Sunday, March 30, 2008
Letter to Bishops
Here is the letter by H.H. Pope Benedict XVI that was sent to all the Bishops of the Latin-Church regarding the Apostolic Letter SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
My dear Brother Bishops,
With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).
I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.
Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
Labels: Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, Summorum Pontificum, Traditionalism
Friday, January 4, 2008
Liturgical Unity
“The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1201).
Forty Years after the Council
It is a sad symptom of what is “certainly a genuine crisis” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 5) in the current life of the Church that those faithful who are rightfully attached to the Classical Rite or the Tridentine Liturgy have been accused of being ‘divisive’ or of ‘causing disunity’ in virtue of their attachment. The Holy Father has condemned such unjust treatment of traditional Catholics and even asked forgiveness for, “The at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (which) may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to (the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist)” (Dominicae Cenae, III.12).
Of Fidelity & Sensibility
There is indeed a great threat to unity in the Church. It comes, however, from those who reject and disobey the apostolic tradition, NOT from those who UPHOLD it: “The criterion that assures unity amid the diversity of liturgical traditions is fidelity to apostolic Tradition” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1209). Therefore, it is the actions of the majority of the mainstream Catholic Church clergy and laity who have deviated from fidelity to apostolic tradition that has plunged the Church into the crisis that all of us now face. Only if wisdom that respected history, tradition, and sensitivity had prevailed, there would have been a far better result and less division.
Our Birthright
Futhermore, many young people have not heard of this rite of Mass that Pope Urban VII proclaimed as, ''the most beautiful thing this side of heaven". Perhaps, the Church could also take this opportunity to expose young Catholics to the rite of worship of our ancient Catholic religion and give them a sense of pride in their faith.
Only with pride and zeal for their faith, will young people step out to serve in the various ministries on their own accord. The traditional Mass is the birth right of all Roman Catholics around the world.
Community of Believers
The Second Vatican II Council refered to the Church as a Community, I'm sure that there are the older generation of Catholics who miss the old rite of Mass too, we have to be charitable and ensure that they do not feel left out. As a community of believers, we have to take into consideration all our brothers and sisters and not only our own intentions.
It is also interesting to note that over the past few years, an increasing number of young people have shown keen interest in the Tridentine Liturgy. The Church needs to be ready to supply the needs of the young people who will eventually be the supporting pillars of the Church.
Directions
Where are we headed I can't say... but perhaps the spirit of our late Holy Father, John Paul II is with us, continuing to bring about the 'new evangelization' he once called for. An evangelization not only to the Pagans and Protestants but amongst Catholics as well- an immersation of the rich liturgical ceremonies and customs of our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Amen.
Labels: Evangelism, Holy Father, Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, Summorum Pontificum, Traditionalism
Friday, July 27, 2007
Side Altars
Following the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, most Churches were remodelled to 'conform' to the 'new spirit' of the liturgy. As concelebration was permitted, Side Altars were no longer necessary. Hence, many were destroyed. But did side altars really have to be destroyed? NO. If we take a look at Churches where side altars were preserved, we can see that these altars have now become shrines for popular devotions. In St. Joseph's Church, electric votive candles set the a condusive for devotional prayer at the side altar dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima. On the perservation of side altars, Fr. Rector Teo had this to say, "It's a sad thing. By the stroke of the pen, people's offerings were destroyed entirely". N.B. Side altars were usually offered by a particular person, family or group of friends; they would pay for the construction of the altar.
Below are before and after photos of a side altar in St. Joseph's Church dedicated to Our Lady of Lourdes. The first picture was taken last year, while the second was taken today after I spent a morning of polishing; the picture above was also taken today.
New side altars? Why not? The Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, no. 84, suggests the dedication of side altars for Mass without the people, for example, by visiting clergy.
The Ceremonial of Bishops, no. 921, explains that newly erected side altars- where Mass is to be celebrated- ought not to have an image of the saint which it is commerated to above it. This is to "avoid the impression that Mass is offered to the saint." A proviso is given to existing side altars, that they "need not be modified".
A Reminder
As side altars are dedicated altars, they should be treated with reverence and respect. When not in use, they ought to be covered with a cloth or dust cover. Non-liturgical items may never be placed on side altars.
Labels: Altar, Candles, Our Lady of Fatima, Photos, Second Vatican Council
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The New Face of the Priesthood
It wasn't until after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council that the laity was allowed to have a more active role in ministry.
Though the Council continued to reserve the term "ministry" for clergy and reiterated the traditional teaching that ordained priests "are so configured to Christ the Priest that they can act in the person of Christ the head... in the authority by which Christ Himself builds up, sanctifies, and rules his body" (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, 2), it also exhorted the priest to form communities made up of both men and women employed to for the good of the Church and of mankind. This chipped away the priestly chaste system and placed the priest as a brother among brothers called to "friendly and fraternal dealings with other men" (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, 17).
The age old authoritarian model gave way to a newer, more participatory model. Lumen Gentium emphasises on the whole people of God and stressed on the equality of all Catholics regardless of vocation, dignity and commitment. This led to the framework for the new understanding of the Priesthood. Because of one common baptism, the Church reconized the common priesthood of the faithful.
As it was mentioned earlier, even though the term "ministry" was reserved to clergy, the Church saw that it was important to grant the laity an active part in the mission of the Church. Pope Paul VI's reforms revived the ancient ministries of lector and acolyte as a permanent ministry of the laity.
The New Order of Mass or Novus Ordo also left a deep effect on the image of ministry. The priest was given a new position, the vernacular was introduced, new 'ministers' cramped the sanctuary, etc... The Catholic's view of his/her priest would no longer be the same...
Previously the priest with his back to the people acted as a visible mediator between an awesome God and a prostrate people. Now facing the people from behind a "table", he invites them to prayer.
The authority of the priest has been diminished and replaced with the image of a leader encouraging the people to dialogue with God. The use of the vernacular emphasized this; the priest was no longer set apart to dialogue with God. And with other 'ministers' crowding the sanctuary, the priest no longer has a unique and exclusive minsitry.
Let us take a moment to recall the number of ministries there are in our parishes. Today, we have couples ministries, advocacy ministries, liturgical ministries, ministries to the sick and dying, etc... In his book, 'The Future of Ministry', Rev. Fr. John Coleman, S.J., writes, "Both ordained and inordained share ministry. The laity, far from being a residual catergory, now provide the generic term for, ministy, for which the ordained are a mere subspecies". I believe that the days when ordination meant the achievement of instant status are over: People no longer respect the collar without scrutinizing the wearer first. Everyone, ordained or not will be judged on his/her capabilities, performance, and experience.
