the diligent.

     And He beautifies.the meek.

I wonder if you know him?

            He's the key.to knowledge.

He's the wellspring.of wisdom.

    He's the doorway.of deliverance.

    He's the pathway.of peace.

    He's the roadway.of righteousness.

    He's the highway.of holiness.

     He's the gateway.of glory.

Do you know him?

     Well, His life.is matchless.

     His goodness.is limitless.

          His mercy.is everlasting.

             His love.never changes.

           His Word.is enough.

           His grace.is sufficient.

            His reign.is righteous.

     And His yoke.is easy.

And His burden.is light.

I wish I could describe him to you.

                                              He's.indescribable.

                                              He's.incomprehensible.

                                              He's.invincible.

                                              He's.irresistible.

                             Well, you can't.get him out of your mind.

                                      You can't.get him off of your hand.

                                      You can't.outlive him,

                               And you can't.live without him.

                 The Pharisees couldn't.stand him,

    But they found out they couldn't.stop him.

                              Pilate couldn't.find any fault in him.

                             Herod couldn't.kill him.

                              Death couldn't.handle him

                 And the grave couldn't.hold him.

That's my King, do you know him?

Powerful Lenten Reading

If you've read C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, I strongly recommend that you buy a copy of Fr. Dwight Longenecker's The Gargoyle Code and read it this Lent.  The book is written in the style and genre of Screwtape, in the form of letters from a senior tempter to a junior.  There is a letter for every day of Lent, so it makes for simply daily "devotional" reading.

You will not be disappointed... in the book.  It may make you disappointed in yourself, as you see the book slowly revealing how Satan might be influencing you — rather than just the fictional (?) persons whom Slubgrip and Dogwart seek to ruin — in parts of your life.  (I made it to the bottom of page 7 before I was convicted.)  But don't let that disappointment get you down; instead, turn to the Lord and seek His grace, without which there is no overcoming these temptations which the Devil so craftily prepares for us.  Now is a most acceptable time, now is the day of salvation!

The Prayers of the People sells 500 copies!

As of 9:55 AM on February 11, 2010, Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People has sold 500 copies around the world:  the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand.  The person who bought copy #500 is a priest from Rochester, NY, and he received a complimentary second copy as well.

Sacred, Beautiful, Universal - Music in the Catholic Church

SACRED, BEAUTIFUL, & UNIVERSAL: Colloquium XIX from Corpus Christi Watershed on Vimeo.

Vatican II's Inter Mirifica and Social Media today

As I mentioned a few days ago, Pope Benedict's address for World Communication Day is a good occasion for us to revisit what I believe is perhaps the most overlooked document of Vatican II, the decree on social communications media, Inter Mirifica.  This document was released on the same day as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, on December 4, 1963.  While the Internet's origins reach back to the 1960's, it didn't "go public" until 1988; that same year, Pope John Paul II wrote Vicesimus Quintus Annus, an Apostolic Letter on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.  (No such letter was written for poor Inter Mirifica.)  The word "blog" didn't show up for another decade or so.

So what can this nearly 40-year-old document tell us today in this digital world of blogs and Twitter?  More than you might think.  In this three-part series, I want to guide you through this document to show you its timeless and timely words of wisdom and instruction.  My goal is not only to understand what the Church has taught us through this document, but also how it applies to the modern digital medium of the Internet, and how we can put this teaching into practice in our blogging and tweeting.  (Please share this with priests you know who are blogging or tweeting, or who are considering doing so!)

In this first part, we will look at articles 1 and 2, the Introduction to the decree.

1. AMONG THE WONDERFUL [Inter mirifica] technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God's help, the Church welcomes and promotes with special interest those which have a most direct relation to men's minds and which have uncovered new avenues of communicating most readily news, views and teachings of every sort.

From the very beginning, this document emphasizes the cooperation between man and God:  man makes these technological discoveries with God's help.  This is an important theme which will resurface throughout the document:  because these discoveries are made with the assistance of God, they figure into His plan, and so He has a dominion over them.  This means it is not for man to decide, apart from God, what the proper or improper use of a technology is.

The most important of these inventions are those media which, such as the press, movies, radio, television and the like [e.g. the Internet], can, of their very nature, reach and influence, not only individuals, but the very masses and the whole of human society, and thus can rightly be called the media of social communication.

The media of social communication are the most important inventions because of their enormous potential for impact.  Consider the drastic increase of blogs and blogging platforms over the past five years; consider the Twitter explosion (which appears, finally, to be plateauing).  People can reach other people nearly anywhere else in the world instantly, and in a variety of ways.

2. The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men's entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God.

There is a right and wrong way to use social communications media.  Their proper use leads to both temporal advancement of mankind (both secular and religious) and eternal beatitude.  The Church is (subtly) saying here that the proper use of these inventions has a spiritual end by God's design, not by accident or as a mere side effect, or as one possibility among many.  This is made clear by looking at the negative possibility:

The Church recognizes, too, that men can employ these media contrary to the plan of the Creator and to their own loss. Indeed, the Church experiences maternal grief at the harm all too often done to society by their evil use.

There we have it:  God has a plan for television, radio, the Internet, etc., and He has given us the gift of the Church, with her sacred Magisterium, to help us understand and employ these media properly.  If we use these inventions incorrectly, we can suffer temporally and eternally; the temporal effects, while lesser than the eternal ones, are the more easily perceived.  Think of the lasting effects of the Internet pornography industry.

Hence, this sacred Synod, attentive to the watchful concern manifested by the Supreme Pontiffs and Bishops in a matter of such great importance, judges it to be its duty to treat of the principal questions linked with the media of social communication. It trusts, moreover, that the teaching and regulations it thus sets forth will serve to promote, not only the eternal welfare of Christians, but also the progress of all mankind.

At the Second Vatican Council, the Church discerned that it was her duty to deal with these matters and to put forth authoritative and binding teachings and regulations on the proper use of these media for the edification of man and the Church.  Even though the Church did not invent these things, since they belong ultimately to God and are subject to His plan, He has bestowed the Church with this authority to teach and govern in these matters.

