Adoremus Bulletin - July Issue

Adoremus Bulletin For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

JULY 2018

News & Views

Vol. XIV, No.1

Together Again for the First Time Everywhere: How Faith Integrates Symbolism in the Liturgy

A Centenary of Romano Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy, Part IV

By David W. Fagerberg

By Elise Harris and Hannah Brockhaus VATICAN CITY (CNA/EWTN News)—After several German bishops appealed to the Vatican over an alleged proposal to allow non-Catholic spouses in mixed faith marriages to receive communion, the Church’s top authority on doctrine has sent the ball back, saying Pope Francis wants Germany’s bishops to come to an agreement among themselves.

Released after a four-hour meeting between German bishops and the heads of certain curial offices, a Vatican communique said that Cardinal-designate Luis Ladaria SJ, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the bishops that the pope “appreciates the ecumenical commitment of the German bishops” and asked them “to find, in a spirit of ecumenical communion, a possibly unanimous decision.”

It is not clear whether a “possibly unanimous decision” asks the German bishops’ conference for a fully unanimous vote on the issue, or asks for a nearly unanimous decision, or whether the bishops are simply being asked to discuss the matter further to see if they can resolve the issue themselves before a central authority steps in.

Announced over the weekend, the May 3 meeting followed reports, later denied by the German bishops’ conference, that the Congregation

Adoremus PO Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385

Non- Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Brainerd, MN Permit No. 561

Please see COMMUNION on next page

Editor’s note: This examination of Chapter Four of Romano Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy is the fourth in a series of seven essays marking the centenary of Guardini’s book.

T

he mark of a profound thinker is sometimes saluted by talking about a “balance” that he or she is able to maintain. This is not meant as an accusation of relativism; it is instead meant as an appreciation of paradox. One perspective is placed in one tray of the scale, another is placed in the other tray, and the thinker maintains a balance between the truth of one and the truth of the other. However, while Romano Guardini maintained this same sort of method to whatever he studied, this description of the approach fails to do justice to Guardini’s thought for two reasons.

Centrist Thinking The first reason is that Guardini usually deals with more than two truths at a time. He feels more like a juggler finding the center point of a spinning plate than someone balancing two sides of a teeter-totter.

He is standing on a wobble board and trying not to tip his balance toward any single point on the compass. In the center hub of the wheel is the Mass, and spokes leading in from the rim represent extreme positions he wants to moderate. If one looks at his whole book, one can find the following sets of pairs: grave–playful, socialist– individualist, will–knowledge, logos– ethos, universal style–idiosyncratic style, morally earnest–esthetically pleased, public ritual–private piety. (I have probably missed some.)

In order to participate in the Mass, persons will have to come toward the center from their extremes, and although all persons are approaching the hub, they are each approaching it from a different direction. This makes the cost of appreciating the Mass unique to every person. For example, the grave person must come to appreciate the playfulness of the liturgy, while the esthete must come from the other direction to appreciate

AB

Adoremus Bulletin JULY 2018

SOURCE: AB/WIKIMEDIA

Pope Francis Clarifies Bishops’ DecisionMaking Process on Mixed Marriage Communion

The liturgy's symbolic nature is related to Jesus' own symbolic character. "He is the image of the invisible God," St. Paul writes (Colossians 1:15). And as Jesus himself says to Philip, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), both the spiritual and material cooperating in his incarnate person.

the seriousness of the liturgy; the predominantly individualistic person must engage the fellowship of the liturgy, and the predominantly communalistic person must discover his individual responsibility in the liturgy; the person to whom will is most important must appreciate the liturgy’s truth-displaying quality, and the person to whom knowledge is most important must come to value the willful commitment required. And so forth.

Furthermore, in order to be appreciated, the Mass exacts a toll that is different for each person, depending on his or her starting point. What it costs one to participate in liturgy will be a different fee from—and perhaps opposite to—what another person will have to pay. Therefore, humility is required of all if they are going to move down the spoke from their position on the outer rim to the center of the liturgy.

In the fourth chapter of The Spirit of the Liturgy, Guardini presents another pair of truths for us to stabilize. It concerns the relationship between body and soul. There are people, on the one hand, who see body and soul as sharply defined and distinguished. There are people, on the

other hand, who see body and soul as amalgamated and inextricably jumbled together. This pair is one of the many sets of opposing viewpoints that Guardini has identified. For the sake of easy reference ahead, let us refer to the former type of person as a “Divider” and the latter type as a “Blender.”

Signing Off on Symbols

Humanae Vitae and Liturgical Fruitfulness

As words go, “symbolic” often rings hollow.

But David Fagerberg fills us in on what Romano Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy means by liturgical symbols............................1

Integral Integrity But as we consult our compass to stabilize our thinking, there is a second way in which Guardini’s thought is different from those who seek to attain a simple balance. In a balance, the two truths are left at opposite poles, and they do not touch each other. Tension between them is lessened by taking turns, perhaps, but the balance on a seesaw, for instance, means that each end cancels the other out: the weight on one end prevents the other end from sinking too low, and vice-versa.

But Guardini instead proposes that in this pair—our Divider and Blender fellows—the ends of the poles need to be integrated, not just balanced; integrated, not just alternately considered as a matter of “fair play.”

Guardini seeks cooperation between the Divider and the Blender when it Please see SYMBOLISM on page 4

Minutes on the Hours

Celebrating fifty years, Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical on life is still bearing and delivering far-flung and long-lasting consequences—even for the marriage liturgy, says Jeremy Priest................................8

Drunken Speech

The Holy Spirit is the genius behind God’s masterpieces—but he doesn’t work alone.

The “art of celebrating,” says Father Dennis Gill, helps the priest help God create liturgical beauty..............................................12

At the US Bishops’ June meeting, our shepherds discuss, debate, and determine a timeline for the Liturgy of the Hours’ new English translation—now one tick closer to being a reality....................................................3 “Most Entertaining Liturgical Podcast Evah!”— the Liturgical Institute’s “The Liturgy Guys” score 17,000 weekly downloads. Joseph O’Brien eavesdrops on their spirited production.................................6

Creative Riting—Art of Celebration

News & Views.................................................... 2 The Rite Questions.......................................... 10 Donors & Memorials...................................... 11

2

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

NEWS & VIEWS

Continued from COMMUNION, page 1 for the Doctrine of the Faith had rejected a proposal by the conference to publish guidelines allowing the nonCatholic spouses of Catholics to receive the Eucharist in certain limited circumstances.

In February, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops conference, announced that the conference would publish a pastoral handout explaining that Protestant spouses of Catholics “in individual cases” and “under certain conditions” could receive Holy Communion, provided they “affirm the Catholic faith in the Eucharist.”

Marx’s statement concerned a draft version of the guidelines, which was adopted “after intensive debate” during a February 19-22 general assembly of the conference.

The Vatican’s communique noted that while more than three-quarters of the German bishops voted in favor of the guidelines, “a not indifferent number” of voters, including seven diocesan bishops, “did not feel capable, for various reasons, of giving their consent.”

The bishops, the Vatican said, then appealed to the Vatican for an answer as to whether the question of Holy Communion for Protestant spouses in interdenominational marriages can be decided at a local level by a national bishops’ conference, or if a decision from the universal Church was required in the matter.

Specifically, they wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Council for Legislative Texts.

Pope Francis said June 21 that the German bishops’ debate on intercommunion should be decided by diocesan bishops, rather than bishops’ conferences.

Speaking aboard the papal flight from Geneva to Rome, June 21, the pope told journalists that the Code of Canon Law leaves decisions about the criteria for intercommunion to diocesan bishops, in order that their decisions will apply only to their individual dioceses, rather than to the Church across an entire country.

The pope said that although the German bishops attempted to establish guidelines through their episcopal conference, “the Code does not foresee that. It foresees the bishop of the diocese, but not the conference, because a thing approved by an episcopal conference immediately becomes universal.”

“The conference can study and give direction and opinions to help the bishops to manage the particular cases,” the pope added.

Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law generally allows for episcopal conferences to establish norms regarding the circumstances in which non-Catholic Christians may be admitted to the Eucharist.