Could the explosion of ministies be due to the simple fact that there aren't enough priests to do the job? I do not think so. Remember that some 40 odd years ago, the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council were feeling somewhat smug; they could boast of the Church's institutional vigor, the expanding parochal school systems, the increasing number of converts, overcrowded seminaries, et cetera...
The New Jersey Catholic News, Summer, reveals a grim picture for the Church today: Mass attendance has plummeted 66% in France, 54% in Holland, 50% in Italy and 40% in the USA, infant baptisms are down 50%, adult conversions 75%, while divorce rates among Catholics, along with birth control, have reached shocking proportions and Seminaries are being emptied; seminary enrolment in France declined by 83% from 1963 to 1973, inter alia (e.g. In third world mission countries, more than 50% of parishes do not have a resident priest).
So, is the increasing rate of ministries co-related to the priesthood? Frankly, I do not know. Whatever it is, it appears that the Church can no longer sustain the traditional model of the priesthood. There are forces trying to break the Church away from the clerical chaste mentality, and moving to favour of the laity taking up roles once reserved for the ordained and celibate, (male) Catholic priest.
In the September 2004 edition of the Catholic Digest, Peter Feuerherd revealed that a studies of American priests indicate that the newly ordained cling to tradition, while their elders- most of nwhom cut their ecclesial teeth in the aftermath of Vatican II- seek out innovation. This gap is visible in the presence or absence of the cassock. Associate Pastor Fr. Patrick Riegger who represents the younger generation of priests says that "there is a need for clerical symbolism". I have a proclivity to agree with Fr. Riegger (and other priests who share the same belief) on this point. In the post-concilar Church, the ministeral priesthood tends to be dissolved together with the common priesthood of the faithful. This can be harmful to both the laity and the clergy. Clergy may get caught up in things secular while the laity may desire to practice certain fucntions reserved strictly to the Ministerial Priesthood (I've seen it!).
One may say that the Cassok ain't a big deal but according to Dean Hoge, a professor of sociology at the Catholic University of America, says that "it (wearing the cassock) reflects deeper issues about how different generations of priests view their vocation".
Two different visions of the priesthood now clearly stand out. Clergy ordained during and in the immediate aftermath of the Council tend to interprete their role as Servant-leader; bringing forth lay people to do much of the parish work. While newly ordained priests are more likely to focus on their unique Sacramental role as Alter Christus.
In an age of indifference, Catholics (especially Clergy) have to be be distinct or different. Though the former model may fit well into our culture, it lacks clear distinctions like the foregoing of financial comforts, married life, sacrifices. N.B. Dean Hoge claims that those who embrace the cultic model are more likely to leave the priesthood.
So we've seen how the face priesthood has changed in the Church. We've also seen how the newer generation of priests rather revert to the 'old-face'. Even prominent author, Michael Rose, has taken up the cause of younger priests who embrace the theology of Pope John Paul II (and possibly Benedict XVI), saying that they are the hope of a Church beset by a breakdown in morality and loose approach to doctrine. What would the face of the priesthood be a decade or two down the road? What would you like to see?
Let us pray that all priests and future priests may always and everywhere think, act, and speak with the Church- the glorious spouse of Jesus Christ. That they may embrace their vocation and what come may for the sake of the salvation of souls. As Canon s1725 puts it, "Salus animarum suprema est lex" The salvation of souls is the highest law.
Amen.
Labels: Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Lumen Gentium, Ministries, Priesthood, Second Vatican Council, Statistics
Saturday, July 14, 2007
One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
FIRST QUESTION
Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
RESPONSE
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]
SECOND QUESTION
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
THIRD QUESTION
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
RESPONSE
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
FOURTH QUESTION
Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]
FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Labels: Catholic Belief, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Holy Father, Protestants, Reply, Second Vatican Council, Vatican
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Ad Orientum & Versus Populum
Instruction of the Liturgy issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on October 16, 1964.
95. Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist
The most holy Eucharist shall be reserved in a solid and inviolable tabernacle placed in the middle of the main altar or of a minor, but truly outstanding, altar, or, according to lawful customs, and in particular cases approved by the local ordinary, in some other noble and properly adorned part of the Church. It is lawful to celebrate Mass facing the people even if there is a tabernacle, small but suitable, on the altar.
Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
"Whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum [towards God] as its first spiritual movement."
Cardinal Schonborn FAITH Magazine May-June 2007,
"Both directions of celebration are justified and neither should be suspected or “ideologized” . Mass isn’t celebrated “to the people” or “to the wall”, but to God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. The celebration turned “to the people” has the meaning that we all, priests and laypeople, gather around Christ who symbolizes the altar and whose Body and Blood become present on the altar. The celebration “with the back to the people” is not a turning away from the faithful but facing in the same direction in prayer, expressive of the path we walk towards God as pilgrims, His wandering people."
Labels: Ad Orientum/Versus Populum, Altar, Liturgy, Official Documents, Quote, Quotes, Sacred Congregation of Rites, Second Vatican Council, Tabernacle
Conversion’s storm – Evangelical returns to the faith after not be able to explain why he wasn’t a Catholic
(By Tim Drake)
Emphasis in red completely mine
NORTH HAVEN, Conn. (National Catholic Register) – Until a few weeks ago, Francis Beckwith served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians. That was until he made the announcement on the Right Reason blog of his return to the Catholic faith of his youth.
Beckwith returned to the church after 32 years as an evangelical. The online “storm” that followed led Beckwith to resign as president of the prestigious society.
He serves as associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University. He spoke recently to National Catholic Register from his home in Waco, Texas.
National Catholic Register: It’s been a while now since your announcement. Can you believe your reversion is still generating so much online discussion?
No, it’s beyond remarkable. Prior to my announcement, our blog averaged 1,500 hits per day. The weekend after my announcement, it hit 20,000. We’re still getting between 5,000 and 7,000 per day.
National Catholic Register: You were born into a Catholic family. When did you leave the Catholic Church?
I was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1960. My mother, Elizabeth, also born in Brooklyn, is Italian-American. My father, Harold Beckwith, was born in Connecticut. I’m the eldest of their four children. In the mid-1960s we moved to Las Vegas, Nev., where my father worked as an accountant and internal auditor at a number of hotels. In the late 1970s, both he and mother founded Sweets of Las Vegas, a candy business that had two retail stores in the area.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was part of the first generation of Catholics who would have no memory of the church prior to Vatican II. This also meant that I grew up, and attended Catholic schools, during a time in which well-meaning Catholic leaders were testing all sorts of innovations in the church, many of which were deleterious to the proper formation of young people.