The Church is not afraid of all this new-fangled technology, but she knows she must be cautious.  It should come as no surprise, then, when the Church instructs us on how to use the Internet as a tool for evangelization; it should not shock you that priests are encouraged to blog or tweet about the faith.  The Internet is not from Satan, but Satan is trying his hardest to abuse it for our destruction, while the Church desires to use it for the greater glory of God.

Part two of this series will look at chapter one of the decree, "On the Teaching of the Church," which describes what the Church teaches about social communications media.  Part three looks at chapter two, "On the Pastoral Activity of the Church," which is about what the Church intends to accomplish with these media.

Post-script:  If you're looking for a brief list of documents from the Church on social communications media, I recommend the following:

• Vigilanta Cura (On the motion picture), Pope Pius XI, 1936
• Inter Mirifica (On social communications media), Vatican II, 1963
• Communio et Progressio (On the means of social communication), Pontifical Council for Social Communications, 1971
• Aetatis Novae (On social communications on the 20th anniversary of Communio et Progressio), Pontifical Council for Social Communications, 1992
• The Church and Internet, Pontifical Council for Social Communications, 2002 (important quote: "Education and training regarding the Internet ought to be part of comprehensive programs of media education available to members of the Church.  As much as possible, pastoral planning for social communications should make provision for this training in the formation of seminarians, priests, religious, and lay pastoral personnel as well as teachers, parents, and students.")
• The Rapid Development (Apostolic Letter to those responsible for communications), Pope John Paul II, 2005

"Pontiff Calls for Complete Fidelity to Magisterium"

What a shock!  That was the ZENIT headline:  "Pontiff Calls for Complete Fidelity to Magisterium".

Benedict XVI is urging prelates to call Catholics to complete fidelity to the magisterium, presenting Church teaching as a message of hope rather than a series of prohibitions. [...] "If the Church's teaching is compromised, even slightly, in one such area, then it becomes hard to defend the fullness of Catholic doctrine in an integral manner," the Holy Father said.

"Pastors of the Church, therefore, must continually call the faithful to complete fidelity to the Church's magisterium," he said, "while at the same time upholding and defending the Church's right to live freely in society according to her beliefs. [...] All too often the Church's doctrine is perceived as a series of prohibitions and retrograde positions, whereas the reality, as we know, is that it is creative and life-giving, and it is directed towards the fullest possible realization of the great potential for good and for happiness that God has implanted within every one of us."

The "agenda" of the liturgical reform?

(Updated on Feb. 3rd; see below)

Here is an excerpt from a recent address given by Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB, in Australia. His overall tone can be gleaned from this question and answer he puts forth near the beginning: "What agenda does [a reform of the postconciliar reform] put forward so that liturgical worship could be more reverent and prayerful?  The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back to a half century."

I find a bit of inconsistency in the following consecutive sentences of his address:

[T]he study of liturgy should have due regard for its historical, theological, and cultural elements. In this way we will not dismiss too readily the ancient prayers and rites of the liturgy on grounds that they belong to another culture and age. Such an iconoclastic attitude can indeed impoverish the theology of the liturgy. We know that many of these ancient forms are rich in doctrine and spirituality.

A serious study of liturgy will likewise neutralize the liturgical romanticism and allegorism that holds some sectors of the postconciliar Church. The indiscriminate revival of Latin and Gregorian chant, for example, indicates that some people have not followed the historical process. It is true that the Liturgy Constitution (SC 36 and 116), given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the council, claims them as distinctive elements of the Roman liturgy.

This seems duplicitous to me:  first he speaks of the danger of dismissing elements of worship "on grounds that they belong to another culture and age," then he speaks of the "peculiar circumstances surrounding the council" that led to its calling Latin and Gregorian chant normative and proper to the Roman Rite.  In other words, he is speaking dismissively of Latin and Gregorian chant as products of another culture and age which were only given lip service at the Council out of historical necessity.  I'm all for a Catholic faith which embraces the "both/and" (rather than "either/or") approach, but here it seems like Fr. Chupungco is asking too much:  he can't have it both ways here because the two ways are contradictory, not complementary.

He mentions the "indiscriminate revival" of Latin and Gregorian chant.  It should be noted that, had the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy been more closely adhered to in the years following its promulgation, we would not be experiencing a revival of Latin and Gregorian chant; rather, they would have continued to be part of the normal liturgical life of Catholics.

For example, in article 54 of the Constitution, the same article which addressed in general terms the inclusion of the vernacular in the Mass, we read that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."  These parts would include the Kyrie (in Greek, actually), Gloria, Credo (Creed), Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

As for Gregorian chant, article 116 of the Constitution "acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited [proprium = proper] to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place [principem locum = the principal place] in liturgical services."

Next in Fr. Chupungco's address, he says:

It is true that Latin and Gregorian chant still claim their rightful place in the liturgy.

Do they, really?  Where, exactly?  I would expect most Catholics (especially English-speaking ones, or at least American ones) would disagree that Latin and Gregorian chant have (or should have) a "rightful place" in the liturgy.  But I interrupted; continuing:

But to recall them as the ordinary, normal language and song of worship in parishes seems to overlook the conciliar principle of intelligent participation. The Church of Rome might have delayed the use of the vernacular, but it is part of her earlier tradition to adopt contemporary language in order to foster active participation.

I disagree with him here.  First, just because a text is in your vernacular does not mean you understand it immediately; catechesis (and a good translation!) is still required.  Have English-speaking Catholics had both of these for the past forty years?  Second, the Constitution did expect Latin to remain in use in the Mass, despite its allowance of the vernacular; see articles 36 and 54.  Third, Latin is indeed the normal — and normative — language of the Latin Rite; there's no getting around it.

As for intelligent and active participation, it is utterly insulting to insinuate that modern Catholics cannot participate actively and intelligently where Latin is used; it implies that Catholics had not been participating intelligently for the previous centuries!  It is not a matter of learning Latin; it is simply a matter of learning a few Latin phrases and chants, which you'll say week after week — if not more often — and which don't change.