In the danger of death, or “if in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it,” Catholic ministers may licitly administer penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to Protestants “who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed,” the canon says.

This story is an adapted version of two stories previously published by Catholic News Agency.

It was adapted with permission.

priests has not been defined “ex cathedra” and that a pope or council could change the teaching in the future “creates serious confusion among the faithful,” and undermines the authority of the magisterium, he said.

Ladaria spelled out several reasons why the Catholic Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood, the first being that it is part of the substance of the sacrament of holy orders that the person receiving ordination be a man. And the Church cannot change this substance because the sacraments, as instituted by Christ, are the foundation of the Church.

Contrary to what some have argued, this limit on holy orders, Ladaria explained, does not prevent the Church from being effective in her ministry, because if the Church cannot change something, it is because “the original love of God intervenes on that point.”

God is “at work in the ordination of priests, so that the Church always contains, in every situation of her history, the visible and efficacious presence of Jesus Christ ‘as the principal source of grace,’” Ladaria said, quoting Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii gaudium.

Following the tradition of the Catholic Church in this teaching is a matter of obedience to the Lord, he continued, noting that the Church is called to deepen her understanding of the sacramental priesthood: that the priest stands “in the person of Christ” and is a spouse of the Church, making his being a man an “indispensable part” of the sacrament.

He pointed to the fact that Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have both confirmed Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, on the impossibility of ordaining women in the Catholic Church.

In a press conference aboard the papal plane returning from Sweden, Nov. 1, 2016, Pope Francis said: “On the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last clear word was given by St. John Paul II, and this remains.”

Ladaria also wrote about the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is the most “complete figure” in the Church’s history though she was never an ordained minister.

“Thus we see that the masculine and the feminine, the original language that the creator has inscribed in the human body, are taken on in the work of our redemption,” he said.

“Precisely the fidelity to the design of Christ on the ministerial priesthood allows, then, to deepen and further promote the specific role of women in the Church, given that ‘in the Lord, neither man is without woman, nor woman is without man’ (1 Corinthians, 11:11).”

The Catholic Church can also bring light to the culture concerning “the meaning and the goodness of the difference between man and woman,” he continued.

“In this time, in which the Church is called to respond to the many challenges of our culture, it is essential that [the Church] remains in Jesus, like the branches in the vine,” Ladaria said, quoting Jesus’ words from the Gospel of John: “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love.”

“Only fidelity to his words, which will not pass, ensures our rooting in Christ and in his love,” he concluded. “Only the acceptance of his wise design, which takes shape in the sacraments, reinvigorates the roots of the Church, so that it may bear the fruit of eternal life.”

CDF Head: Female Priesthood in Catholic Church Is Impossible

Pope Paul VI and Oscar Romero to Be Canonized October 14

By Hannah Brockhaus

By Hannah Brockhaus

VATICAN CITY (CNA/EWTN News)—The teaching of the Catholic Church on the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood, now or in the future, is clear—and to sow confusion by suggesting otherwise is a serious matter, wrote the Vatican’s top authority on doctrine.

In a May 29 article in Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal-elect Luis Ladaria, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote that “Christ wanted to give this sacrament [of holy orders] to the twelve apostles, all men, who, in turn, transmitted it to other men.”

“The Church has always recognized herself bound by this decision of the Lord, which excludes that the ministerial priesthood can be validly conferred on women.”

Taking this into account, as well as Pope St. John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, which states that all Catholics must “definitively” follow this teaching, Ladaria said, “it is a matter of serious concern to see the emergence in some countries of voices that question the finality of this doctrine.”

To argue that the Church’s prohibition on women

VATICAN CITY (CNA/EWTN News)—Following a meeting between the Council of Cardinals and Pope Francis, the Vatican announced that Blessed Pope Paul VI and Blessed Oscar Romero will be canonized together on Oct. 14, 2018.

As expected, the canonizations will take place during the 2018 Synod of Bishops on the topic of

Adoremus Bulletin

Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

Adoremus Bulletin (ISSN 1088-8233) is published six times a year by Adoremus— Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Adoremus is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation of the State of California. Nonprofit periodicals postage paid at various US mailing offices. Change service requested.

Adoremus—Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy was established in June 1995 to promote authentic reform of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite in accordance with the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Adoremus Bulletin is sent on request to members of Adoremus. Suggested donation: $40 per year, US; $45 foreign.

young people, the faith and vocational discernment, which is set to take place October 3-28, 2018.

Born Giovanni Montini in 1897 in the town of Concesio, Italy, the future Pope Paul VI was ordained a priest at the age of 22. He served as Archbishop of Milan prior to his election as Bishop of Rome in 1963.

As pope, he oversaw much of the Second Vatican Council, which had been opened by Pope St. John XXIII, and in 1969 promulgated a new Roman Missal.

He died in 1978, and was beatified by Pope Francis, Oct. 19, 2014.

Apart from his role in the council, Paul VI is most widely known for his landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was published in 1968 and reaffirmed the Church’s teaching against contraception in wake of the sexual revolution. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the historic encyclical.

Both miracles attributed to Paul VI’s intercession involve the healing of an unborn child.

Blessed Oscar Romero, who was beatified by Pope Francis, May 23, 2015, in El Salvador, was the archbishop of the nation’s capital city of San Salvador.

He was shot while celebrating Mass, March 24, 1980, during the birth of a civil war between leftist guerrilla forces and the dictatorial government of the right.

An outspoken critic of the violence and injustices being committed at the time, Romero was declared a martyr who was killed in hatred of the faith for his vocal defense of human rights.

Adoremus Launches New Monthly E-mail Newsletter

Adoremus is pleased to present its first electronic newsletter—AB Insight.

Why did we name our new venture Insight? Well, if seeing is believing, we want to make sure you have the best view into the liturgy.

As a Bulletin reader, you already know that right there in front of us at every Mass and every celebration of the sacraments we attend is a treasure to behold! But let’s face it, as you also know, to encounter these—the Church’s greatest prayers—to the fullest, sometimes our eyes, our hearts, and our minds need assistance to see those prayers the way the Church does. That’s where AB Insight comes in.

The glorious Christ lives among us today—and in a most magnificent manner he lives and breathes— and speaks—in the liturgy and the sacraments. Are we always hearing him, though? The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught that ceremonial details are necessary, but “something more is required” so that “the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”

After more than 20 years of bringing Adoremus Bulletin to you, we like to think we have a good grasp on the Catholic liturgy—and we want to share more of that grasp—more of that insight—with our readers. We want to supplement the bimonthly source of liturgical news that comes with each issue of Adoremus Bulletin—and we want those insights to flow ever more generously to our readers.

Therefore, we think AB Insight, arriving monthly in your email inbox, is the right name for the job.

And your pocketbook will be pleased to know that AB Insight is coming to you as part of your regular contribution at no additional cost!

Like all good things, too, AB Insight is meant to be shared. So after you receive your issue of our newest news and views on Catholic liturgy, consider passing AB Insight along to others who might similarly benefit from its penetrating and comprehensive offerings on all things liturgical.

And as always, thank you for your support of Adoremus!

To receive AB Insight, as well as an electronic version of future issues of Adoremus Bulletin, visit www.adoremus.org.

EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher PHONE: 608.521.0385 WEBSITE: www.adoremus.org MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS & CHANGE OF ADDRESS: info@adoremus.org LETTERS TO THE EDITOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE P.O. Box 385 The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky ✝ La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 Helen Hull Hitchcock The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ editor@adoremus.org Contents copyright © 2018 by ADOREMUS. All rights reserved.

3

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe.” A supernatural artist, such as the liturgy’s ministers, must similarly follow the liturgical laws, which allow us to ecce homo as he is, without distortion or disfigurement.

Thankfully—and this is the second point to bear in mind—the Holy Spirit is the principal artist of the ars celebrandi.