On the other hand, there were some very important renewal movements in the church at the time.
The Catholic Charismatic Movement had a profound impact on me.
During my middle school years, while attending Maranatha House, a Jesus People church in downtown Vegas, I also frequented a Catholic Charismatic Bible study. Some of the folks at that Bible study were instrumental in bringing to my parents’ parish three Dominican priests who offered a week-long evening seminar on the Bible and the Christian life. I attended that seminar and was very much taken by the Dominicans’ erudition and deep spirituality, and the love of Jesus that was evident in the way they conducted themselves.
But I was also impressed with the personal warmth and commitment to scripture that I found among charismatic Protestants with whom I had interacted at Maranatha House.
Looking back, and knowing what I know now, I believe that the church’s weakness was presenting the renewal movements as something new and not part of the church’s theological traditions.
For someone like me, who was interested in both the spiritual and intellectual grounding of the Christian faith, I didn’t need the “folk Mass” with cute nuns and hip priests playing “Kumbaya” with guitars, tambourines and harmonicas. And it was all badly done.
After all, we listened to the Byrds, Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and we knew the church just couldn’t compete with them.
But that’s what the church offered to the young people of my day: lousy pop music and a gutted Mass. If they were trying to make Catholicism unattractive to young and inquisitive Catholics, they were succeeding.
What I needed, and what many of us desired, were intelligent and winsome ambassadors for Christ who knew the intellectual basis for the Catholic faith, respected and understood the solemnity and theological truths behind the liturgy, and could explain the renewal movements in light of these.
National Catholic Register: You spent 32 years in the evangelical world. What could Catholics learn from evangelicals?
I learned plenty, and for that reason I do not believe I ceased to be an evangelical when I returned to the church. What I ceased to be was a Protestant. For I believe, as Pope Benedict has preached, that the church itself needs to nurture within it an evangelical spirit. There are, as we know, too many Catholics whose faith needs to be renewed and emboldened.
There is much that I learned as a Protestant evangelical that has left an indelible mark on me and formed the person I am today. For that reason, it accompanies me back to the church.
For instance, because Protestant evangelicals accept much of the great tradition that Catholics take for granted – such as the Catholic creeds and the inspiration of scripture – but without recourse to the church’s authority, they have produced important and significant works in systematic theology and philosophical theology.
Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the church fathers that developed the Catholic creeds as well as the church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s word.
But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines.
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith......
......National Catholic Register: What can evangelicals and Catholics learn from one another?
As I have already noted, I believe that Catholics can learn from evangelical Protestants how to preach, teach and offer support for doctrines and beliefs that Catholics often just leave to authority.
Evangelicals can learn from Catholics that Christianity is a historical faith that did not vanish from the earth between the second and 16th centuries. That is what I mean by “learning from the great tradition.”
Much of what evangelicals think of as the odd beliefs of Catholics have their roots deep in Christian history. This, of course, may not convince a Protestant that these views are correct.
But what it will do is help the Protestant to appreciate that the very same Christians that deliberated over the content of the biblical canon also believed in the Real Presence, purgatory, intercession of the saints and indulgences.
If these Christians, who knew the Bible far better than us, did not think these practices and beliefs “unbiblical,” one should not be so quick to dismiss these practices and beliefs simply because they are outside of one’s Protestant experience.
On the other hand, the fact that many Catholic parishes do not offer the expository preaching and theological teaching to their members found in the best Protestant churches should force Catholics to critically reflect on whether they are adequately evangelizing and equipping their own people to enter a world hostile to the Christian worldview.
We have much to learn from each other.
(Read the entire article here.)
Emphasis in red completely mine
NORTH HAVEN, Conn. (National Catholic Register) – Until a few weeks ago, Francis Beckwith served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians. That was until he made the announcement on the Right Reason blog of his return to the Catholic faith of his youth.
Beckwith returned to the church after 32 years as an evangelical. The online “storm” that followed led Beckwith to resign as president of the prestigious society.
He serves as associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University. He spoke recently to National Catholic Register from his home in Waco, Texas.
National Catholic Register: It’s been a while now since your announcement. Can you believe your reversion is still generating so much online discussion?
No, it’s beyond remarkable. Prior to my announcement, our blog averaged 1,500 hits per day. The weekend after my announcement, it hit 20,000. We’re still getting between 5,000 and 7,000 per day.
National Catholic Register: You were born into a Catholic family. When did you leave the Catholic Church?
I was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1960. My mother, Elizabeth, also born in Brooklyn, is Italian-American. My father, Harold Beckwith, was born in Connecticut. I’m the eldest of their four children. In the mid-1960s we moved to Las Vegas, Nev., where my father worked as an accountant and internal auditor at a number of hotels. In the late 1970s, both he and mother founded Sweets of Las Vegas, a candy business that had two retail stores in the area.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was part of the first generation of Catholics who would have no memory of the church prior to Vatican II. This also meant that I grew up, and attended Catholic schools, during a time in which well-meaning Catholic leaders were testing all sorts of innovations in the church, many of which were deleterious to the proper formation of young people.
On the other hand, there were some very important renewal movements in the church at the time.
The Catholic Charismatic Movement had a profound impact on me.
During my middle school years, while attending Maranatha House, a Jesus People church in downtown Vegas, I also frequented a Catholic Charismatic Bible study. Some of the folks at that Bible study were instrumental in bringing to my parents’ parish three Dominican priests who offered a week-long evening seminar on the Bible and the Christian life. I attended that seminar and was very much taken by the Dominicans’ erudition and deep spirituality, and the love of Jesus that was evident in the way they conducted themselves.
But I was also impressed with the personal warmth and commitment to scripture that I found among charismatic Protestants with whom I had interacted at Maranatha House.
Looking back, and knowing what I know now, I believe that the church’s weakness was presenting the renewal movements as something new and not part of the church’s theological traditions.
For someone like me, who was interested in both the spiritual and intellectual grounding of the Christian faith, I didn’t need the “folk Mass” with cute nuns and hip priests playing “Kumbaya” with guitars, tambourines and harmonicas. And it was all badly done.
After all, we listened to the Byrds, Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and we knew the church just couldn’t compete with them.
But that’s what the church offered to the young people of my day: lousy pop music and a gutted Mass. If they were trying to make Catholicism unattractive to young and inquisitive Catholics, they were succeeding.
What I needed, and what many of us desired, were intelligent and winsome ambassadors for Christ who knew the intellectual basis for the Catholic faith, respected and understood the solemnity and theological truths behind the liturgy, and could explain the renewal movements in light of these.