He continues by saying:

To revive Latin as the daily language of the liturgy, regardless of whether or not the presider and the assembly can follow the readings and prayers, disclaims “sound tradition” and obstructs what the Constitution (SC 23) calls “legitimate progress”.

Again this mention of "revival".  While it is historically what we are experiencing now, a look at the Constitution and several post-Conciliar magisterial liturgical documents makes it clear that Latin was not meant to be jettisoned from the liturgy!  On the contrary to his point here, the wholesale removal of Latin and Gregorian chant from the liturgy was neither "sound tradition" nor "legitimate progress".

Here are two views (one pro the address, one con).  Read either at your own leisure and/or risk.

---

Update:  Fr. Chupungco continued to speak very negatively of the development of the Latin liturgy from its original form(s).  After a worthwhile and enlightening example about the changes perceived in the sacrament of Confirmation, he says:

According to the Liturgy Constitution the study of liturgy has three chief orientations, namely theological, historical, and pastoral. [...] The theology of the liturgy is drawn best from the liturgical books, namely the prayers, readings, and introductory notes. [...] Theologizing about liturgy apart from the liturgical books could become an exercise in theological hallucination. At best, it encourages the allegorical understanding of the liturgy, which incidentally was a favorite pastime of the clergy during the Middle Ages.

Fr. Chupungco seems to be operating from the assumption that all liturgical developments during the Middle Ages (and the Medieval Ages) were "accretions" (see below).  With this mindset, he sees the allegorical interpretation of the liturgy as an effect of "theological hallucination" which surely cannot be good for one's spiritual health.  It is as if each liturgical rite or sign must have a clear-cut and immediately graspable value, and that multi-layered and allegorical signs (e.g. the priestly vestments) are unnecessarily encumbering and distracting, and do not build a person up spiritually.  I disagree entirely:  the wealth of signs in the liturgy is surpassed only by the diversity of meanings of those signs, and this provides more than a lifetime's worth of contemplation on the mysteries contained therein.  (It also gives catechists something to write about!)

Later on, he says:

Students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship that are becoming increasingly perplexing. Students should be equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the theological, historical, and pastoral value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.

It would be nice if he provided some concrete examples of perplexing documents, although I assume he would include the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on that list.  What is perplexing about that document?  I don't know, Fr. Chupungco doesn't say, but the "student of liturgy" should be aware of it!  At least he tempers his call for critical examination (I would have said discernment) of liturgical norms and directives with a reminder of obedience, although there could be a wide interpretation of just how the "spirit of ecclesial obedience"

Then he says:

Everything in history has its own justification, though not necessarily a lasting and universal value. Not every text in the liturgical books, not every rite and symbol from the past, and not every feast in the calendar has perennial significance for the life of the Church. The reform of the Roman missal wanted by the Constitution (SC 50) eliminated much of the medieval textual and ritual accretions that only served to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass.

It is clear that the liturgical reform carried out by the Consilium eliminated many medieval developments ("accretions") to the liturgy, but it is certainly debatable whether such elimination was "wanted by the Constitution" itself.  (Fr. Chupungco is clearly stating his stance on that question.)  But I find duplicity here again, a double standard which favors the (ancient) older over the (merely medieval) old.  He says that not everything that has been part of the liturgy has a "perennial significance," but he would probably argue that most of the most ancient parts which were omitted or replaced over time are superior to their replacements, and that most (if not all) of the additions from the Middle Ages onward "only serve to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass."  I am curious if he is in favor of a diminution of feasts like Corpus Christi which were developed after the "ancient" period of liturgical development.

But he does not provide examples of these accretions and why he feels they bring about blurring.  (How I wish I could see notes on each element of the 1962 Missal that was touched by the Consilium's reforming pen, detailing each element's worth, meaning, and purpose.)  I am also not wholly convinced about certain changes that were made for the purpose of so-called "active participation," such as the change of the formula for distribution of Communion.

Now, it is true that the Constitution speaks of elements removed imprudently or added unhelpfully:  "[T]he rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary." (article 50)  But the Constitution does not say that all elements which were discarded or incorporated after a particular period of time are up for restoration or removal.  It does say that the substance of the rites must be preserved; whether that was always the case is a matter of debate, for example, in the case of the Offertory prayers.

For the record, I am in favor of the Prayer of the Faithful, an example of an element which "suffered injury" and has now been "restored."  There are other changes I'm not so sure about, but, as Fr. Chupungco suggested, my "critical mind" is tempered by "ecclesial obedience."

Later on, he describes "Vatican II's liturgical principles" as including "active participation with all this implies (use of the vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry)."  While I recognize that the participation of the faithful at Mass is possible in a new way when the vernacular is used, the vernacular is not strictly necessary for active participation.  Regarding congregational singing, that need not mean injecting hymns into the liturgy, but could be fulfilled by singing the Ordinary (and perhaps also part of the Gradual or the Responsorial Psalm, part of the Alleluia, and maybe even the antiphon of the Communion chant); hymns, whether in Latin or the vernacular, can be wonderful, but it is unfair to the integrity of the liturgy to replace (to the point of near extinction) the Propers of the Mass with hymns chosen on a local whim.

On the topic of inculturation, he says:

Inculturation by definition uses dynamic equivalence to re-translate the liturgical books in the historical, socio-cultural, and religious context of the local Church.