“In the liturgy,” says the Catechism, “the Holy Spirit is teacher of the faith of the People of God and artisan of ‘God’s masterpieces,’ the sacraments of the New Covenant” (1091). The radiant beauty of the liturgy is not, consequently, left entirely, or even mostly, to the skill of the minister. Intelligently faithful to the liturgy’s rubrics and animated by the Spirit, the celebrant creates a treasure to behold. The rubrics, or “red print” in the liturgical books, stem from the Latin ruber, or “red,” the same source which gives us the word “ruby.” The Second Vatican Council says that the pastor is to be aware that during the liturgy “something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 11). This “something more” is an awareness that the subject of the priest’s art is Jesus

AB/WIKIPEDIA

Spanish artist Elias Garcia Martinez was vacationing in Borja, Spain, when he painted the Ecce Homo on the wall of the Borja church in 1930 to express his devotion to God and his thanksgiving to the town that received him on holiday.

Crowned with thorns and dressed in purple, Martinez’s image depicts Christ in his agony following his scourging.

Over the years since it had been painted, the image deteriorated, its paint flaking away and colors fading.

In a good-will effort to restore the image, a local amateur artist took it upon herself to reverse the damage done by time and the environment’s weather. But without Martinez’s skill to rely on (he had died in 1934), she unintentionally disfigured the painting of the already disfigured man. Once called “Ecce Homo,” critics and internet humorists, playing on the Spanish word for monkey, “mono,” renamed it “Ecce Mono.”

Both liturgical ministers and participants would do well to heed the lessons of the Ecce Homo saga, for “liturgy as art” is the Church’s preferred way of seeing liturgy and liturgical practice today.

Consider Cardinal Ratzinger’s comparison of the liturgy in 1918 and 2001, in the Introduction to his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy: “We might say that in 1918, the year that Guardini published his book [The Spirit of the Liturgy], the liturgy was rather like a fresco. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 8-9).

The “fresco” of the liturgy, having suffered climatic damage, needs caution and care in its restoration, lest our beholding of The Man become impossible. What does this mean for us amateur artists who depict the Lord’s liturgical face not as professionals but as lovers (the meaning of “amateur”)?

First, we should be able to see the liturgy’s celebration through the hermeneutic of ars celebrandi, the “art of celebrating.” The ars celebrandi, writes Pope Benedict, “is the fruit of faithful adherence to the liturgical norms in all their richness” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 38). In this regard, the rubrics, rules, and norms are not simply goods to be followed for their own sake (although obedience to a Mother’s rule is not without merit); rather, these elements are the means by which the liturgy’s unseen reality—Jesus—shows himself. “Art is limitation,” G.K. Chesterton says, and the artist must follow the rules of nature.

“If you draw a giraffe, you must draw

“ In the liturgy,” says the Catechism, “the Holy Spirit is teacher of the faith of the People of God and artisan of ‘God’s masterpieces,’ the sacraments of the New Covenant.”

Ecce Homo: Which does your liturgy resemble?

and his saving work. The minister, the Church’s rubrics, and the Holy Spirit’s inspiration together create an Ecce Homo of immense beauty to encounter.

A third consequence of liturgy as ars celebrandi falls to the faithful in the assembly. Celebrating the liturgy as the work of art that it is, the faithful’s participation can be elevated to a deeper level. Pope Benedict, in his key treatment of ars celebrandi in the 2007 exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, says the “primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself.

The ars celebrandi is the best way to ensure their actuosa participation [active participation]” (38). When the liturgical fresco is not covered in whitewash or deteriorating from climatic conditions— when the Ecce Homo shows its essential radiance—participants can encounter the saving mystery. But this also requires formation in a type of supernatural “art appreciation.” In his famous 1964 letter to the Mainz liturgical conference, Romano Guardini emphasized liturgical participation through a kind of contemplative looking: “The liturgical act can be realized by looking. This does not merely mean that the sense of vision takes note of what is going on in front, but it is in itself a living participation in the act….

Only if regarded in this way can the liturgical-symbolical action be properly

understood; for instance the washing of hands by the celebrant, but also liturgical gestures like the stretching out of hands over the chalice. It should not be necessary to have to add in words of thought, ‘that means such and such,’ but the symbol should be ‘done’ by the celebrant as a religious act and the faithful should ‘read’ it by an analogous act; they should see the inner sense in the outward sign. Without this everything would be a waste of time and energy and it would be better simply to ‘say’ what was meant. But the ‘symbol’ is in itself something corporal-spiritual, an expression of the inward through the outward, and must as such be coperformed through the act of looking.”

The liturgy is our weekly occasion of Ecce Homo! It is a beautiful work of sacred art. Its subject is The Man, Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is the work’s principal artist, and he leads priests and ministers to complete the masterpiece. Our Mother the Church guides our humble hands, directing them to portray accurately her Bridegroom. The faithful, with eyes prepared to see and ears ready to hear, bask in the radiant beauty of The Man and, indeed, add their own brush strokes, each guided by a love and knowledge of the liturgy, to complete the image.

As the saying goes, “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.”

And I would love to like a liturgy that looks more like what Martinez’s work intended and not what it had become.

USCCB Discusses Portions of Next Edition of the Liturgy of the Hours The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met in Fort Lauderdale, FL, June 13-14. Among their agenda items were two liturgical entries: first on texts relative to liturgical celebrations for St. Mary Magdalene, St. John XXIII, and St. John Paul II; and, second, on the next round of translations for the next English-language edition of the Liturgy of the Hours. Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta and Chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, presented the items to the body of bishops on June 13. A transcript of the presentation and discussion about the Liturgy of the Hours, minimally edited for clarity, follows. The entire discussion can be viewed on-demand at the USCCB website, www.usccb.org.

“We anticipate that all the voting [on the revised translation of the Liturgy of the Hours] might be completed by 2020 at the earliest,” announced Archbishop Wilton Gregory, at the June 13 meeting of the USCCB.

rchbishop Wilton Gregory: Dear brothers, you have before you an action item from the Committee on Divine Worship, the “Liturgy of the Hours: Proper of Time.”

As you know, in 2012 we approved a scope of work that outlined a plan for producing a new edition of the Breviary. That plan is starting to come to fruition. We’ve already approved components of that book, namely, new translations of the Psalter and the Canticles that are at the heart of the Liturgy of the Hours. Meanwhile, ICEL [International Commission on English in the Liturgy] has been busy working

on new translations of the non-scriptural parts of the Breviary, and we have the chance to review and comment on the early drafts of this material. ICEL has now finalized several groups of texts for a new edition of the Breviary, and the Committee on Divine Worship is bringing them forward for the vote of the full body of bishops.

Your documentation contains translations of most of the Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons and the intercessions for the seasons of the liturgical year. Future votes will focus on other material, such as the hymns, the Proper of Saints, and the Commons.

A

AB/CATHOLIC BOOK PUBLISHING

By Christopher Carstens, Editor

AB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Behold, The Art of Liturgy!

We anticipate that all the voting might be completed by 2020 at the earliest.

The bishops of the Committee on Divine Worship feel that the translations are more precise than the texts we are currently using, and also that ICEL has done a very fine job of making them conducive to recitation and chanting. The action item is amendable and approval of this text requires an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the members of the Latin Church members of the USCCB and subsequent confirmatio of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Archbishop Gregory then took questions about the action item from the floor.

Bishop Donald Trautman (retired Bishop of Erie, PA): I do not rise to question any of the translations, but I was wondering if the committee will take up a more basic question, the present format of the Breviary. I contend that the present format of our Breviary is intended for monks, for monasteries, and that parish priests are unable to carry out this format.

Parish priests need a prayer book, but the present texts do not help them in their spiritual life. We should have a rewriting, I think, of the book of readings. So, I’m asking a more basic question: will the committee take up the Please see USCCB on page 11

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018 incorporeal.”2 In such a case, the exterior thing becomes no more than an allegory for spiritual truths. Guardini uses the example of the statue of the blindfolded woman holding scales as a representation of Justice. The person who sees this must be instructed as to the meaning of the bandaged eyes (no respecter of persons) and scales (measuring out equally). In an allegory, the meaning is not directly evident; it must be explained. “The liturgy also contains allegories, but its basic forms are symbols.