National Catholic Register: You spent 32 years in the evangelical world. What could Catholics learn from evangelicals?
I learned plenty, and for that reason I do not believe I ceased to be an evangelical when I returned to the church. What I ceased to be was a Protestant. For I believe, as Pope Benedict has preached, that the church itself needs to nurture within it an evangelical spirit. There are, as we know, too many Catholics whose faith needs to be renewed and emboldened.
There is much that I learned as a Protestant evangelical that has left an indelible mark on me and formed the person I am today. For that reason, it accompanies me back to the church.
For instance, because Protestant evangelicals accept much of the great tradition that Catholics take for granted – such as the Catholic creeds and the inspiration of scripture – but without recourse to the church’s authority, they have produced important and significant works in systematic theology and philosophical theology.
Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the church fathers that developed the Catholic creeds as well as the church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s word.
But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines.
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith......
......National Catholic Register: What can evangelicals and Catholics learn from one another?
As I have already noted, I believe that Catholics can learn from evangelical Protestants how to preach, teach and offer support for doctrines and beliefs that Catholics often just leave to authority.
Evangelicals can learn from Catholics that Christianity is a historical faith that did not vanish from the earth between the second and 16th centuries. That is what I mean by “learning from the great tradition.”
Much of what evangelicals think of as the odd beliefs of Catholics have their roots deep in Christian history. This, of course, may not convince a Protestant that these views are correct.
But what it will do is help the Protestant to appreciate that the very same Christians that deliberated over the content of the biblical canon also believed in the Real Presence, purgatory, intercession of the saints and indulgences.
If these Christians, who knew the Bible far better than us, did not think these practices and beliefs “unbiblical,” one should not be so quick to dismiss these practices and beliefs simply because they are outside of one’s Protestant experience.
On the other hand, the fact that many Catholic parishes do not offer the expository preaching and theological teaching to their members found in the best Protestant churches should force Catholics to critically reflect on whether they are adequately evangelizing and equipping their own people to enter a world hostile to the Christian worldview.
We have much to learn from each other.
(Read the entire article here.)
Labels: Catholic Belief, Liturgy, Protestants, Second Vatican Council, Testimonials
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Latvia & Liturgical Reform
(via Cardinal Rating)
In a recent 'Catholic World Report' interview (extracts from which appear below), Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop of Riga, Latvia, explained how the post-Vatican II changes in the liturgy were implemented in his country without the range of problems which have been encountered in other parts of the Catholic world.
(AD2000, May 2003) By 1972 we had the new Missal in Latvia, but it was not yet translated. We celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, so the people did not notice much change.
So we were already celebrating the liturgy according to the Roman Missal, in Latin. We read the Gospel in Latvian. If the entire Mass had been in Latvian, then maybe we would have faced towards the people. But we used Latin, and we couldn't "talk to them" in Latin, so there was no particular point in turning towards the people.
Consequently we did things in a step-by-step fashion. First we did the Mass in Latin. Then we started to translate the Lectionary. Finally we translated the whole Missal. When we were done with this, we turned towards the people for the Liturgy of the Word.
In the Liturgy of the Word, we are talking to the people, and they are listening to the Word of God. So at that point we should face them. But even today, after we are finished "talking to the people," we turn to the altar to prepare the elements and so forth.
We are not hurrying to turn around the altars. When we build smaller churches, even today, I do not have the altar built out from the wall. This is not a particularly significant matter. The Pope himself turns his back to the people in his own chapel.
The Second Vatican Council does not require facing the people, and I was fully aware of this. According to Vatican II, if it is better to face the people, then the priest should do so; if not, one can celebrate Mass in the old manner.
I think that the criticism [by Western liturgists of Eastern Europe's 'backwardness' in liturgical renewal, e.g., priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the people] is unjustified. These critics see only the outward appearance; they see that the altar has not been turned around. They ignore all the rest of the liturgical reform to focus on this one thing. But liturgical reform touches all of the Mass. There is a very significant difference between the texts of the Tridentine Missal and the texts that are given to us now.
I do not look upon it as an offence to anyone that the priest stands facing the altar to celebrate Mass, even in the Novus Ordo. The Pope knows that we are not in any particular rush to change this. When you make such a change, some people like it and some people don't, so you stir up controversy.
Our liturgical reforms, on the other hand, have been going on for 30 years, and the people do not feel any negative effects from the changes, because of the way they have been introduced and administered. The people are at peace.
Extremes
What happened outside Latvia happened rather quickly. The Council was not to blame, but the liturgical translators were at fault. The Council was not radical, but when the liturgists began formulating changes, all sorts of extremes emerged. They confused people's minds by what they did.
And we can even boast that our slow liturgical reform preserved old traditions that have been lost elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the tabernacle in the centre of the altar, with the Eucharist as the centre of the church rather than somewhere off to the side, and the confessionals.
I myself have seen (I will not say in what country) the tabernacle on the floor - in a corner on the floor. That is no way to honour Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I have seen an altar that has been erected from left-over logs: big split logs, placed cross-wise; and across these planks they put a tablecloth to cover it. And this was not in a mission territory, but in a traditionally Catholic country! So the fact that the Eucharist is still in the centre is the primary thing which we have preserved.
The other important thing that we preserved is the confessional. We have not taken them out of the churches, and therefore we have not shortened the lines of penitents. The confessionals are a sort of visible advertisement. The people are already in lines, and so someone who is fearful of going to confession will look at the lines and see that they are very long, and that makes it easier for him to get in line. No one whose faith is shaky will go by himself, and ask individually to see a priest for confession; instead, he will not go to confession at all.
Of course there is another big problem: that in many countries people have the idea that confession is no longer necessary. The result is that today, in many places, few people go to confess their sins, but they all go to Communion. I look on this as the biggest mistake that "reformers" have made. When they lifted the people onto their feet it was apparent to me that it would take two generations to get them back on their knees. And to get them to go to confess their sins, to make their individual confessions, after they have tossed that practice aside - I doubt that can be done.
But with us, individual confession has remained the norm. We have never given general absolution - that is to say, absolution for the whole congregation. That practice is for extreme circumstances, and with the obligation for individual confession later. It is better to go straight to the individual confession. If the people are already accustomed to that practice, then it is better to keep it. We look upon that as a matter in which Westerners can learn something from us.
In a recent 'Catholic World Report' interview (extracts from which appear below), Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop of Riga, Latvia, explained how the post-Vatican II changes in the liturgy were implemented in his country without the range of problems which have been encountered in other parts of the Catholic world.