That might be his working definition of inculturation, but is it the definition the Church uses?  To close this post, I will provide some references from magisterial texts addressing the matter of inculturation in the liturgy:

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 37, Vatican II, 1963)

Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 38, Vatican II, 1963)

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 39, Vatican II, 1963)

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore: 1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced. 2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose. 3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 40, Vatican II, 1963)

The norm established by the Second Vatican Council — that in the liturgical reform there should be no innovations unless required in order to bring a genuine and certain benefit to the Church, and taking care that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing — must also be applied to efforts at the inculturation of the same Roman Rite. Inculturation, moreover, requires a necessary length of time, lest the authentic liturgical tradition suffer contamination due to haste and a lack of caution. Finally, the purpose of pursuing inculturation is not in any way the creation of new families of rites, but aims rather at meeting the needs of a particular culture in such a way that adaptations introduced either in the Missal or in combination with other liturgical books are not at variance with the distinctive character of the Roman Rite. (GIRM 398, 2000)

In preparing all translations of the liturgical books, the greatest care is to be taken to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite, not as a sort of historical monument, but rather as a manifestation of the theological realities of ecclesial communion and unity. The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way.  Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages, as promoted by the Apostolic See, has involved the publication of norms and the communication to the Bishops of advice on the matter. Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft. The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place. Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal. (Liturgiam Authenticam 5-6, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2001)

The development of sacred art and liturgical discipline which took place in lands of ancient Christian heritage is also taking place on continents where Christianity is younger. This was precisely the approach supported by the Second Vatican Council on the need for sound and proper "inculturation". (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 51, Pope John Paul II, 2003)

As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass and reiterated the same in 1988. [...] As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 27, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2004)

A more effective participation of the faithful in the holy mysteries will thus benefit from the continued inculturation of the eucharistic celebration, with due regard for the possibilities for adaptation provided in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, interpreted in the light of the criteria laid down by the Fourth Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Varietates Legitimae of 25 January 1994 and the directives expressed by Pope John Paul II in the Post-Synodal Exhortations Ecclesia in Africa, Ecclesia in America, Ecclesia in Asia, Ecclesia in Oceania and Ecclesia in Europa. To this end, I encourage Episcopal Conferences to strive to maintain a proper balance between the criteria and directives already issued and new adaptations, always in accord with the Apostolic See. (Sacramentum Caritatis 54, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007)

And, of course, the whole 2004 instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietate Legitimae.

The Prayers of the People in Leaflet Missal — and in DC

(Important update below!)

During the months of October and November, I contacted several bookstores and distributors around the country (some by email, some in person) offering a complimentary copy of The Prayers of the People and asking if they would be interested in carrying my book.  One company which responded in the affirmative was Leaflet Missal.  They have a national and international audience, and I was told that my book would be listed in their Spring 2010 catalog.

On January 28, I was informed that my book had received front cover placement on their catalog!  This is wonderful news!  I could not have asked for better exposure for my book!  (Now I will really have to get to work on the second volume...)

And I was contacted earlier today by someone at the bookstore at the Basilica Shrine in DC about a book-signing sometime in the near future!  How awesome is that?!

Notre Dame Center for Liturgy

I recently found out about the online catechesis for the new English translation of the Roman Missal provided by Notre Dame University.  It's got free audio and video presentations (either 15 or 60 minutes in length).  Yet another research tool for The Prayers of the Priest!

New translations in 2011?

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has a post today about a article from the Catholic News Service.  This article reports that the new English translation of the Mass might be Advent of 2011.

Giving Vatican II an aggiornamento of its own

First, I ask that you read Vatican II's (short) decree on social communications, Inter mirifica.  Then realize how woefully out of date it is.  Time for some aggiornamento ("bringing up to date"), no?

Second, read Fr. Z's post on an article in The Catholic Herald about Pope Benedict, priests, and blogging.  (See also here.)

Third, read Pope Benedict's recent message for World Communication Day.

I'm not saying the Magisterium needs to expend time and resources and energy on some official document about clerical blogging — I think the Pope's recent comments suffice, really — but I am curious how many Catholics recognize this as an actual fruit of the Council, as a positive meeting point between the Church and the modern world.

If I were on "Deep in Scripture"...

I think I would choose these passages to talk about with Marcus Grodi:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — not because of works, lest any man should boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:4)

And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. (2 Corinthians 9:8)

And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. (Colossians 1:9-10)

If I had to pare it down, I would choose Ephesians and 2 Corinthians, but really, all four excerpts together paint the picture:

• We are saved, not by good works, but for good works
• God has prepared these good works for us ahead of time:  they are His will for us
• We are enabled to carry out these good works through Christ's Resurrection
• God provides for us that we may carry out these good works and bear fruit for God
  

Language in the liturgy

I just finished reading one of my Christmas gifts, Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy by Mark Galli.  The final chapter, "Words of Living W-A-T-E-R," discusses the use of a particular form of language in the liturgy.  I think these paragraphs are apropos to the conversations, debates, and arguments surrounding the new English translation of the Roman Missal:

In a media age, words come at us from all directions, like arrows from a thousand bows.  Most of these arrows are marketing words, advertising words, words designed to manipulate us, to sell us something. [...] For these reasons, among others, we distrust words, especially words that have been fashioned and shaped for the occasion by Madison or Pennsylvania Avenue.

So it's not surprising that many are put off by the words of the liturgy.  Surely, if we're trying to worship sincerely, praise a God who loves us as a father loves his children, we want to use language is "authentic."  What child uses formal speech to communicate with their "daddy"?  We want nothing to do with pretension, stuffiness, and any rhetoric that prevents us from being real.

In our desire to be real, we start thinking that authenticity is another word for spontaneity, as if everything we say at the spur of the moment is more true, more sincere than words we craft carefully.  For many, the Freudian slip is considered more authentic than the measured reply.

Indeed, sometimes what we blurt out thoughtlessly is actually what we mean and feel.  But more often than not, what we blurt out is ill-considered and something we either need to quality or apologize for.

The liturgy's answer to crafted language that deceives or manipulates is not to abandon crafted language but to shape it so that it reveals reality.  The most carefully crafted language in our culture tends to be poetry.  And poetry at its finest moments subverts our best attempts at hiding from reality. [...] The poetry of liturgy has just this power.  The liturgy contains words that have been shaped and crafted over the centuries.  It is formal speech.  It is public poetry.  As such it reaches into us to reveal not only the unnamed reality of our lives but the God who created us.  "In worship the voice of the Church calls up thoughts and feelings often far beyond us," wrote one liturgical theologian, "yet to which something in us faintly but firmly responds." (pp. 113-114)

I liked this book a great deal.  It's written by an Episcopalian, so it doesn't always portray a view of liturgy (and certain liturgical actions) that coincides with the Catholic view, but it is an excellent book about what the liturgy has that attracts us to it.