Their meaning is actually hidden, yet it reveals itself in a particular thing or person, much as the human soul, itself invisible, becomes perceptible, approachable in the expression and movements of a face. So it is in the Church.”3

AB/SIMPLEINSOMNIA ON FLICKR

4

The balance on a seesaw means that each end cancels the other out: the weight on one end prevents the other end from sinking too low, and vice-versa. But Guardini instead proposes that in the creation of liturgical symbols, opposing viewpoints need to be integrated, not just balanced; integrated, not just alternately considered as a matter of “fair play.”

Continued from SYMBOLISM, page 1 comes to the creation of symbols. Not willing to leave them in seclusion, not willing to alternate between them, not willing to simply balance them, he wants to integrate them. He wants more than a cease-fire, he wants collaboration between Divider and Blender. He wants them to be a team.

In this effort to get the two to play nice with each other, Guardini is not speaking about symbols themselves, but about approaches to symbols. He is speaking about two different personality types or perspectives. Yet the fact of these two different approaches leads to some central questions about symbolism in the liturgy, questions with which Guardini begins as he sketches the landscape. If God is above space, then what has he to do with directions as to specific localities? If God is above time, then what does time matter to him? If God is Simplicity, then how is he concerned with specific ritual, actions, and instruments? If God is a Spirit, then can matter have any significance in the soul’s intercourse with him?

To sum up, Guardini is asking what the significance of liturgical symbolism is for the soul’s intercourse with God, and to find an answer we must admit it depends on how the ego experiences the relationship between body and soul. Guardini is enough of a philosopher to know that the alternatives of dividing or blending the soul and body have been attempted at various times in the history of intellectual ideas. Cartesian rationalism created a centrifugal effect that moved mind and body apart; Germanic romanticism created a centripetal effect that moved mind and body together. The pendulum will continue to swing, Guardini knew, unless we can make peace between the approaches.

Approaching Truth Here is how Guardini describes the Dividers. The spiritual plane appears entirely self-contained, and lies beyond the physical plane. It has its existence, its reason, its purpose, its rationality, and does not really need the physical. The spiritual and physical are distinct orders, even if closely adjacent. When there is communication between them, as there must be, it is understood by this type of person to involve a transposition from the one plane into the other. Guardini sees this expressed in Leibniz’s theory of monads, a theory of the universe that only contains God plus soul-like entities called monads, changing space and time and material objects into illusions.

For people who think this way, the physical has little to no importance; in fact, it appears to encumber and degrade spiritual activity. The soul can’t completely do away with the physical, but as far as the life of the soul is concerned, the physical is a burden. Is there any value to the physical for such people? Not much. It is an alloy, an aid to the elucidation of the spiritual, an illustration, an allegory. But the use of symbol is an imperfect concession in the spiritual and liturgical life. What the soul would rather do is attain its goals by purely spiritual means.

The soul might have to use physical symbol, but it would rather not. Truth, and moral impulse, and beauty, and knowledge, and practice of the good actually occur on a spiritual plane.

Here is how Guardini describes the Blenders. They see body and soul inextricably jumbled together and are inclined to amalgamate the two. Unification of soul and body is both possible and expected. The soul is a lining

“ What meaning has matter—regarded as the medium of spiritual receptivity and utterance, of spiritual impression and expression—for us?” of the body, the body is the outside of the spirit. The body is visible soul. Belonging here are philosophical schools that speak of body as a condensation of soul, or a materialization of spirit. Therefore, an external material action (in the human case, the action of the external body) is a manifestation of what the spirit is doing. If we like, we could make grander metaphysical claims and capitalize the word “spirit”: the material and historical world is a manifestation of what the Spirit is doing. The Spirit, or men’s spirits, enter into expression through nature, social forms, habits, clothing, substances.

Guardini’s Move If we left the descriptions of the two types of persons at that and placed them each on their own side of the balancing scale, Guardini admits we might be tempted to think that the Blender corresponds more closely to the nature of the liturgy, since it approves of the use of external phenomena to express an inner life. Liturgy uses action and material to express its spiritual verities—and a lesser thinker would leave it at that. A lesser thinker also would weigh in on the debate and defend either dividing or blending as a philosophical principal or an anthropological preference. But Guardini is a greater thinker, so he makes two moves.

First he acknowledges that both personality types have a weakness. On the one hand, the Dividers fail to realize how vital the relationship is between the spiritual and the physical planes. They delimit boundaries, thus isolating and highlighting the spiritual plane, which is helpful in one way, but they do so with such vigor that all cohesion between the planes is lost. Because they prefer one over the other they find liturgy challenging. On the other hand, the Blenders have the sense of cohesion missing in the Divider, but they lack objectiveness.

Because they find it hard to adhere to defined formulas, defined actions, defined instruments, they also find liturgy challenging. For them, the symbol is an expression of the individual soul, but that individual soul is in a state of perpetual flux, and therefore the exterior expression (the symbol) is always in flux, and in need of constantly new, fresh interpretation. Or change. Guardini says the Blender lacks one of the ingredients essential to the creation of symbols, but the Divider does not succeed any better.

Hence the second move Guardini makes. Having described the forte of each type of ego, and having noted the weakness each type of ego suffers, he attempts to make peace between them and integrate them. This attempt brings him to the concept of symbol, which “penetrates deeply into the essence and nature of the liturgy. What meaning has matter—regarded as the medium of spiritual receptivity and utterance, of spiritual impression and expression—for us?”1 In Meditations Before Mass, Guardini affirms that “in the liturgy everything is symbolical. But symbol is more than a corporal form representing something

Embodiment Ensouled In Guardini’s little book, Sacred Signs, he reveals his own understanding of how body and soul relate. The liturgy, he claims, is not a matter of ideas, it is a matter of actual things, and things as they are now. “It is a continuous movement carried on by and through us, and its forms and actions issue from our human nature. To show how it arose and developed brings us no nearer to it. … What does help is to discern in the living liturgy what underlies the visible sign, to discover the soul from the body, the hidden and spiritual from the external and material.

The liturgy has taken its outward shape from a divine and hidden series of happenings. It is sacramental in its nature.”4 In other words, the symbol in the liturgy is sacramental in its nature. Therefore, the liturgical symbols are elementary signs to which human nature responds, and Guardini indicates this process in the particular signs he discusses in Sacred Signs: signing oneself with the cross, hands, kneeling, standing, walking, striking the breast, steps, doors, candles, holy water, fire, ashes, incense, light and heat, bread and wine, linen, the altar, the chalice, the paten, blessing, space sanctified, bells, time sanctified, and the name of God. These signs are real symbols because they are things of the spirit fashioned into visible forms.

Matter has meaning for us when it becomes symbol.

Matter can be the medium of spiritual receptivity when it becomes symbol. So in chapter four of The Spirit of the Liturgy, Guardini proposes that “a symbol may be said to originate when that which is interior and spiritual finds expression in that which is exterior and material.”5 By this he does not mean a general consent made by people, a common agreement to connect x with y. That would be allegory. The spiritual element is not coupled with a material substance because we agree it should be so. “Rather must the spiritual element transpose itself into material terms because it is vital and essential that it should do so.”6 The Divider does not find it vital and essential that it do so; the Blender finds the spiritual element gets lost because the symbol proper is not circumscribed.

To make the point, we might borrow pairs of names for these personality types from a couple other authors. In Rite and Man, Louis Bouyer contrasts different approaches to the liturgy by employing the opposing Christological heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism. To the former, “all ecclesiastical institutions, and especially the liturgy, seem to be equally sacred, and therefore immutable;”7 the latter has “the tendency to stress the human aspects of Christianity in such a way that its individuality, along with its divinity, is in danger of disappearing.”8 Like the Blender, the Monophysite liturgist desires to keep things mysterious, hieratic, sacred (and, Bouyer admits, attributes this possibility to the exclusive use of Latin). Mystery means the unintelligible. Like the Divider, the Nestorian liturgist would discard symbols that have accrued across the history of the liturgy, returning to the primitive Supper, a meal in common among friends. Mystery means the hidden thing made intelligible.

