Pope Benedict and the New York Times

Fr. Raymond de Souza takes on the New York Times with an excellent bit of work which could be called research and reporting.

H/T: Servant and Steward

Annunciation: Angelus ad Virginem

The Solemnity of the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary is March 25. Here is a medieval "carol" for the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, called Angelus ad Virginem.
Take a listen to the carol being performed by the Tallis Scholars (2:35).

Here's another version (only the first two verses) sung in a rather different (and considerably more medieval-folk sounding) style, by The King's Singers (1:15).

Here are the words with a translation:

Latin	English
Angelus ad virginem Sub intrans in conclave, Virginis formidinem Demulcens, inquit: Ave! Ave regina virginum; Caeli terraeque Dominum Concipies Et paries intacta Salutem hominum; Tu porta caeli facta, Medela criminum.	When the angel came secretly to the Virgin in her room, soothing the maiden's fear, he said: "Hail! Hail, Queen of virgins. While yet untouched by man you shall conceive and bear the Lord of heaven and earth, salvation for mankind. You have become the gate of heaven, a remedy for sins."
Quomodo conciperem Quae virum non cognovi? Qualiter infringerem Quod firma mente vovi? Spiritus Sancti gratia Perficiet haec omnia; Ne timeas, Sed gaudeas, secura Quod castimonia Manebit in te pura Dei potentia.	"How can I conceive, since I have not known a man? How can I break the vow I made with firm intent?" "The grace of the Holy Spirit shall bring all this to pass. Fear not, but rejoice, secure in the knowledge that pure chastity shall remain yours through God's mighty power."
Ad haec virgo nobilis Respondens inquit ei: Ancilla sum humilis Omnipotentis Dei. Tibi caelesti nuntio, Tanti secreti conscio, Consentiens, Et cupiens videre Factum quod audio; Parata sum parere, Dei consilio.	To this the noble Virgin replied, saying: "I am the lowly handmaiden of Almighty God. I bend my will to you, O celestial messenger, who share so great a mystery, and I long to see performed what I now hear. I am ready to yield myself to God's design."
Eia mater Domini, Quae pacem redidisti Angelis et homini, Cum Christum genuisti: Tuum exora filium ut se nobis propitium Exhibeat, Et deleat peccata: Praestans auxilium Vita frui beata Post hoc exsilium.	Ah, mother of the Lord, who gave back peace to angels and mankind when you bore Christ, pray your son to be gracious to us, and wipe away our sins, granting us aid to enjoy a blessed life after this exile.

Vatican II and the Laity

I'm giving a brief (10-15 minute) talk to a group of Catholic graduate students at Princeton University this Thursday evening from 6pm to 8pm (the evening begins with a simple meal, followed by my talk, followed by discussion and some Q&A) on "Participation in the Liturgy and Beyond".  The outline of the talk is:

1. Promotion and Reform
1. Vatican II addressed liturgical instruction before it addressed liturgical reform
2. Excerpts from Sacrosanctum Concilium 9-11
2. How do we participate in the Mass?
1. Through baptism, we have the right and duty to participate
2. True participation is only possible through baptism
3. Three degrees of participation
1. Internal:  perception of the sacred mysteries (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 15)
2. External:  manifesting internal participation (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 15)
3. Sacramental:  receiving Holy Communion (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 23)
4. There is a need for instruction before the faithful can achieve intelligent and active participation in the Mass (cf. De Musica Sacra 22)
4. Joining ourselves to Christ, and our sacrifices to Christ's
1. Sacrosanctum Concilium 48
2. Lumen Gentium 11, 34
3. Presbyterorum Ordinis 2, 5
4. When?  Collect, Prayer of the Faithful, Offertory, Consecration, etc.
3. How do we participate outside of Mass?
1. Dismissal = Mission = Sending
2. What are we sent out to do?
1. Gospel of John has several "As the Father... so the Son..."
2. Two of these extend to us:
1. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.  Abide in my love. (John 15:9)
2. Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. (John 20:21)
3. Sent for what?
1. To save the world (cf. John 3:17)
2. To utter the words of God (cf. John 3:34)
3. To do the will of the Father (cf. John 6:38)
4. To lose nothing of all that He has given us (cf. John 6:39)
5. To teach the Father's commandments (cf. John 7:16)
6. To be a sign of unity (cf. John 17:20-21)
4. The Apostolate of the Laity
1. Apostolate = apostolic activity = mission
1. Jesus was the Father's "apostle"
2. Jesus chose His own apostles
3. The whole Church shares in the work of the apostles ("apostolate")
4. The laity have a share in the apostolate
2. Pope Pius XII
1. Address to 2nd World Congress of the Lay Apostolate (1957)
3. Vatican II
1. Lumen Gentium 33-42 (1964)
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965)
4. John Paul II
1. Christifideles Laici (1988)

The first half is about liturgical participation, and the second half is about what liturgical participation should move us to do:  participate in the lay apostolate in the world.  What does the Church say about the lay apostolate?