I might share a few other quotes from this book.  It will certainly be in the bibliography of Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest.  (I'll need to read it again with a highlighter and a notepad handy, though!)

Weekend Roundup

I really need to stop starring articles in Google Reader to read later, because I rarely actually get around to reading them.  I'm trying to read some of them now (while my wife does some cardio with EA Sports Active); consider this a three-day weekend round-up of worthwhile posts (most of which are from before this weekend).

• WDTPRS:  Two NYT articles about Pope Pius XII... from the early 1940's
• NLM:  Pope Benedict XVI speaks to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• NLM:  Pope's Master of Ceremonies on the Spirit of the Liturgy
• Crossed the Tiber:  Louisiana Governor on his journey to the Catholic Church
  

The Pope of Christian Unity on Ecumenism

Benedict XVI then went on to thank the members of the congregation for their efforts towards "the full integration of groups and individuals of former Anglican faithful into the life of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. The faithful adherence of these groups to the truth received from Christ and presented in the Magisterium of the Church is in no way contrary to the ecumenical movement," he said, "rather, it reveals the ultimate aim thereof, which is the realisation of the full and visible communion of the disciples of the Lord." (Source)

News on Haiti

Archbishop of Port-au-Prince dies in earthquake (Catholic Spirit)

Donate now through Catholic Relief Services.

Charity and material gain

(This post does not address the issue of the tax-deductability of charitable donations.)

The idea of the Vatican selling its artwork to feed the hungry of the world was brought up recently.  A few days ago, Will Smith has said he will participate in an art auction to raise money for the hungry in Haiti.  And now, following the devastating earthquake in Haiti, I imagine there will be similar ventures to aid Haitians in this most dire time of need.

Why does charity, to the secular world, always seem to involve getting something tangible back?  Let's take the example of the Vatican auctioning off its artwork and giving the money to feed the hungry.  It wouldn't be giving its money to feed the hungry, it would giving the money of the auction-winners to feed the hungry; the end result would be:  1) the hungry fed (for a while), 2) the auction-winners in possession of beautiful artwork, and 3) the Vatican no longer in possession of beautiful artwork.  Why couldn't the auction-winners just circumvent the whole process and donate the money themselves without receiving the benefit of artwork?

Thoughts on The Feast of Faith

One of my Christmas gifts was Card. Ratzinger's The Feast of Faith, a collection of essays and other writings on "approaches to a theology of the liturgy".  I'm 100 pages into it (of 150), and it's full of excellent insights into the liturgy, full of observations which are timeless and timely.  His praise and his criticisms of the liturgical reform which followed the Second Vatican Council are sometimes specific, sometimes general, but he continues to return to a necessity of continuity.

What I have read so far dealt with 1) the theological basis of prayer and liturgy, 2) the form of the Eucharistic celebration (is it a meal? a sacrifice? both? which first?), 3) the structure of liturgical celebration, and 4) what it means for some things to be mutable (changeable) or immutable (permanent) in the liturgy.  The remaining four sections deal with liturgical music, the significance of Corpus Christi, orientation during liturgical prayer, and parish life 15 years after the Council.

A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 5)

This is part five of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa.  I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

(Warning:  This is a long post!)

Bishop Nickless is addressing two fundamental aspects of the life of the Church:  her inward identity as the Body of Christ called to holiness, and her outward mission to evangelize the whole world and sanctify it.  Let us turn our attention to Section IV, Pastoral Priorities for the Diocese of Sioux City. There are five priorities given, all of which are meant to first turn our discerning gaze inward (to measure ourselves against the full stature of our Lord) and then outward (to take up our vocations in sincerity and faithfulness).  Each of the five priorities will be given a separate post. The first is:

1. We must renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass. A renewal of Eucharistic Spirituality necessarily entails an ongoing implementation of the Second Vatican Council's reform of the liturgy as authoritatively taught by the Church's Magisterium, the promotion of Eucharistic Adoration outside of Mass, regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Eucharist and our Mother.

Each of these points (liturgical reform, Eucharistic adoration, regular Confession, devotion to the Mother of God, with the addition of one other, the Divine Office) will be covered individually in the following paragraphs, after a lengthy introduction to the liturgy in general.  Remember that the core of these five points is renewed Eucharistic spirituality.

The Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian life because it contains our entire spiritual good, namely, Jesus Christ himself. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 10; Lumen Gentium 11) His "once and for all" sacrifice is made present on our altars, offered to the Father on our behalf and received as food for our pilgrim journey. (Heb. 7:27; cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 11) All that we are and do should flow from our participation in the Eucharist and lead back to it. It is absolutely central to our identity and faith as Catholics. It enables us to engage in our mission. Without a proper reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Eucharist and the liturgy, we are lost.

Drawing on the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and using what is probably the most well-known phrase from the Council — surpassing "full, conscious, and active participation" and even "the People of God" — Bishop Nickless explains briefly what the Eucharist is:  it is the making-present of Christ's perfect sacrifice which is then offered to the Father (something often overlooked) before it is given to us in the Paschal banquet.  ("The Eucharist is not a meal among friends," said Pope Benedict in his homily at the close of the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress, but rather "a mystery of covenant.")

As our source and summit, everything we are and do as Catholics (identity and mission) flows from our participation in the Eucharist (whether by reception or offering or contemplation) and leads us (and others!) back to the Eucharist.