Bouyer summarizes: “According to the Monophysite concept of Christianity, the Mass can only be the Mass by being something entirely different from ordinary life and completely separate from it. … According to the Nestorian concept, however, everything about the Mass should recall the profane meal, even to the inclusion of mundane conversations.”9 The Blender is so charmed by the symbolism of the altar that he forgets the table; the Divider has extracted the primitive table from out of the religious and Christian symbolism of altars to treat it alone.

Extremely Meaningful In Elements of Rite, Aidan Kavanagh offers another contrasting pair of terms that might describe the two personality types. “Minimalism and pontificalism represent the two unacceptable extremes in degree of liturgical usage. The first sins by symbolic and ceremonial defect, the second by symbolic and ceremonial excess. … Pontificalism is always swollen, overblown, and fussy; minimalism is always shrunken, desiccated, and perfunctory.”10 A Blender is more enamored with

5

AB/LAST SUPPER BY JOAN DE JOANES ON WIKIPEDIA; VLADIMER SHIOSHVILI ON FLICKR

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

The Lord’s Supper did not continue as a Passion Play, it was transformed into a universal currency that could be used in every culture and every century. The Last Supper can symbolically extend its substantial reality to us, although we live centuries later, and in a different culture. The Mass is symbol, not allegory, not historical reproduction, not representation.

the symbol than with the reality it is carrying (preferring the box car to the freight), the way a pontificalist places “too much emphasis on tertiary elements to the point of obscuring the primary.” A Divider thinks one only needs to do as much froufrou as is required to get the point across, the way a minimalist’s service is “always insubstantial, placing not enough emphasis on anything.” So Kavanagh concludes that “it is pontificalism which breeds the rumor that solemnity is synonymous with complexity, heavy-handedness, and boredom in the assembly; minimalism which breeds the rumor that being solemn about solemn things is a vice.” The Blender wants affective symbol; the Divider isn’t sure how to make liturgy effective.

If we select any symbolic action in the liturgy, we can imagine it being done in one extreme or the other.

Speech can be purple prose or a beige mumble; the architecture overly embellished or second-rate; the art flamboyant or insipid; the procession a strutting or a casual shuffle. These extremes explain one of the more cryptic remarks Guardini makes about walking in his famous 1964 letter to the Mainz liturgical conference: “But those whose task it is to teach and educate will have to ask themselves—and this is all-decisive— whether they themselves desire that liturgical act or, to put it plainly, whether they know of its existence and what exactly it consists of and that it is neither a luxury nor an oddity, but a matter of fundamental importance.

Or does it, basically, mean the same to them as to the parish priest of the late nineteenth century who said: ‘We must organize the procession better; we must see to it that the praying and singing is done better’. He did not realize that he should have asked himself quite a different question: how can the act of walking become a religious act, a retinue for the Lord progressing through his land, so that an ‘epiphany’ may take place.”11 For Guardini, in considering walking as a liturgical act, seeks a better understanding of liturgical renewal than merely shuffling the altar furniture, updating the rubrics, inserting teaching moments in the celebration, improving prayer and song, or better staging the procession. Liturgical renewal comes about when our actions—such as walking—become symbolic. And the way to appreciate symbol is to understand the body as natural emblem of the soul. The body-act of walking is a spiritual-act transposed onto the material plane.

It is so transposed because it is vital and essential to do so. “The altar is not an allegory, but a symbol. The

thoughtful believer does not have to be taught that it is a border, that ‘above it’ stretch inaccessible heights and ‘beyond it’ the reaches of divine remoteness; somehow he is aware of this.”12 Somehow the thoughtful believer is aware of this if liturgy uses genuine symbols that suffer neither excess nor defect.

Universe of Symbols A genuine symbol is occasioned by the spontaneous expression of an actual spiritual condition. Then a good symbol will rise above the purely individual plane and enjoy widespread currency. It will be universally comprehensible and significant. And here one must read chapters 3 and 4 in tandem. Guardini describes the universal currency expected of liturgy in the third chapter, and he is applying the thought in the fourth to the idea of symbol.

The Lord’s Supper did not continue as a Passion Play; it was transformed into a universal currency that could be used in every culture and every century.

Something of us belongs to eternity, and “in order to transcend the individual order and be accessible to people of every condition, time and place, the liturgy has style.”13 And formal style (i.e. arranged symbolism), makes possible the corporate dimension of the Church.

In The Church and the Catholic, Guardini proposes a problem we might have with this understanding of formal style and lays it at the feet of modern individualism. “With the development of individualism since the end of the Middle Ages, the Church has been thought of as…a viaduct of life but not as life itself. It has, in other words, been thought of as a thing exterior from which men might receive life, not a thing into which men must be incorporated that they may live with its life.”14 As a result of this individualism, religion came to be considered something which belonged to the subjective sphere, and objective religion (as represented by the Church) was primarily the regulation of this individual and subjective religion. Thus, man “lived in a world of abstract forms and symbols, which was not linked up with the reality to which the symbols referred.”15 But that means the symbol never rises above the idiosyncratic, and the liturgy-as-symbol never becomes catholic and traditional. One cannot understand Guardini on liturgy without treating Guardini on ecclesiology.

Collaborative Liturgy Therefore, Guardini concludes that both Ego

types—Dividers and Blender—must co-operate in the creation of symbols.

“The former type, then, must abandon their exaggerated spirituality, admit the existence of the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, and freely avail themselves of the wealth of liturgical symbolism. … The latter type must endeavor to stem their extravagance of sensation, and to bind the vague and ephemeral elements into clearcut forms.”16 Then the liturgical symbol becomes a universal possession by exceeding the solitary, historical incident that occasioned it. The Last Supper can symbolically extend its substantial reality to us, although we live centuries later, and in a different culture. The Mass is symbol, not allegory, not historical reproduction, not representation. In showing us this truth, Guardini doesn’t tip the scales one way or another for our Blender or our Divider; rather, he recalibrates the scale in a way that invites both sides to weigh their own strengths and weaknesses against the greater reality of the liturgy itself.

David W. Fagerberg is Professor in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.Div. from Luther Northwestern Seminary; an M.A. from St. John’s University, Collegeville; an S.T.M. from Yale Divinity School; and a Ph.D. from Yale University.

First, his work has explored how lex orandi is the foundation for lex credendi, explored in Theologia Prima (2003). Second, to this he integrated the Eastern Orthodox understanding of asceticism as preparing the liturgical person in On Liturgical Asceticism (2013).

Third, he has applied this to our liturgical life in the world in Consecrating the World: On Mundane Liturgical Theology (2016). He also has an avocation in G. K. Chesterton, having published The Size of Chesterton’s Catholicism (1998) and Chesterton is Everywhere (2013).

1. Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy (London: Aeterna Press, 2015) 27.

2 Guardini, Meditations Before Mass (London: Aeterna Press, 2015) 25.

3. Ibid.

4. Guardini, Sacred Signs, Introduction, online access http://www.ewtn. com/library/LITURGY/SACRSIGN.TXT 5. Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 29.

6. Ibid., 30.

7. Louis Bouyer, Rite and Man (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963) 5.

8. Ibid., 7.

9. Ibid., 9.

10. Aidan Kavanagh, Elements of Rite (New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1982). All the quotes in this paragraph come from pages 80-81.

11. Unable to attend the third German Liturgical Congress, Guardini sent a letter to Msgr. Wagner, organizer of the conference, in 1964. Online access http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/guardini.html 12. Guardini, Meditations Before Mass, 26.

13. Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy (London: Aeterna Press, 2015) 25.

14. Guardini, The Church and the Catholic (London: Aeterna Press, 2015) 1.

15. Ibid., 2-3.

16. Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 31.

6

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

These Guys Want to Have a Few Words with You How the Liturgy Guys Speak the First and Last Word in Podcasts on All Things Liturgical

By Joseph O’Brien, Managing Editor

D

Opening Night Weiler was finishing his sound tests between sips from a pint of IPA while McNamara peered out into the semidarkness of the room to see if he could scrounge up another glass of amber. At the same time, Chris was busy adjusting his own glass to avoid spilling it on the expensive sound equipment. Once Jesse, Denis, and Chris settled into their chairs, though, the busyness ceased and they became the Liturgy Guys—ready to indulge their audience in a bit of liturgical drunk talk: Jesse: We’re talking Drunken Speech today.