• The "consecration of the world" is "essentially the work of the laity." (Pius XII)
• "Giving the world ... a Christian form and structure [is] the greatest task of the apostolate of the Catholic laity." (Pius XII)
• The lay apostolate "must always remain within the limits of orthodoxy and must not oppose itself to the legitimate prescriptions of competent authorities." (Pius XII)
• The laity "exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel." (Vatican II)
• The "success of the lay apostolate depends on the laity's living union with Christ [which] is nourished by spiritual aids which are common to all the faithful, especially active participation in the sacred liturgy." (Vatican II)
• In both the spiritual and temporal orders, "the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same conscience." (Vatican II)
• The lay apostolate "does not consist only in the witness of one's way of life; a true apostle looks for opportunities to announce Christ by words addressed either to non-believers with a view of leading them to faith, or to the faithful with a view to instruction, strengthening, and encouraging them to a more fervent life." (Vatican II)
• "The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation." (Vatican II)
• The best exercise of the apostolate of the laity is found in organizations which have as their immediate aim "the evangelization and sanctification of men and the formation of a Christian conscience," which "cooperat[e] with the hierarchy" while maintaining "responsibility for the direction of these organizations," in which the laity "act together in the manner of an organic body," and in which "the laity function under the higher direction of the hierarchy." (Vatican II)

Thoughts on liturgical catechesis and reform

The following excerpts come from an email conversation with a "QV", a Catholic from Texas.  Text in blue is from QV.  This post is kind of long, but I think it's well worth reading (and not only because I wrote it).

---

What really were the 'needs of modern man' that were used as a foundational principle in Sacrosanctum Concilium for advocating the Liturgical Reforms after Vatican II? What made 20th Century Man so different from our ancestors?

Wow, that's a good question (and one which my books do not even begin to address, since they are not about the liturgical reform, per se, but about the reformed liturgy). I will think about it and try to provide some possible answers.

20th century man, at least in first- and second-world countries, has a lot of advantages (and disadvantages) that our ancestors did not have. The technological revolution has changed our way of looking at things. We have the ability to be entertained 24/7: TV, TiVo, OnDemand, pay-per-view, etc. We can be "busy" without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise. All this makes the older liturgy seem immediately unattractive.

I agree with you that the problem was not necessarily the liturgy but our ability to participate in it, our understanding of what sort of participation the liturgy requires. The liturgy requires silence, prayer, attention, recollection, but it does also require verbal responses, gestures and postures. We cannot worship God only in motionless silence, as that denies our bodies their role in true worship.

It seems to me that our culture fosters short attention spans, a desire to be entertained, a desire to be "doing something". Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy.

To me, this means modern man needs to be educated (catechized) better. The "modern" liturgical reform, in its earlier stages (in the 19th century), was more about reforming the liturgical attitude of the people than it was about reforming the liturgy; it was about liturgical catechesis before it was about liturgical changes.

I agree with you completely when you said "We can be 'busy' without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise." However, the Traditional Mass addresses those very shortcomings in our culture — it clearly provides a spiritual "oasis"...

I agree that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass addresses those shortcomings and is a spiritual oasis... but only if a person knows he is thirsty will he approach to drink. Part of the crisis we face today is that "thirst" has been falsely quenched, and the feeling of "thirst" has been described instead as something else. It's like calling evil good and good evil.

I think you are right on the money when you say "Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy." I do think that the Council Fathers were definitely led by the Holy Spirit in Sancrosanctum Concilium paragraph 19 when they wrote: "With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy...."

I agree:

But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (SC 11)

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. (SC 14)

It is no accident that in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the section titled "The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation" comes before "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy".

It seems to me that the reforms to the Liturgy tried to address the "active participation" aspect (albeit wrongly, in my opinion), but nobody did anything to address the "liturgical instruction of the faithful".