(AD2000, May 2003) By 1972 we had the new Missal in Latvia, but it was not yet translated. We celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, so the people did not notice much change.
So we were already celebrating the liturgy according to the Roman Missal, in Latin. We read the Gospel in Latvian. If the entire Mass had been in Latvian, then maybe we would have faced towards the people. But we used Latin, and we couldn't "talk to them" in Latin, so there was no particular point in turning towards the people.
Consequently we did things in a step-by-step fashion. First we did the Mass in Latin. Then we started to translate the Lectionary. Finally we translated the whole Missal. When we were done with this, we turned towards the people for the Liturgy of the Word.
In the Liturgy of the Word, we are talking to the people, and they are listening to the Word of God. So at that point we should face them. But even today, after we are finished "talking to the people," we turn to the altar to prepare the elements and so forth.
We are not hurrying to turn around the altars. When we build smaller churches, even today, I do not have the altar built out from the wall. This is not a particularly significant matter. The Pope himself turns his back to the people in his own chapel.
The Second Vatican Council does not require facing the people, and I was fully aware of this. According to Vatican II, if it is better to face the people, then the priest should do so; if not, one can celebrate Mass in the old manner.
I think that the criticism [by Western liturgists of Eastern Europe's 'backwardness' in liturgical renewal, e.g., priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the people] is unjustified. These critics see only the outward appearance; they see that the altar has not been turned around. They ignore all the rest of the liturgical reform to focus on this one thing. But liturgical reform touches all of the Mass. There is a very significant difference between the texts of the Tridentine Missal and the texts that are given to us now.
I do not look upon it as an offence to anyone that the priest stands facing the altar to celebrate Mass, even in the Novus Ordo. The Pope knows that we are not in any particular rush to change this. When you make such a change, some people like it and some people don't, so you stir up controversy.
Our liturgical reforms, on the other hand, have been going on for 30 years, and the people do not feel any negative effects from the changes, because of the way they have been introduced and administered. The people are at peace.
Extremes
What happened outside Latvia happened rather quickly. The Council was not to blame, but the liturgical translators were at fault. The Council was not radical, but when the liturgists began formulating changes, all sorts of extremes emerged. They confused people's minds by what they did.
And we can even boast that our slow liturgical reform preserved old traditions that have been lost elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the tabernacle in the centre of the altar, with the Eucharist as the centre of the church rather than somewhere off to the side, and the confessionals.
I myself have seen (I will not say in what country) the tabernacle on the floor - in a corner on the floor. That is no way to honour Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I have seen an altar that has been erected from left-over logs: big split logs, placed cross-wise; and across these planks they put a tablecloth to cover it. And this was not in a mission territory, but in a traditionally Catholic country! So the fact that the Eucharist is still in the centre is the primary thing which we have preserved.
The other important thing that we preserved is the confessional. We have not taken them out of the churches, and therefore we have not shortened the lines of penitents. The confessionals are a sort of visible advertisement. The people are already in lines, and so someone who is fearful of going to confession will look at the lines and see that they are very long, and that makes it easier for him to get in line. No one whose faith is shaky will go by himself, and ask individually to see a priest for confession; instead, he will not go to confession at all.
Of course there is another big problem: that in many countries people have the idea that confession is no longer necessary. The result is that today, in many places, few people go to confess their sins, but they all go to Communion. I look on this as the biggest mistake that "reformers" have made. When they lifted the people onto their feet it was apparent to me that it would take two generations to get them back on their knees. And to get them to go to confess their sins, to make their individual confessions, after they have tossed that practice aside - I doubt that can be done.
But with us, individual confession has remained the norm. We have never given general absolution - that is to say, absolution for the whole congregation. That practice is for extreme circumstances, and with the obligation for individual confession later. It is better to go straight to the individual confession. If the people are already accustomed to that practice, then it is better to keep it. We look upon that as a matter in which Westerners can learn something from us.
Labels: Confession, Eucharist, Holy Father, Latin, Liturgy, News, Novus Ordo, Roman Missal, Second Vatican Council, Traditionalism, Viewpoints
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Pre-Conciliar Church: Dull?
What is our identity as latin-rite Roman Catholic?
Now, the Oxford Wordpower dictionary defines the word 'dull' as "not interesting or exciting; boring" How could the Church have been dull?
Our forefathers never asked themselves, "Why am I Catholic?" Why? Becasue, the Church before the Second Vatican Council tended to identify Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. Those who were raised before the council were given a strong sense of identity. Holy Mother Church in her wisdom nutured and sustained her flock with maternal affection. Catholicism was more than a religion, it was an entire system of thinking, behaving, and even feeling. You could leave the Church but you'd not be able to change the way you ha been taught to view the world, God and even religion.
Today, many young Catholics do not have nearly the sense of identity their parents did. Ask the youth in your parish and they wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between their Church and the ones their Protestant friends go to. Thus, the question, "Why am I Catholic" will inevitably return during their adulthood. Many will face dilemas; some may question the authority, others may leave the Church, et cetera...
Ask any Catholic what the Mass is, many will tell you that it is just a celebration. Indeed it is, however, isn't it more than a celebration? The Mass is also a sacrifice. When the sacrificial nature of the Mass is taken away, we'd be like any other (liturgical) protestant church. Though in principle today's Catholics have greater access to the inner meaning of the Mass, do we understand the spiritual benefits that can be obtained behind it?
Where has the Catholic- or rather 'latin rite Roman Catholic'- identity gone to?
Surely, there must have been something interesting or exciting that gave rise to such a strong sense of Catholic identity...
Was it the (Latin) Tridentine Masses? Maybe, but I think no one should wish to return to the days when many priests seemed to rush through a mumbled Mass as quickly as possible (I'm thinking of Low Masses here), the congregation indeed present mainly as spectators.
Was is something else? Could it have been the fact that the pre-concilar view of the Church focused more on the importance of a universal rite of Mass and eccelesial tradition rather than on local churches, on other rites and other ecclesial traditions (Eastern Catholic Churches)?
Frankly I do not have an answer as to whether or not the pre-conciliar Church was dull or exciting.
But, judging a tree by it's fruits, it coundn't have been dull: Just count the number of ordinary Catholics who became saints, the large number of priestly and religious vocations, the strong weekly Mass attendance, the long confession lines, the unchanging Latin Mass and Sacraments, the statues of saints and our Blessed Mother, clerical clothing and religious dress, ridgid adherence to Church's laws, unswerving obedience to the Pope, et cetera... The is evidence that there must have been something 'exciting' that kept the Church alive and robust.
Then again, Christ's guarantee that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church does not, as has often been pointed out, mean that the Church necessarily flourishes in ways which can be discerned with the human eye.