Denis: A provocative name, “Drunken Speech,” a perfect subject for Theology on Tap. But if you told your average parishioner that we’re going to have some drunken Mass today, a drunken speech to God, it would be a little scandalous.

Chris: If your Mother spoke drunkenly

The Liturgy Guys Podcast is found on iTunes, Spotify, and at www.liturgyguys.com/

today, would that be bad?

Denis: It probably would be, but St. Cyprian said it was also a sober inebriation.

Jesse: It sounds like an oxymoron.

Denis: It certainly does.

Chris: We took this term “drunken speech” from this fellow [20th century German liturgist] Romano Guardini who has this line, “Let us joyfully taste the sober drunkenness of the spirit.” He is one of many who invoke this idea in the liturgy. To get to the bottom of this, another formulation of “drunken speech” is “sober inebriation.” What they’re trying to express by this is the way the Church worships. One of the persons of the Trinity is the Logos—

“ The Liturgy Guys see their broadcasts as a lively barroom chat and a sober living room discussion taking place all at once.”

Denis: —the Son— Chris: —So Logos is the root of our word logic— Jesse: —and leads to sobriety?

Denis: Or order.

Chris: —and another part [of the Trinity] is spiritedness. The Holy Spirit denotes this drunkenness, not that the Holy Spirit wants us to be drunk, but it’s more of a spirited part. When you put the Son and the Spirit together in the way that the Church prays the liturgy, that is characterized as “sober inebriation.”

And that same sense of sober inebriation is exactly what the Liturgy Guys hope to bring to their listeners’

AB/JOSEPH O’BRIEN

id you hear? Next Sunday, you ought to get drunk at Mass.

But in a sober way, of course.

That’s what the Liturgy Guys were saying during one of their recent podcasts. But what do they know?

Well, they know quite a bit about liturgy, as it turns out—if the number of listeners they’ve attracted is any indication.

As the latest offering from the Liturgical Institute (LI), this multimedia apostolate is reaching out on a weekly basis to anyone who wants to learn more about the how and why of the Catholic liturgy—including especially how and why it can transform lives. The Liturgy Guys hope that the lighthearted yet substantial content of their podcasts can help listeners past the complexity and abstraction that speaking about the liturgy can sometimes entail The men behind the microphones for each podcast are host Jesse Weiler (who serves as LI’s assistant director of marketing), Denis McNamara (LI associate director and associate professor), and Christopher Carstens (LI instructor, director of the Office for Sacred Worship in the Diocese of La Crosse, and editor of Adoremus Bulletin).

This past April, the Liturgy Guys were recording one of their podcasts before a live audience at the monthly Theology on Tap hosted by Cathedral Parish in Madison, WI. The podcast took place on a stage in a private back room of The Brink, a humming hipster pub in downtown Madison. Pitchers of beer, chips and salsa, and platters of vegetables, cheese, and crackers crowded a table at the back of the room. After sipping on beers and noshing on food for the body, the crowd drifted to their seats as the Liturgy Guys prepared to quench their audience’s spiritual thirst with a spirited conversation about the Catholic liturgy.

Characterized by a snappy and clever interplay of voices, the chemistry created

by Weiler (“The Everyman Guy”), McNamara (“The Big Picture Guy”), and Carstens (“The Detail Guy”) serves as the perfect formula for distilling academic concepts about liturgy into a fluid ongoing conversation about the Church’s highest forms of prayer. The night at The Brink, that conversation turned to drinking beer, praying the Mass, and what the two have to do with one another.

The Liturgy Guys join Cathedral Parish’s Theology on Tap in Madison, Wisconsin, to discuss “Drunken Speech: Tapping into the Spirit of the Mass,” a title inspired by Romano Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy: “Let us joyfully taste,” he writes, “the sober drunkenness of the Spirit.”

understanding of the liturgy. The same sort of “spiritedness” that accompanies any good conversation. The Liturgy Guys see their broadcasts as a lively barroom chat and a sober living room discussion taking place all at once, focusing on the vital principles and purposes of good old fashioned Catholic liturgy—with microphones thrown in, while they’re at it, to share their chats with the rest of the world.

A typical Liturgy Guys podcast lasts about 35-45 minutes, begins with a discussion of a liturgical topic, and ends with a Question of the Week from listeners (“Why is incense used in Mass?” “Can you remove holy water from the fonts during Lent?” “Can the Creed ever be omitted during Sunday Mass?”). In past podcasts, the Liturgy Guys have examined such topics as signs and symbols of the liturgy (“A Sign from God,” July 4, 2016), active participation (“Active Duty,” September 13, 2016), and art’s relationship to the liturgy (“How Great Thou Art,” May 3, 2017).

They’ve also invited special guests to join their podcasts, including well-known Catholic multimedia evangelist, Bishop Robert Barron, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.

Weiler, McNamara, and Carstens cooked up the idea for the Liturgy Guys after a particular conversation two years

ago in the dining hall at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL, which the Liturgical Institute calls home.

“The light bulb moment for the Liturgy Guys came when Denis, Chris, and I were sitting together at lunch with a seminarian,” Weiler tells Adoremus.

“The seminarian asked a question about the liturgy. I heard Denis and Chris going back and forth, and I felt like I was listening to a podcast about liturgy.”

The topic of conversation that day in the dining hall was “noble simplicity,” which is how the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, describes the ideal yet eminently achievable liturgy: “The rites should radiate a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (34).

From the start, according to Weiler, the Liturgy Guys have been striving for something of the same noble simplicity in reaching out to their audience.

“I told Denis and Chris we need to do this,” he says. “This needs to be a podcast sounding just like what happened at lunch that day: very conversational but not heavily academic and certainly not above the average listeners’ comprehension.”

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

7

It sounded very good, to judge the response of the audience at the live podcast that night—almost exclusively young adults from in and around University of Wisconsin-Madison, most of whom were members of Cathedral Parish and the St. Paul University Catholic Center, Madison.

Director of Catechesis and Evangelization for Cathedral Parish,

Bishop Robert Barron joins the Liturgy Guys in the episode “Liturgy on Fire” and illuminates the finer points—and the finest points—of celebrating the liturgy in the image of Christ the High Priest.

100 people at Theology on Tap, many of whom get more connected with a local parish via an initial experience at Theology on Tap…. And there have been more than a few priestly, religious, and marriage vocations that Theology on Tap has played an integral role in.”

Among the topics that Madison’s Theology on Tap crowd seem most hungry to learn more about, Laudonio says, liturgy ranks high on the list.

“The vast majority of young people I encounter who regularly attend Mass,” he says, “do so because they recognize there is a deep desire for life, fullness, and happiness within them that only God can satiate. And while they might not be able to articulate all the theology behind the ‘what’ of the liturgy they recognize that in the liturgy they are encountering and receiving the fullness of the ‘Who’ they desire.”

It’s this demographic, the young Catholic adult, say the Liturgy Guys, which they hope their podcasts are especially reaching. In January the Liturgy Guys won the Fisher’s Net Award for Best Catholic Podcast of 2017. A website started in Alberta, Canada, devoted to promoting Catholic evangelization through multimedia, The Fisher’s Net seeks to spread the truth of Christ and his Church through effective social media. As Weiler points out, the award helped confirm that the Liturgy Guys were making a net gain among young Catholics because “the folks at

“ How do we re-evangelize and reeducate young Catholics in particular about the beauty of the faith, the liturgy, and the sacraments?

Anything that can be done to broaden and support that mission is time and money well spent. The Liturgy Guys fits that bill perfectly.”

— Mark Balasa, Liturgical Institute supporter

Madison, and the Theology on Tap program organizer, Marc Laudonio says that since Cathedral and St. Paul’s consist of many young Catholics, Theology on Tap is a perfect venue for fellowship and growth in faith through prayer and learning.