Yes, I agree that the "reform" issue was addressed but the "catechesis" issue was not addressed very well at all.  I've made that same statement many times:

1. "The Council recognized the need for both liturgical catechesis and liturgical reform. Not one or the other, but both. (And I would argue that the Council documents expected a catechesis on the liturgy  as it was in 1962, which would mean the Council did not expect a complete re-write of the Missal thus rendering the theological liturgical catechesis of the 1962 Missal null and void!)"
2. "Comprehension is a major factor -- that's why Vatican  II stressed the need for liturgical catechesis of the faithful alongside  liturgical reform -- but it is often overlooked."
3. "Vatican II called for full, conscious, active participation by the faithful at Mass first and foremost through proper catechesis by their priests!"
4. "The Second Vatican Council called for catechesis  (education, formation) above all else in liturgical matters. Re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14 and see how it envisioned that 'full, conscious, active participation' would be brought about."
5. "The Council called for liturgical catechesis  above all, before it mentioned its few changes to the liturgy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) And one wonders if the desired understanding of the Mass was even accomplished."
6. "One of my biggest grievances is the liturgical catechesis  called for, and echoed numerous times since then, is still wanting. Instead of catechesis, things are dumbed down; instead of catechesis, numerous abuses are introduced (because people just don't know any better!); instead of catechesis, the things that need explaining are omitted and replaced with banality."
7. "I would say that, rather than reform being de facto promotion, promotion is de facto reform, because promotion of the liturgy (meaning better catechesis  for the laity and the clergy) would lead to a more zealous and devout and informed and reverent celebration of the Mass, which would yield greater fruit in greater abundance. This is not to say that a reform-by-promotion would require no changes, but that fewer changes (and less dramatic ones at that) would be necessary."
8. "What is needed is a liturgical movement which does two things: 1) reads Vatican II in light of the liturgical tradition of the Church, one of organic development rather than redesign-by-committee, and 2) emphasizes liturgical catechesis as a necessary precursor to any liturgical reform."

My position can be summed up with these five words of mine:

"CATECHESIS IS THE BEST REFORM"

Also, I opined that "Bishops expected that the reform (and specifically the introduction of the vernacular) would make catechesis less necessary" in a thread with you. Don't have any proof, just a hunch. Maybe replace "Bishops" with "the Consilium".

Another glowing review of Praying the Mass

Here are a few excerpts from the latest review of Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People, by Rev. Michael Cullinan in the April 2010 issue of The Sower.

Jeffrey Pinyan, an American layman, has written and published (privately, it would appear) an extremely good guide to the Mass, based on the forthcoming English translation. [...]

This is a work of liturgical, indeed mystagogical, catechesis, of the sort that is very much needed today. [...] Pinyan adopts a hermeneutic of continuity with tradition, citing works from the Douay Catechism of 1649 through Richard Challoner and Joseph Ratzinger to, most recent, a 2007 work by Thomas Kocik. [...]

[...] Pinyan goes slowly through the Mass in 12 chapters, from the fast before Mass to the mission we receive at the Dismissal.  Each chapter ends with ‘Questions for Reflection’ which are often thought provoking and do not simply lead back to the text for answers. [...] The text is attractive, easy to read, and remarkably free from typographical errors. [...]

A short review cannot do justice to all the things one can learn from this book. [...] Errors and omissions are hard to find [but their] extremely minor nature [...] only goes to show the quality of this work, which I am happy to commend warmly as an excellent and very widely useful piece of modern liturgical and catechetical writing.

Household chemical waste disposal day

On my way to work this morning, I saw a sign on US Route 1 for "Mercer County Household Chemical and Electronics Waste Disposal Day". Three Saturdays a year, Mercer County offers a 6-hour window when people can drop off various household chemicals (aerosol cans, propane tanks, etc.).

HOUSEHOLD CHEMICAL

AND ELECTRONICS

WASTE DISPOSAL DAY

Sponsored by the

MERCER COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2010

SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2010

8 a.m. – 2 p.m. • Rain or Shine

John T. Dempster Fire School

Bakers Basin/Lawrence Station Road • Lawrence Township

“Household Chemical and Electronics Waste

Disposal Days are a great opportunity to remove

dangerous chemicals or materials from your

home and dispose of them in an environmentally

friendly and safe manner without making a lot of

effort. Just gather up your chemical containers

and old electronics, bring them to the Dempster

Center, and let Mercer County do the rest.”

– Brian M. Hughes, County Executive

What's stopping the county -- and homeowners -- from disposing of these chemicals and materials on a regular basis?  What homeowner wants to stockpile old aerosol cans in their house until one of these three Saturdays comes along?  I'm sure there are facilities around the county where such things can be disposed of at leisure, but I don't know where they are or what their hours are.

I think this is a decent analogy for the general attitude (at least in some dioceses in the United States) towards the sacrament of Reconciliation.  While some parishes have the sacrament celebrated weekly, it isn't given great publicity.  There are communal penance services (with individual reception of the sacrament, of course!) during Advent and Lent, but does this promote the proper theology of this sacrament, the proper theology of sin?  It's unhealthy and improper to hold onto mortal sins for months at a time (keeping them "under the kitchen sink", if you will) all the while going about like nothing's amiss.