That being said about the Eucharist, Bishop Nickless now turns his attention more generally to the liturgy and its purpose and object:

The primary purpose of all liturgy, and especially of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is the worship of God. We sometimes forget this. We go to Mass to worship God, simply because He deserves to be worshiped, and we, his creatures, ought to worship him. Too often we forget that God is transcendent and ineffable, incomprehensibly greater than we can imagine. He is infinite truth and goodness shining forth in radiant beauty. He has created us, keeps us in existence, and redeems us from our sins. In short, He is worthy of our worship.

That first sentence should be memorized by every Catholic, period.  Liturgies (and Mass in particular) are not occasions of socializing.  We do not go to Mass to hear parish announcements.  We do not go to Vespers to hear the choir.  We do not go Eucharistic benediction so we can be somewhere quiet for a change.  We might hear announcements at Mass, we might hear the choir at Vespers, and we might be somewhere quiet for a change at benediction, but those are not the reasons we participate in these liturgies.  The liturgy is meant first and foremost for the worship of the Triune God.

Bishop Nickless points out some particular characteristics of God:  transcendent, ineffable (i.e. indescribable); truth, goodness, beauty.  It is God who made us in the first place, Who sustains us even now, and Who redeemed and redeems and will redeem us.  Why do we worship God?  Because He deserves it!  After describing Who God is, he continues by describing how God comes to us:

He comes to us at Mass as a Father through His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. He makes Himself tangibly present to us in the assembly, the ordained ministers, and the proclaimed Word of God. He is also present most especially and immediately in the Eucharist, which has a perfect and infinite value before His eyes. He graciously comes to us, not only to be with us, but also to raise us up to Heaven, to the Heavenly liturgy, where we worship in union with all the angels and saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the eternal offering of Jesus Christ to the Father on our behalf. Thus we enter the heavenly sanctuary while still on earth, and worship God in the full manner that He laid out for us!

Here we find a condensation of the liturgical catechesis contained in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei and Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium.  First, he gives a simple Trinitarian understanding of the Mass:  God the Father comes to us through His Son (cf. Matt. 21:37; John 20:21) in the power of the Holy Spirit. (cf. Matt. 1:18; Luke 3:22; Acts 10:38)  Second, he explains the modes by which God is present at Mass:  in the assembly, in the ordained ministers (especially the priest who celebrates Mass in persona Christi), in the Word, and most importantly and wondrously in the Blessed Sacrament.  Third, he explains that God comes down to us to raise us up to Himself, to Heaven, to the eternal liturgy with all the angels and saints (portrayed in the book of Revelation).

When we worship God in this way, He sanctifies us, that is, He makes us holy. This is the second purpose of the Liturgy. We are made holy by Jesus when we participate in His divine Sonship, becoming adopted sons and daughters of the Father. We are changed, transformed from the inside out. This comes about through hearing and acting on His Word and by being strengthened and steadily sanctified by a worthy reception of Holy Communion. This in turn leads to a true communion of saints within the local and universal Church.

By worshiping God, we are sanctified.  These are the two purposes of the liturgy:  glorification of God and the sanctification of His people.  At my previous parish, I was a reader (i.e. a "lector", more properly, the substitute in the absence of an instituted lector) and at every liturgy at which I was to proclaim the Scriptures, I made a habit of saying this prayer beforehand:  "I beseech You, O Holy Spirit, be in my heart and on my lips, that I may worthily and fittingly proclaim that Word which You inspired in prophets and apostles, unto the glorification of God and the sanctification of His people. Amen."  This prayer, based on the prayers of the priest or deacon before proclaiming the Gospel, reminded me of the two purposes for which the Scriptures are read at Mass:  to give glory to God and to build His people in holiness.

True participation in the liturgy comes from membership in Christ, sharing His divine Sonship by means of adoption through the sacrament of Baptism.  We listen to the Word of God and act on it. (cf. Luke 6:46-49; Luke 8:21; Phil. 4:9; James 1:22-24)  We prepare ourselves to receive the Lord in the Eucharist by prayer and penance.  You can go through all the motions of the Mass, but without that interior participation which is made possible through Baptism, exterior participation is hollow.

Too often, the purposes of our participation in the liturgy, worship and sanctification, are passed over in a misplaced attempt to "create community," rather than to receive it as a fruit of the Holy Spirit's activity within us.

In other words, we do not "create community" with the liturgy.  Rather, the Holy Spirit builds community (or better, communion) among us by our participation in the liturgy.  The liturgy is not an occasion for creative and often artificially designed community-building exercises.  Rather, the liturgy is for the worship of God and the sanctification of His people, and any genuine community must flow from that worship and sanctification.  Community — communion — is a fruit of the Holy Spirit in us, which is why one of the greetings used in the Mass is St. Paul's closing words to the Corinthians:  "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14; cf. 1 John 1:1-3)

Since, in the Church's liturgy, we meet God in a unique way, how we worship – the external rites, gestures, vessels, music, indeed, the building itself – should reflect the grandeur of the Heavenly liturgy. Liturgy is mystical; it is our mysterious encounter with the transcendent God, who comes to sanctify us through the sacrifice of Christ made present in the Eucharist and received in Holy Communion. It should radiate Heavenly truth and goodness. This radiance, the splendor of truth, is called beauty. Our liturgy should radiate true beauty, reflecting the beauty of God Himself and what He does for us in Christ Jesus. It should lift up our soul – first through our intellect and will, but also through our senses and emotions – to adore God as we share already in Heaven's eternal worship.

Remember the Bishop's description of God as "infinite truth and goodness shining forth in radiant beauty"?  He returns to this description when describing the liturgy.  The Church's worship of God must be a vibrant expression of God, a mirror reflecting His majesty, which fittingly conveys our awe in His presence.  It must draw our attention to things of Heaven, and so it must be mysterious and mystical.

In this vale of tears, the liturgy should be a lodestar, a transcending place of wonder and comfort in the midst of our day-to-day lives, a place of light and high beauty beyond the reach of worldly shadows.