“Young adult evangelization, especially in downtown Madison, is always tricky,” Laudonio says, “because the population can be so transient—grad students, people taking first jobs and moving on, starting a family, that sort of thing.

But there is a consistent crowd of 60-

Fisher’s Net who run the contest and serve as the judges are themselves young adults.”

Young Catholics are tuning in, McNamara says, because they have “a deep need for knowing the meaning of things,” and are finding an authenticity to Catholic tradition expressed in the liturgy.

“Young people find out there’s a certain beauty that the liturgy should have,” he says. “They see, for instance, that the liturgy has to be theologically rich, not to be old fashioned, but so they

can encounter the heavenly realities and become like those heavenly realities.”

Podcasting Heaven The challenge, the Liturgy Guys acknowledge, is being able to communicate those “heavenly realities” in terms that their audience can understand. In the Liturgy Guys’ April live podcast at The Brink, they sought to communicate these realities by explaining the Mass in terms of its

that having kids in Mass means that you might be checked out every so often.

Chris: That makes me think of the prophet Ezekiel and St. John in the book of Revelation. There’s this image of the angel taking the scroll and rolling it up and giving it to Ezekiel and again to St. John. And you remember what each does with it?

Denis: He eats it.

Chris: Yes, he actually eats it—and this is why the Church speaks of the

AB/LITURGICAL INSTITUTE

Chris: In one of his letters, [Guardini] says something about how as long as liturgy is seen as something to “get through,” then that’s all it is. But it’s supposed to animate your entire existence with the spirit that pushes you out into the world to sanctify and divinize all of your life.

Denis: If you’ve ever been to a party—a Christmas party at work that you hate going to—it’s not actually a lively or happy thing to do, but the word the priest uses every time he begins Mass is “celebration.” I don’t know if we always think of it that way, but what we’re actually doing is rejoicing in the fact that heaven and earth, which were disunited to some degree after the fall, are now back together in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. So [to express the joy at that reunion] you want to have a slightly drunken speech—not an embarrassingly drunken speech.

Jesse: Yeah, but you want to be inebriated.

Denis: You’ll never get out on the dance floor otherwise.

Chris: So this is what the Mass and the liturgy is, characterized by this drunken speech or sober inebriation. How is it that you can tap into that tap at Mass?

Jesse: It’s like, well, a theology on tap.

Chris: That’s right. How can you drink deeply from these wellsprings of drunken soberness and sober inebriation when you go to the Mass, so you can be filled with the same sort of Logos and Spirit that can transform you? We [the Liturgy Guys] want to suggest ways during this podcast that the Mass offers us to tap into this stream of grace that comes from the side of Christ, made accessible to us in the liturgy so it can transform us. We want to offer some practical things that you can do this next Sunday when you go to Mass to see if they don’t help your liturgical experience. Does that sound good?

AB/LITURGICAL INSTITUTE

Practical Liturgy To this end, the Liturgy Guys say that their conversation should above all be about the takeaways—the practical and possible things the faithful can do to enrich their experience of the Church’s liturgy.

“Catholic college students are serious listeners,” McNamara says. “For instance, a group of students from Vanderbilt came up to a conference sponsored by the Liturgical Institute, and at the end they asked if they could get their picture taken with the Liturgy Guys. We had no idea college students were listening.”

earthly realities, using concrete stories and images of scripture—and some help from a toddler’s taste in books.

Denis: How do you know what the Eucharist is? Because God taught the world how to look for it. How do you know what the Eucharist is? Because Christ said, “This is my body.” The road to Emmaus is one of the stories in particular where the two disciples hear the story again of what Christ means and they recognize him in the breaking of the bread. In terms of listening to scripture during Mass, the Liturgy of the Word isn’t a Bible study but a way to understand the whole mission of salvation. When I receive communion, that is the apex of that story. So paying attention in Mass to the story of Melchizedek, Noah’s ark, the flood, or creation is relevant to the Eucharist you’ll receive 30 minutes later.

Jesse: What do I do if my daughter is running around playing during Mass with the other kids? Do I pretty much miss out on that [benefit of learning about the Eucharist through scripture]?

Denis: Well, I think God understands

nourishment we receive from the Word.

Jesse: That’s pretty weird though.

Chris: Yes, in a literal way.

Jesse: What if you did that in Mass?

Chris: Well, I do—but in a sacramental way. This is the principle [behind the Liturgy of the Word], just like my twoyear old. In Mass, she does chew on the missalette.

A two-year old hungry for a little newsprint pulp is one of the more unexpected examples the Liturgy Guys provide to help their audience see heavenly realities. Apparently this approach has been working. According to Weiler, the program now typically registers downloads in the thousands.

“Toward the beginning, we had about 1,100 downloads in a month,” he says.

“As of now, we are looking at 17,000 downloads a month. Through word of mouth and some marketing plans we started to grow and grow and have a devoted listening base.”

The Liturgy Guys’ heavenly success also has some other earthly realities to Please see PODCASTon page 12

8

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

The Public Face of Love (and Sin): How Humanae Vitae Reflects the Liturgical Value of Marriage enactment of the covenant oath takes on a liturgical function within the marriage relationship.”16

By Jeremy Priest

W

hat hath Humanae Vitae to do with the Liturgy? On the surface, they are further apart than Athens and Jerusalem. Yet, both Humanae Vitae and the liturgy are about the transmission of life—human life and divine life. God has placed the transmission of human life in the context of matrimony, which is a divine sacrament “not only when it is being conferred,” but perdures “for as long as the married parties are alive.”1 So Humanae Vitae speaks not only to the transmission of human life, but to the spiritual fruitfulness of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

The transmission of human life,” begins Blessed Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical, Humane Vitae, “is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.”

oath-sign of the covenant liturgy of marriage, fully realizing what is spoken in the consent. This “oath sign” embodies the words expressed by the man and the woman in the marriage liturgy.

Word and Deed The terms of the covenant of marriage are expressed beautifully by The Order for the Celebration of Matrimony in the “Questions before Consent” where the priest or deacon puts the following questions to the man and the woman: N. and N., have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely [libero] and wholeheartedly [pleno corde]?

Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?

Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands and declare your consent before God and his Church.11 The terms of the marriage covenant laid out in these questions define the terms of the covenant of matrimony: if the couple answers in the affirmative to these questions, we know that it is their “intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony.” Interestingly, although not surprisingly, these “Questions before Consent” in The Order of Celebrating Holy Matrimony closely parallel the characteristics of marriage described in Humanae Vitae. Blessed Pope Paul VI writes of the “characteristic features and exigencies of married love,” describing this married love as “an act of the free will [liberae voluntatis actu];” a “total [pleno]” gift of one person to another; a “faithful and exclusive [fidelis et exclusorius]” love that honors that reciprocal gift; and as a love that is “fecund [amor fecundus est]” in that it goes beyond mutual love between the spouses and embraces children as “the supreme gift of marriage” (§9).12 These “characteristic features and exigencies

AB/WIKIPEDIA

Frustration Temptation Contraception can be understood as “every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”2 When the man and the woman speak the words of consent in the marriage liturgy, they begin a marriage contract and so form a covenant which establishes “between themselves a partnership of the whole of life…which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” (CIC 1055 §1). Indeed, the establishing of the marital covenant is not only a liturgical action, but one that culminates in a bodily consummation that renders the bond, established in the liturgical action, indissoluble. Pope St. John Paul II articulates what the Biblical witness testifies to, asserting that “without this consummation [of the wedding vows in the marital act], marriage is not yet constituted in its full reality.”3 This is to say that sexual union is that action by which the covenant liturgy of marriage is itself fully realized.4 In this way, the sacrament of matrimony has an especially unique tie to the actions that follow its ritual celebration.

This statement should call to mind Biblical texts where sexual union itself seems to make marriage. For example, Deuteronomy 21:13 “deals with the captive woman’s right to mourn the loss of her family before being taken by an Israelite soldier.