Mortal sins, like volatile chemicals, deserve (even demand) immediate attention.  If priests can make the sacrament of Reconciliation more available to those souls under their care (and any other souls who happen to be passing by), and speak up about the necessity, importance, and beauty of this sacrament, then maybe we'll regain a sense of sin and a sense of personal responsibility for our conduct as Catholics, and (God-willing) we'll become more faithful, charitable, and moral people.

A hermeneutic of (priestly) continuity

From the Vatican News Service:

VATICAN CITY, 12 MAR 2010 (VIS) - At midday today, the Holy Father received participants in a theological congress promoted by the Congregation for the Clergy, and which is being held on 11 and 12 March in the Pontifical Lateran University on the theme: "Faithfulness of Christ, faithfulness of Priests".

In a time such as our own, said the Pope, "it is important clearly to bear in mind the theological specificity of ordained ministry, in order not to surrender to the temptation of reducing it to predominant cultural models. In the context of widespread secularisation which progressively tends to exclude God from the public sphere and from the shared social conscience, the priest often appears 'removed' from common sense". Yet , the Pope went on, "it is important to avoid a dangerous reductionism which, over recent decades ... has presented the priest almost as a 'social worker', with the risk of betraying the very Priesthood of Christ.

"Just as the hermeneutic of continuity is revealing itself to be ever more important for an adequate understanding of the texts of Vatican Council II", he added, "in the same way we see the need for a hermeneutic we could describe as 'of priestly continuity', one which, starting from Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ, and over the two thousand years of history, greatness, sanctity, culture and piety which the Priesthood has given the world, comes down to our own day".

Benedict XVI affirmed that "it is particularly important that the call to participate in the one Priesthood of Christ in ordained Ministry should flower from the 'charism of prophecy'. There is great need for priests who speak of God to the world and who present the world to God; men not subject to ephemeral cultural fashions, but capable of authentically living the freedom that only the certainty of belonging to God can give. ... And the prophecy most necessary today is that of faithfulness" which "leads us to live our priesthood in complete adherence to Christ and the Church".

Priests, the Holy Father continued, "must be careful to distance themselves from the predominant mentality which tends to associate the value of Ministry not with its being, but with its function". Our "ontological association with God", he said "is the right framework in which to understand and reaffirm, also in our own time, the value of celibacy which in the Latin Church is a charism imposed by Holy Orders, and is held in great esteem by the Oriental Churches. ... It is an expression of the gift of the self to God and to others".

"The vocation of priests is an exalted one, and remains a great mystery. ... Our limitations and weaknesses must induce us to live and safeguard this precious gift with great faith, a gift with which Christ configured us to Himself, making us participants in His mission of salvation. Indeed, the understanding of priestly ministry is linked to faith and requires, ever more strongly, a radical continuity between formation in seminaries and permanent formation".

The Holy Father concluded by telling his audience that "the men and women of our time ask us only to be priests to the full, nothing else. The lay faithful will be able to meet their human needs in many other people, but only in the priest will they find that Word of God which must always be on his lips, the Mercy of the Father abundantly and gratuitously distributed in the Sacrament of Penance, and the bread of new life".

H/T to Rich Leonardi.

Faith by democracy?

From a letter to the Cincinnati Catholic Telegraph:

It is important for us to keep in mind that Catholic morality is not determined by voting majorities. The commission was not a legislative body; it was an advisory one. If the method for determining Catholic morality should be democratic rule, then we should go a step further than the Papal Commission: We should put such decisions before all baptized Catholics (practicing or not) to be decided.

Some people advocate a version of this in their misinterpretation of the sensus fidei or “appreciation of the faith” as mentioned in the chapter on the laity in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (35). However, we do not want a church that puts morality up to popular vote or opinion polls. The crowds cheered Jesus at His entry into Jerusalem, and they condemned Him later that week, calling for His crucifixion. The crowd is fickle; the Holy Spirit is not.

H/T to Rich Leonardi.

Compendium of the Catechism via Twitter

See the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church condensed into 140 character summaries!  Follow me on Twitter and watch for #C4 tweets.

What follows is Part 1, Section 1 of the Compendium (nn. 1-32; cf. Catechism nn. 1-182). Please excuse the crude abbreviations; I only use them to meet the 140 character limit of Twitter!

#C4 1. God cre8d man out of love 4 man 2 share in His life. God sent His Son Jesus 2 b r Savior from sin & make us God's adopted children.