The answer will be left open. Let me know what you think. Do read 'Notes of the True Church: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus', a possible significant contribution to Catholic identity.
I apologise for the parts in which I rant.
Perhaps there is a need for a Thrid Vatican Council?
"Conservative Catholic ask why the Chruch is giving up so much so fast,
liberal Catholics ask why the Church is not changing faster" Joseph Martos
Pro Eccelesia et Pontifice,
Deo Juvante
Feast of the Ascension of the Lord 2007
Deo Juvante
Feast of the Ascension of the Lord 2007
Acknowledgements/Bibliography:
Rev. Fr. Richard Rohr, Joseph Martos, James Hitchcock
Labels: Catholic Belief, Second Vatican Council, Thoughts, Traditionalism
Monday, May 7, 2007
Integrity of the Psalms
(Via Serge)
Those of you who pray the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours) probably learned that the Office is a systematic praying of the Psalms in union with the whole Church. What they probably didn't tell you, if you are using an edition revised since Vatican II, is that you're not actually praying all the Psalms. Some of the Psalms have been edited to remove unpleasant parts, and two Psalms have been dropped altogether.
Tim Cravens, who is a blogger and apparently a bishop in the Independent Catholic movement, is quite right when he argues for maintaining the integrity of the Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours.
Those of you who pray the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours) probably learned that the Office is a systematic praying of the Psalms in union with the whole Church. What they probably didn't tell you, if you are using an edition revised since Vatican II, is that you're not actually praying all the Psalms. Some of the Psalms have been edited to remove unpleasant parts, and two Psalms have been dropped altogether.
Tim Cravens, who is a blogger and apparently a bishop in the Independent Catholic movement, is quite right when he argues for maintaining the integrity of the Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours.
Labels: Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours, Prayer, Psalter, Second Vatican Council, Traditionalism
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Interview with Archbishop Ranjith on Sacramentum Caritatis
Gerard O’Connell interviews H.E. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith speaking about the post-Synodal Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis of His Holiness.
Following the Second Vatican Council, there has been much talk, including among Asian bishops, of the need for inculturation of the liturgy. How has this developed in the Asian Churches? What remains to be done, or is it an open process without a concluding date?
As the Pope himself states in Sacramentum Caritatis, the principle of inculturation "must be upheld in accordance with the real needs of the Church as she lives and celebrates the one mystery of Christ in a variety of cultural situations" [Sacr. Carit. 54]. We know that it is a need emerging from both the call to evangelization or the incarnation of the Gospel message in various cultures, and the requirement of a real and conscious participation of the faithful in what they celebrate.
Yet, already Sacrosanctum Concilium indicated clear parameters within which the adaptations of the liturgy to local cultural patterns are to be carried out. It spoke of admitting into the Liturgy elements that "harmonize with its true and authentic spirit" [SC 37], ensuring the "substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved" [SC 38], provided such is decided by the competent ecclesiastical authority, meaning the Holy See and, where legally allowed, the bishops [cf 22: 1-2]. It also called for prudence, in the choice of adaptations to be introduced into the Liturgy [SC 40: 1], the need to submit such to the Apostolic See for its consent, if needed, a period of limited experimentation [SC 40: 2] before final approval and consultation of experts in the matter [SC 40: 3].
Sacramentum Caritatis follows the same line, that adaptations of Liturgy to local cultural traditions be handled according to the stipulations of the various directives of the Church and in keeping with a proper sense of balance "between the criteria and directives already issued and new adaptations" [no. 54], and these too "always in accord with the Apostolic See" [ibid. 54]. In short, inculturation through adaptations, yes, but always within clear parameters that ensure nobility and orthodoxy.
As for what has been carried out up to now, one cannot be altogether satisfied. Some positive developments are visible, like the large scale use of vernacular languages in liturgy, making the sacraments better understood and to that extent better participated, and the use of art, music and Asian gestures at worship. But a lot of arbitrariness and inconsistency can also be noted, arbitrariness through the permitting of all kinds of experiments and officialisation of such practices without proper study or critical evaluation.
I once was listening to a radio talk given by a Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka who ridiculed Christians for allowing local drum beating in their churches without knowing that those beats in fact were chants of praise for the Buddha. This could be just one instance of unstudied absorption of local traditions that are per se incompatible with what we celebrate.
By inconsistency I mean practices we introduce as adaptations but per se are incompatible with our culture, like just a bow instead of genuflection or prostration before the Holy Eucharist, or communion in the hand received standing, which is far below levels of consideration given to the Sacred in Asia. In some countries, instead of introducing liturgical vestments or utensils reflective of local values, their use has been reduced to a minimum, or even abandoned. I was at times shocked to see priests and even bishops celebrating or concelebrating without the proper liturgical attire. This is not inculturation but de-culturation, if such a word exists.
Inculturation means deciding on liturgical attire that is dignified and full of respect for the Sacred realities celebrated, not abandoning them. I feel that the Episcopal Commissions on Liturgy in Asia at continental, regional or national levels should, with the help of experts, study these issues carefully and seek ways and means to enhance the meaning, dignity and sacredness of the divine mysteries celebrated through solid adaptations that are critically selected and proposed to the Holy See for due approval.
A closer spirit of cooperation with the Holy See in this matter would be needed. There is too much drifting in the matter and even an attitude of "who cares?" that leaves everything to free interpretation and the creativity of single persons. Besides, I wonder if there is a sufficient awareness of what the Council itself mentioned on the matter and the guidelines given in Varietates Legitimae ("Legitimate Differences," instruction, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Jan. 25, 1994) and no. 22 of Ecclesia in Asia ("Church in Asia," apostolic exhortation on the Church in Asia, Pope John Paul II, November 6, 1999).
In No. 54 of Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict advocates "continued inculturation of the Eucharist" and calls for "adaptations appropriate to different contexts and cultures." What does this mean in Asia?
Asia is generally considered to be the continent of contemplation, mysticism and a deep seated spiritual outlook on life. These orientations may have resulted from or even led to the origins of most world religions in this continent. Any attempts at inculturation of the Liturgy or of Christian life cannot bypass these profoundly mystical orientations typical of Asia.
As Christians, we ought to show that Christianity is Asian in origin and it has an even profounder sense of mysticism within it that it can and wishes to share with others. It would be a pity if we strive to project our faith as an appendix of a secular and globalizing culture that endorses secular values and seeks to represent these in Asia. Unfortunately, sometimes in our way of doing things, we do project such an image. This makes us "foreigners" in our own continent.