This sentence is footnoted with a reference to p. 901 of The Lord of the Rings.  The passage being evoked is: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

A lodestar, in navigation terms, is a star by which one navigates (often associated directly with Polaris, the North Star); lode comes from lead, rather than load.  In more general terms, a lodestar is a model, guide, or exemplar; it is a principle that guides one's actions.  Because the Eucharist is our source and summit, the liturgy of the Eucharist, through which we participate in the Eucharist most fully and perfectly, should be our compass as we complete our pilgimage here on earth, keeping us on course:  growing in holiness (identity) and witnessing Christ to the world (mission).

So many people only connect with the Church, and sometimes with prayer and God, through Sunday Mass. Should we not offer an experience of beauty and transcendence, compellingly different from our day-to-day lives? Should not every facet of our offering be proportionate to the divine reality? Many small details can make liturgy either beautiful or banal. In recent decades, in place of beauty and "noble simplicity," our main principle for discerning and choosing the "little things" has tended toward utility, ease, and even cheapness. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, before his election as Bishop of Rome, wrote the following about Church music, that is easily applicable to all parts of the liturgy:

Vatican II, in describing the liturgical reform it envisioned, spoke of the rites as being "distinguished by a noble simplicity." (SC 34)  Furthermore, speaking of sacred art as being "oriented toward the infinite beauty of God" (SC 122), the Council Fathers said the following:

122. ... Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use. ...

124. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments. Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense. ...

How many of us have walked into churches built since Vatican II which fail to evoke the supernatural world and the infinite beauty of God as did so many churches of the last several centuries?  How much traditional art and architecture has been replaced by works which are banal, unbecoming, unbeautiful, mediocre, and lacking in artistic worth?  This is an example of the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture which is a false and dissenting interpretation of the Council.

The words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger on music, from Feast of Faith, p. 126:

A Church which only makes use of "utility" music has fallen for what is, in fact, useless. She [the Church] too becomes ineffectual. For her mission is a far higher one. As the Old Testament speaks of the Temple, the Church is to be the place of "glory," and as such, too, the place where mankind's cry of distress is brought to the ear of God. The Church must not settle down with what is merely comfortable and serviceable at the parish level; she must arouse the voice of the cosmos, and by glorifying the Creator, elicit the glory of the cosmos itself, making it also glorious, beautiful, habitable and beloved.... The Church is to transform, improve, "humanize" the world – but how can she do that if at the same time she turns her back on beauty, which is so closely allied to love? For together beauty and love form the true consolation in this world, bringing it as near as possible to the world of the resurrection

Bishop Nickless continues, quoting Pope John Paul II on the state of the liturgical reform in 1998:

Pope John Paul the Great, addressing some bishops of the United States on October 9, 1998, recognized the same urgent spiritual needs:

To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal in the years since the Council is, first, to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which has developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in this priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis; as a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal ... . The challenge now is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been . . . by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes the sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.

Many liturgical abuses are the result of a failure to acknowledge what the liturgy truly is, an encounter with the mystery of God.  Catechesis about the nature of the liturgy, especially its contemplative dimension, is necessary to fix the root of the liturgical abuse problem.

From here, Bishop Nickless addresses specifically the five points.  Remember that this letter, while pastoral, is an instruction to his diocese; pay close attention to his exhortations and encouragements and statements of support.  First he deals with ongoing liturgical reform under the guidance of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.  He dwells for some time on the definition of participation in the liturgy:

It is imperative that we recover this wonder, awe, reverence and love for the liturgy and the Eucharist. To do this, we must feel and think with the whole Church in "reforming the reform" of the Second Vatican Council. We must accept and implement the current stream of magisterial liturgical documents coming from the Holy See: Liturgiam Authenticam (2001), the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal, and its new General Instruction on the Roman Missal (2002), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2002), Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003), Spiritus et Sponsa (2003), Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004), Sacramentum Caritatis (2007), and Summorum Pontificum (2007).

It is refreshing to hear a Bishop of a diocese, as opposed to one sequestered to some arm of the Curia in Rome, speaking of thinking with the Church (sentire cum ecclesia).  Even more refreshing is seeing a Bishop providing a list of recent magisterial liturgical documents.  Each of the documents listed is significant and important.  Liturgiam Authenticam is about improving the translation of the Roman Missal from Latin into the vernacular; it governs the new English translation which will be received in the next year or two.  Ecclesia de Eucharistia is Pope John Paul II's encyclical on Eucharistic spirituality, Spiritus et Sponsa is one of his documents on liturgical reform, and Redemptionis Sacramentum is an instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments about the proper celebration of the Eucharist (including plenty of details on particular liturgical abuses).  Perhaps the most significant document in the list is the last one, Summorum Pontificum, which was the Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI which acknowledged the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXIII as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and promoted its celebration.

It seems that all is not well with the Liturgy, and the Church is trying to help us. The pendulum swings, the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the divisions within our Church have been seen and felt in the Liturgy more than anywhere.

When there are liturgical pronouncements from the Church, these are meant to help us celebrate the liturgy better.  It is not an intrusion on something private, for the liturgy is the public worship of God by the whole Church.  Neither is it an attempt to make things harder or more complicated, although it may present a challenge to us.

The Church's Magisterium, not our private opinions, is our authoritative guide in this ressourcement. The liturgy belongs to the entire Church, and in a special way to the faithful – not to a particular Diocese or parish, and certainly not to individual priests. I exhort everyone, especially our priests, to keep up with the Church. I expect them to read, study, and understand the above documents and their inner logic and place within the ongoing reform of the Church. It is vitally important that we offer resplendent worship to God alone, with understanding and excellence, obedient to the Church. My own liturgies at the Cathedral, though imperfect, are also meant to be exemplary for the whole Diocese.

Not only does he provide a list of these documents, but he says he expects the documents to be read and followed!  Certainly not every member of the diocese has to sit down and read them, but priests and others responsible for liturgical celebrations should read and be familiar with them and convey the necessary information to the faithful.  These documents, not our opinions and whims, govern the celebration of the liturgy.