#C4 2. Man desires God b/c we r made in His image. even if we ignore this desire, God continues to call man to commmunion with Him.

#C4 3. Man can, by natural reason alone, know God as the origin & end of the universe, as the highest good & as infinite truth & beauty.

#C4 4. Natural reason alone is insufficient 2 grasp the MYSTERY of God, though. This is why man is in need of God's REVELATION.

#C4 5. Man & all creation reflects (poorly) God's infinite perfection. Our language can never fully xpress God's mystery, but we must try.

#C4 6. God, in goodness & wisdom, reveals Himself 2 man: His saving plan of love centered in Christ, in whom we r 2 b God's adopted sons.

#C4 7. God 1st revealed Himself 2 Adam & Eve, r first parents, inviting them 2 communion w/ Him. After the Fall, God continued w/ Noah.

#C4 8. Next God called Abram, Isaac & Jacob (Israel). God took Israel, His chosen people, out of slavery & made them a kingdom.

#C4 9. God's full revelation IS His Son, the Word-made-flesh, Jesus Christ. In Jesus & the Holy Spirit, revelation is complete.

#C4 10. Priv8 revelation is helpful only if it leads one to Christ. Priv8 revelation can't surpass/change Christ's public revelation.

#C4 11. God wants all men to know Jesus & b saved, so Christ commanded His disciples to teach all nations, transmitting God's revelation.

#C4 12. This is "Apostolic Tradition", by which Christ's message is handed on, in the Holy Spirit, via Scripture, preaching, worship, etc.

#C4 13. Apostolic Tradition is found in Sacred Tradition (living transmission of God's word) & Sacred Scripture (revelation in writing).

#C4 14. Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture are united. Each flows from the same divine source. Both make up the one deposit of faith.

#C4 15. The deposit of faith was entrusted by the Apostles to the whole Church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, receives and lives it.

#C4 16. The Magisterium (Bishops) of the Church has the task of authentically interpreting the deposit of faith.

#C4 17. Scripture Tradition & Magisterium r so united that one can't stand w/o the others. Each operates in the Holy Spirit to save souls.

#C4 18. Scripture teaches the truth because God is its author, Who inspired men to write it. Scripture is inspired and is w/o error.

#C4 19. Scripture must b read 1) as a whole, 2) w/in the Church's tradition, and 3) respecting the harmony of the truths of the faith.

#C4 20. The "canon" of Scripture is those books received through Apostolic Tradition by the Church as inspired: 46 OT books & 23 NT books.

#C4 21. Christians respect the Old Testament b/c it's truly God's word, attests to His saving love, and prepares for the coming of Christ.

#C4 22. The New Testament conveys the ultimate truth of divine revelation. The 4 Gospels r the main witnesses 2 Christ's life & teachings.

#C4 23. Scripture (OT & NT) is one because God's Word is one, His saving plan is one. The OT prepares for the NT; the NT fulfills the OT.

#C4 24. Scripture gives support to the Church's life. It confirms faith & feeds the soul. God's word is a lamp 4 r feet & a light 4 r path.

#C4 25. Man, by divine grace, responds 2 God's revelation w/ obedience of faith: surrendering ourselves to God & accepting His truth.

#C4 26. Abraham and the Blessed Virgin Mary are prime witnesses to "obedience of faith" in the Scriptures: "let it b according 2 your word."

#C4 27. Believing in God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) means entrusting yourself 2 Him & assenting 2 all the truths He reveals b/c He IS Truth.

#C4 28. Faith: supernatural virtue REQUIRED 4 salvation; free gift from God; a human act; works thru LOVE; keeps growing; taste of Heaven.

#C4 29. Faith is above reason, but doesn't contradict science b/c both come from God. God gives us the light both of reason & of faith.

#C4 30. Faith is a PERSONAL act, but also an ECCLESIAL act of the whole Church: we believe IN and BY the Church, our teacher & mother.

#C4 31. Formulas of faith are important b/c they express, celebrate, & share the truths of the faith w/ others through a common language.

#C4 32. The Church has ONE faith, despite diversity of languages, cultures, and rites, b/c of the ONE Lord Who revealed it.

Sorry for the silence...

It has been a really hectic couple of weeks, so I apologize for not having much new content on my blog lately. I'm going to finish looking at Bishop Nickless' pastoral letter and I'm going to continue going through Vatican II's Inter Mirifica.

But for the time being, I'm busy at my office, busy reading (That Hideous Strength, The Gargoyle Code, and the Bible), busy writing (Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest), and busy preparing religious education material.

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!