Take, for example, the large scale abandonment of the cassock or religious garb by many priests and religious in Asia, even missionaries. They hardly understood that in Asian culture, persons dedicated to God or religion are always visible in his or her own garb, like the Buddhist monk or the Hindu sannyasi (holy man). This shows we do not understand what inculturation truly means. Often enough, it is limited to a dance or two during the Holy Mass or sprinkling of flowers, the arathi (closing prayer song) or beating a drum.
In mind and heart, however, we follow secular ways and values. If we are truly Asian, we should focus more attention on the mysticism of Jesus, His message of salvation, the great value of prayer, contemplation, detachment, simplicity of life, devoutness and reflection and the value of silence, and forms of liturgical celebration that focus great attention on the Sacred and the Transcendent. We Asians cannot be secularists who do not see anything beyond the visible and the tangible.
So too in Liturgy, instead of concentrating on just a few exterior gestures of cosmetic value, we should focus on the accentuation of the mystical and the spiritual riches conveyed to us, and highlight these more and more even in our dress and behavior. The Universal Church would gain from a Church in Asia that becomes a tangible expression of Christian mysticism in an Asian way.
Labels: Holy Father, Ideas/Opinions, Inculturation, Interview, Priesthood, Sacramentum Caritatis, Second Vatican Council
Monday, April 16, 2007
On Sacred Liturgy:
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council:
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 837
1. Liturgical actions are not private actions but celebrations of the Church itself, which is "the sacrament of unity," namely, a holy people assembled and ordered under the bishops; therefore liturgical actions pertain to the whole body of the Church and manifest and affect it, but they affect the individual members of the Church in different ways according to the diversity of orders, functions and actual participation.
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 837
1. Liturgical actions are not private actions but celebrations of the Church itself, which is "the sacrament of unity," namely, a holy people assembled and ordered under the bishops; therefore liturgical actions pertain to the whole body of the Church and manifest and affect it, but they affect the individual members of the Church in different ways according to the diversity of orders, functions and actual participation.
2. Liturgical actions, to the extent that by their proper nature they involve a common celebration, are to be celebrated where possible with the presence and active participation of the Christian faithful.
Can. 838
1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church (universa ecclesia), to publish the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances are faithfully observed everywhere.
3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish them with the prior review by the Holy See.
4. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.
Labels: Canon Law, Liturgy, Second Vatican Council
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Bridging Tradition
[Emphasis is purely mine]
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Sometime soon, Pope Benedict XVI is expected to broaden permission to use the Tridentine Mass, a long-standing request of traditionalists who favor the rite used before the Second Vatican Council.
The move is aimed at ending a liturgical dispute which has simmered for more than 20 years. In the process, it could clarify how the pope intends to implement what he once described as a "liturgical reconciliation" in the modern church.
The pope will enunciate the new policy in a document to be released after more than a year of debate and discussion at the Vatican. The Roman Curia had mixed views on expanding the use of the Tridentine rite, and so did the world's cardinals and bishops – all of which has lent a certain drama to the outcome.
From the outside, allowing the old Mass has been seen primarily as a concession to the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 for his intransigence on liturgical and other reforms of Vatican II.
But some Vatican officials believe that aspect has been overblown. More than making peace with Archbishop Lefebvre's followers, they said, the pope is trying to make peace with the church's own tradition.
One big clue to the pope's thinking came in his 1997 book, titled Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
The almost total prohibition of the old missal, which had been used for 400 years, was unprecedented in the history of the liturgy, he said in the book.
In effect, he said, "the old building was demolished" and a new one put in its place. Thus the liturgy ceased to be a living development and was treated as something manufactured by experts, which has caused the church "enormous harm," he said.
Even before he wrote those words, then-Cardinal Ratzinger had caused a stir when he said it made sense for the priest to celebrate Mass facing the same direction as the congregation, in the pre-Vatican II style, although he also said it would be confusing to turn the altar around once again.
Over the years, he has sharply criticized what he sees as a tendency for the worshiping community to celebrate only itself.
All of that led some to presume that, as pope, he would preside over a rollback of liturgical reform.
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a "real improvement" in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope's new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
Under Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger conducted the unsuccessful negotiations with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, before the archbishop broke off talks and ordained new bishops in defiance of the pope.
Cardinal Ratzinger insisted then that the Lefebvrists accept the new Mass and other major teachings of Vatican II. It's a position he has repeated in his ongoing contacts as pope with Lefebvrist leaders, sources said.
It was Pope John Paul who in 1984 first made it possible for groups of the faithful to worship according to the Latin-language 1962 Roman Missal, the last Vatican-approved missal prior to the post-conciliar reforms.
Pope John Paul set conditions for this special permission, or indult. The main requirement was that those who used the Tridentine rite must make publicly clear "beyond all ambiguity" that they do not call into question the validity of the new Roman Missal.
In 1988, Pope John Paul relaxed the conditions for the indult, but groups still had to accept the new Mass and were still expected to obtain the permission of their local bishop.
The role of the bishop in approving and overseeing use of the Tridentine rite has been a crucial issue in the recent debate. Last fall, when rumors were swirling that a bishop's permission would no longer be needed, the bishops of France issued a statement saying that the return of the pre-Vatican II Mass should be regulated and not left to "personal tastes and choices."
The French bishops also said traditionalist groups that use the Tridentine rite should be expected to give "an unequivocal gesture of assent to the teachings of the church's authentic magisterium," its teaching authority.
For these reasons, many will be looking at Pope Benedict's document not only for a liturgical verdict, but also for a sign of his reconciling skills.
Labels: Holy Father, Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, Society of St. Pius X
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Future of Catholicism: Vatican Council III?
The Second Vatican Council was somewhat ambiguous. It opened the windows to other Churches, to the modern world and to the future. Such action has led to many changes in the life of the Church, some new emphasis on official doctrine; in some ways it also appears that the Council seemed to have acknowledged some pluralism in the Church’s life. The Council raised much hope or fears of more radical changes, the situation back then could have been one of considerable uncertainty.
Yet, the Council was often conservative, taking great care to be loyal to the papacy and to previous councils. In fact it is this conservative side that the new catechism proclaims! This was done either by the changing of the order of the subject matter, the selection of one quotation over another, placing stress on old doctrines that have been left untouched, or by reviving doctrines that the Council left unmentioned. The mood was probably different from the confusing but ‘creative’ 60’s. The intention of John Paul was to stabilize and unite the Church in one theology and one discipline. Personally, I liked the fact that the Vatican did not bless what has become the current usage where the language reflects the challenge of feminism. For example, the translation refers to ‘men’ instead of ‘people’ or ‘all’.