It is a grave error and a form of clericalism, whether by clergy or lay ministers, to change the liturgy, or even to choose ungenerously among legitimate options, to suit only our own preferences and opinions. This respect for the whole of Tradition is not simply for the sake of "rules and regulations"; this is not legalism, as some have said, but our love for Christ, so that from His Eucharist with all its preeminent beauty and sanctity, He can shine forth for all to see and love.

Concerning the liturgy, we have certain rights, one of which is the right to the liturgy celebrated properly!  This means a liturgy without illicit changes.  When the liturgy is celebrated according to the mind of the Church, it is more clearly about God and His glory, and less likely to be seen as a pageant or performance or display centered on us.

Next Bishop Nickless turns his attention to topic of liturgical participation:

The Council's goal in reforming liturgy was, of course, to facilitate the "fully active and conscious participation" of all the faithful. We have made great strides in this area. In the same address to bishops cited above, the Holy Father said:

Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship. Nor does it mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned. If subconscious experience is ignored in worship, an affective and devotional vacuum is created and the liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral.

Full, active and conscious participation: we have made great strides in this over the years. But often this has happened in a superficial, partial way resulting from a narrow and truncated interpretation of these terms. It is time to dig deeper, "to put out into the deep," into a new and authentic liturgical spirituality that is both old and new, active and contemplative, historical and mystical, Roman and Iowan, familiar and challenging. All of this also applies to our "fully active and conscious participation" in liturgy outside the Holy Mass, especially in Eucharistic Adoration, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Marian devotions, and the Liturgy of the Hours.

True participation in the liturgy has both an internal and an external dimension (analogous to the two themes of this letter).  To just be "doing" something at Mass without knowing what you're doing and why you're doing it is akin to empty ritualism.  Conversely, our participation at Mass does not necessitate a physical act; we do not have to be the ones reading Scripture:  listening is part of our participation.

Bishop Nickless calls for the both/and approach to the liturgy, rather than an either/or approach.  (I thought the "Roman and Iowan" was a nice touch.)

Then he addresses the other four topics he will mention in the next few paragraphs.

Eucharistic Adoration is not, as some have said, a distraction from the central meaning of the Mass, or from the reception of Holy Communion. It is instead a great help and one that I wholeheartedly support and encourage in the parishes of this diocese. Eucharistic Adoration is an extension of our reception of Holy Communion, and brings about a deeper longing and preparation for our next reception. Just as you cannot be exposed to the sun without receiving its rays, neither can you come to Jesus exposed in the Blessed Sacrament without receiving the Divine Rays of His grace, love and peace. I exhort all communities of the diocese to explore ways of making the Eucharist more central in our lives through periods of Exposition, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and Eucharistic Processions.

One of the "some" who recently spoke of Eucharistic Adoration was Fr. Richard McBrien, who called the devotion a step backwards.  Also note another one of Bishop Nickless' statements of encouragement and exhortation.  When the Eucharist is central to the lives of Catholics (the way it is central to the life of the Church), the Church's mission in the world will be more fruitful.

In far too many places and among too many of our people, the regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation has fallen by the wayside. This must be remedied if we are to grow in humility and holiness, and truly benefit from the gift of Jesus in the Eucharist. Without this Sacrament, we lose a sense of sin in our lives, and overlook the obstacles it places in our path. Unless we confess our sins, they fester in our hearts, corrupting our good works and spiritual practices. Indeed, many, without knowledge and unheedingly, now receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, making their Communion unfruitful at best and damning at worst. Too many parishes only offer one hour of Confessions, and sometimes less, on Saturdays. I exhort and encourage priests to make themselves available in a generous way for this great Sacrament, on days and times convenient for the faithful. If priests set aside time, and preach on the need for repentance and sacramental confession, they will come.

The need for Confession is far greater than the apparent demand.  The sacrament is necessary for growth in humility and holiness (identity) so that the Church's mission can be genuine.  Bishop Nickless draws attention to the problems that arise from not receiving this sacrament; it is refreshing to see a Bishop address the issues of the effects of sin and of the travesty of unworthy reception of Communion.  And he again exhorts and encourages his priests to provide greater access to this important sacrament.

Devotion to the Blessed Mother, such an important part of our tradition and spirituality, also leads to a deeper appreciation and love of the Blessed Sacrament. She is the Mother of the Eucharist, the one who gave Jesus Christ to the world. She is also our Mother in the Order of Grace. "Having been Assumed, body and soul, into Heaven, she does not lay aside her saving office," but always and everywhere leads souls to her Son, telling them, "Do whatever He tells you." When we are fervently devoted to the Blessed Mother, especially through the Rosary and Consecration to her, she leads us to her Son, most especially present in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Devotion to Mary cannot be divided from, and in fact is ordered to, devotion to Jesus Christ her son, and especially appreciation and love of His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.  Her words from John 2:5, which Bishop Nickless has quoted, were the words which convinced me that true devotion to Mary is never about detracting from Christ in any way but in being directed to Him in the best possible company!

The final topic he mentions is the Divine Office (the Liturgy of the Hours) which is the "other" official prayer of the Church, next to the Divine Liturgy (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

The Liturgy of the Hours is the prayer of the whole Church. By this constant prayer, we consecrate the day and all its activities to our Savior, and offer ourselves in union with His suffering. Priests and deacons are required to pray the office every day. It is and can be a great source of support and help in pastoral ministry and growth in personal holiness. The Church has always desired that the faithful also share in this Liturgy. I encourage all parishes to consider how they might develop such opportunities.

The Second Vatican Council, in its document on the liturgy, commended the participation of the faithful in the communal prayer of the Divine Office:  "Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 100)  Bishop Nickless is simply echoing the Council and expressing his desire to be faithful to the Church and her liturgy:  clerics are obligated to pray it, and the laity are encouraged to pray it.  Once again, he draws the connection between the gaze inward (growth in holiness) and the gaze outward (effectiveness in pastoral ministry).

The next post will deal with the second of the five priorities for the diocese of Sioux City:  to strengthen catechesis.