Yet, the Council was often conservative, taking great care to be loyal to the papacy and to previous councils. In fact it is this conservative side that the new catechism proclaims! This was done either by the changing of the order of the subject matter, the selection of one quotation over another, placing stress on old doctrines that have been left untouched, or by reviving doctrines that the Council left unmentioned. The mood was probably different from the confusing but ‘creative’ 60’s. The intention of John Paul was to stabilize and unite the Church in one theology and one discipline. Personally, I liked the fact that the Vatican did not bless what has become the current usage where the language reflects the challenge of feminism. For example, the translation refers to ‘men’ instead of ‘people’ or ‘all’.
Despite this restoration- a genuine catechism faithful to the essential content of Revelation and up to date in method. There seems to be some danger that the detailed catechism which has been authorized solemnly may be used in a manner that would be alien to the spirit of the majority in the council, by not allowing enough local liberty.The most significant change in Church history could probably be change from the Church as being a fortress repelling enemies by firing off dogmas to being the Church as the pilgrim people of God, loving God and God’s world, moving into a future with joyful faith. To this change, I sing te duem. This is also a ‘sign of the times’. In the 90’s two-thirds of Catholics lived in Europe and North America. Now more than three-quarters of the much larger numbers live in Latin America, Asia and Africa. As the Council registered, “the Church has become more educated and humble”. The Second Vatican II Council is likely to be the last Council to be dominated by Europe. The Church has become less white, less rich and more distant from the Vatican. The consequences of both these revolutionary developments will set the agenda for future Popes. Many of the challenges that will confront the Church and the Holy Father will be more or less the same throughout the Church, regardless of locality.
Future Popes would have inherited a severe decline in the number of priests. Many are leaving the priesthood. This decline has encouraged lay movement, like in the days of the apostles; a small compensation. However, priests- no matter how young or dedicated- would be too few to provide the sacraments, care and teaching to those who look to them. The Vatican estimates one priest to seven thousand Catholics in South America as a whole, and one to four thousand in Africa. I’m not advocating, but could this be inter alia, due to the restriction on priests to marry? This could have been the wishes of potential priests to carry out their human right of marriage.
The rising movement to release female talent in Church (as well as society) would be another issue. Certainly (and hopefully) the option of Priesthood is closed. However, an easier option to consider would be the deaconate, as Phoebe certainly was when St. Paul wrote to the Church over which you now preside (Romans 16:1-2).
Perhaps one of the hardest decisions that would have to be made would be the from the multitudes of Catholic laity that sexual intercourse which transmits love need not be always be open to the transmission of life. Would artificial contraception be allowed? In all the weight of Roman authority the answer would definitely be a resounding ‘No’. However, considering the expected doubling of the world’s population (at least twelve billion), how are Catholic clergy to regain the respect of the laity as teachers of sexual morality?
Our future Pope, whoever he may be, would inherit the legacy of many centuries. Will he be open to the possibility of substantial changes or remain conservative- faithful to Roman Catholic tradition?
We are not far from the day where we’ll hear the wide ranging criticisms coming from all corners of the Church. We need to ask ourselves: What is the authority of Sacred Scripture and of the Church? What is the heart of the Christian faith? What diversity in its expressions is right? What is sex for and what is the priesthood for?
In the sixteenth century, nationalist policies increased the force of the Protestant question: What is the authority of the Bible? In the twenty-first century, the importance of sexuality in human life may fuel explosive power to the Catholic question: What is the authority of the Church?
It can be foreseen that the future Popes would have voices coming from their own heart, warning him not to divide the Church whose unity is entrusted to him. He would also look upon Protestantism and be reminded of the innumerable divisions that we created by men and women who followed their own private judgments in defiance of the mind of the Church. He would be warned not to sacrifice the truth entrusted to his guardianship for modernism, post-modernism, agnosticism, materialism, and other passing fashions of a godless age.
We need to pray unceasingly that the ‘deposit of faith’ will be guarded conservatively, as it was under John Paul II or Paul VI or John XXIII as well as Pius XII and his predecessors.
Many marvelous and creative changes have taken place in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, including the papacy. It is Divine Will that the Church has survived the might of the Roman Empire’s persecutions, and the corruption of her own wealth and power, to be the centre of great civilization of medieval Europe. It was by the grace of God that the Council of Trent inaugurated a Catholic Reformation, pouring new energy into the life and mission of the Church after a period when it had seemed that despite many scandals reform was impossible. Likewise, it was grace that brought forth the Second Vatican II Council, changing Catholic thought and life, after a period when it was widely assumed that no further council would be necessary and the only tendency would be an ever-increasing weight of authority and dogma.
Would it be too bold of me to suggest the dangerous duty to convene the Third Vatican Council? In like of (true) ecumenism, which Vatican II blessed, it seems logical that a third council be convened to have many uncomfortable voices heard. And that dialogue could mark the beginning of full restoration of communion with each other and with the Christ who cannot be divided.
Echoing the words spoken in Rome in 1967 by Athenagoras, Patriarch of Constantinople:
The Bishop of Rome who is “the bearer of apostolic grace and the successor to a shinning company of holy and wise men who have shed lustre on this see which, by honor and rank, stands first in the living body of Christian Churches dispersed throughout the world; and whose holiness, wisdom and valiant fight for the common faith of the undivided Church are a permanent asset and treasure for the entire world”. May God the life-giving Holy Spirit guide our Popes
so that they may teach truth and practice love.
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Belief, Eucmenism, Holy Father, Priesthood, Second Vatican Council, Thoughts, Vatican
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Novus Ordo Facing East?
General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM 1975)
115. After the prayer the priest genuflects, takes the eucharistic bread, and, holding it slightly above the paten while facing the people, says: "This is the Lamb of God." With the people he adds, once only: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you."
116. Next, facing the altar, the priest says softly: "May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life" and reverently consumes the body of Christ. Then he takes the chalice, saying: "May the blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life," and reverently drinks the blood of Christ.
An indication that the Novus Ordo was meant to be said facing East?
115. After the prayer the priest genuflects, takes the eucharistic bread, and, holding it slightly above the paten while facing the people, says: "This is the Lamb of God." With the people he adds, once only: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you."
116. Next, facing the altar, the priest says softly: "May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life" and reverently consumes the body of Christ. Then he takes the chalice, saying: "May the blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life," and reverently drinks the blood of Christ.
An indication that the Novus Ordo was meant to be said facing East?
Labels: GIRM, Liturgy, Novus Ordo, Official Documents, Second Vatican Council
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