After her month of mourning, the text reads: ‘you may go in to her, and therefore be her husband, and she shall be your wife.’”5 Some have argued that, in the Biblical witness, “the act of sexual union by itself is constitutive of marriage.”6 Yet, even in these cases, consent must either be supplied later or given prior to consummation. In the case of Jacob and Leah, “it is apparent that copula carnalis is not simply a characteristic feature of marriage; it is the decisive expression of the end of mere betrothal and, as such, consummates the marriage.”7 Even when it is a question of premarital sex, all the Biblical examples “encourage or insist on the formalizing of marriage following” such an act.8 Indeed, without the consummation of the marriage, the marriage contract is itself open to dissolution.9 Summing up the Biblical witness, John Paul II writes, “the words themselves, ‘I take you as my wife/ as my husband,’ do not only refer to a determinate reality, but they can only be fulfilled by the copula conjugale (conjugal intercourse).”10 In this way, sexual union is understood to be the

of married love” are put to the man and the woman in the “Questions before Consent” in order to establish the couple’s “intention to enter the [one-flesh union] of Holy Matrimony” (OCM, §60–61).

What Genesis calls the “one flesh” union speaks words that God has impressed on our very being, and indeed our very bodies. Every time the marriage act takes place, man and woman—through the grammar of their bodies—communicate these words to each other: “I give myself to you freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully (cf. HV 9). I give you all of who I am and I receive all of who you are.” This free, total, faithful, and fruitful love is essential to being able to say, “I love you,” in the sense of “married love” (HV §9). Only if the act is free, total, faithful, and fruitful can a person give himself in love (cf. FC §37).

An “oath-sign” is the “act that seals or enacts the agreement.”13 Every covenant has a ratifying action, so the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, for example, has circumcision.

While Abraham and Sarah had gotten an heir by their own initiative in Genesis 16, circumcision was a concrete sign that in the context of a covenant relationship with the Lord, one “should not trust in flesh,” or his “own powers, in his own fertility to see God’s promise realized.”14 As John S. Grabowski asserts, “if marriage is a covenant, then that covenant must have a sign, something that makes visible the invisible reality of this one-flesh union.… The sign of that unique covenant relationship is the physical act of becoming one flesh in sexual intercourse.”15 So, sexual union is “the embodied gesture that expresses the new relationship which their covenant creates between them.

Sex, therefore, as a recollection and

Past Presents Future To speak of sex as a liturgical function within marriage implies that liturgical actions always include an invoking of the covenant for the sake of renewing it. As Ratzinger asserts, the “classical Old Testament liturgy…includes two aspects: the burnt offering and the reading from the book of the covenant.”17 Indeed, the practice of renewing the Sinai covenant with the celebration of the Sabbath became the weekly occasion when the truth of what it meant to live in communion with God was made clear. Ratzinger writes: “The Sabbath is introduced in the account of the creation as a time when man is made free for God. Beyond that, and in connection with the Ten Commandments, it is also a sign of God’s Covenant with his people. The original idea of the Sabbath is thus an anticipation of the freedom and equality of everyone. On the Sabbath, even a slave is not a slave; there is rest even for him.”18 Moving from weekly observance to daily observance, the Shema‘ Iśrāēl is the most pervasive of the daily actions of covenant renewal in ancient Judaism.19 The recitation of the words from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 constituted “a daily renewal of commitment to God’s covenant with Israel,”20 which was “linked directly to loyalty to law and covenant, to God’s kingdom.”21 Indeed, this daily recitation at morning and evening has been called “the identity marker of covenant membership.”22 The recitation of the Shema‘ Iśrāēl has been likened to the recitation of the Our Father, in that by praying these words Christians not only follow “the Savior’s command,” but are also “formed by [this] divine teaching”23 on the nature of living in a covenant relationship with God. However, as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium states, for the Christian, it is fundamentally in the Mass where the “renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man,”24 takes place. So it is that “one of the primary functions of liturgy in biblical thought is to remember” the covenanting action “in a way that makes present the event commemorated.”25 Indeed, to “remember [anamnesis] in the biblical sense is to act upon a covenant.”26 The one-flesh union “is thus understood as a kind of anamnesis that recalls precisely the totality of a couple’s gift to one another expressed in their oath [taken during the marriage liturgy].”27 Publicly Discrete Understanding the liturgy as the “public worship” of the “Mystical Body,”28 one may question the application of the word “liturgy” in the sense being employed in the marriage act. Thus, we may call the consummation of the marriage vows a “public” action, akin to the public worship of the Church, in the sense that when the couple takes up a common domicile, they are publicly witnessing to a consummated marriage in their living out of the Sacrament of Matrimony.29 And when they renew their marriage covenant in the oneflesh union, the act of marriage, they manifest the sacrament in a special way.

This notion fits with the Church’s

teaching on the sacraments. In the language of sacramental theology, “through the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit [the sacraments] make present efficaciously the grace that they signify” (CCC 1084). Since sexual “intercourse enacts in bodily form the unconditional promise and acceptance articulated by the couple in their wedding vows,” it is “genuinely sacramental” and liturgical in the sense previously asserted with regard to the liturgy: it completes and makes new the “consent that caused it.”30 So, just as the Paschal Mystery, renewed in the Eucharist, is “the mystery of the spousal union between Christ and the Church,”31 so too the mystery of marriage, renewed in the marriage act, is the union between spouses. By signifying the oath-sign in their enactment of the one-flesh union, the couple manifests the sacrament and opens itself to the renewal of the grace of the sacrament in their marriage.

Thus, the consent of the marriage liturgy continues to be spoken, but not so much in the verba solemnia of matrimonial consent, but in the language of the body. Because this language of the body is marital, and by its nature public, it approaches a true liturgical dimension as it renews the covenanting event of the couple’s marriage, which simultaneously draws its life and sacramentality from the Mystery of Christ’s union with his Bride. This liturgical dimension, Pope St. John Paul II asserts, “elevates the conjugal covenant of man and woman, which is based on the ‘language of the body’ reread in the truth, to the dimensions of the ‘mystery,’ and at the same time enables that covenant [of Christ and the Church] to be realized in these dimensions through the ‘language of the body.’”32 Thus, it is “from the words with which the man and the woman express their readiness to become ‘one flesh’ according to the eternal truth established in the mystery of creation, [that] we pass to the reality that corresponds to these words,”33 the conjugal act.

“ The establishing of the marital covenant is not only a liturgical action, but one that culminates in a bodily consummation that renders the bond, established in the liturgical action, indissoluble.”

Marital Bliss In this way, when a married couple employs the use of contraception in the act of marriage, they commit a form of liturgical abuse. That is, the couple explicitly rejects the possibility of children by “deliberately” frustrating the marital act “in its natural power to generate life,”34 the couple has altered its intent—no longer intending to carry out “the covenant of Holy Matrimony”35 they previously entered, liturgically and otherwise, on their wedding day.

There is constantly a tension between the wedding vows, the life lived on a daily basis, and the consummation of those wedding vows in the act of marriage. If the free, total, faithful, and fruitful love that Blessed Pope Paul VI speaks about in

9

AB/PIXABAY

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

The Order for Celebrating Matrimony asks the couple if they are “prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” Relatedly, Pope Paul VI, citing the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes, writes in Humanae Vitae, “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”

Humanae Vitae (9) fails to correspond to the oath-sign of the conjugal act, then the oath-sign itself becomes a sign of contradiction. What Paul VI saw so clearly, that the gnostic tendencies of our culture often obscure, is the nuptial dimension of the body: sexual difference, love, gift, and fruitfulness cannot be uncoupled without effectively uncoupling the couple. Or, to quote Janet E. Smith, sex is about “babies and bonding” (Janet E. Smith, “Contraception: Why Not?”).

We are currently seeing that as the unitive and procreative have been pulled apart, the reality of sexual difference is being pulled apart as well. Nevertheless, as couples strive to let their married love correspond to the act of marriage, families flourish. Not simply in producing more offspring, but as life lived corresponds to conjugal love, the married couple becomes a more perfect sign in the world of Christ and the Church. In his study Domestic Church: Biblical and Theological Foundations of the Family, Joseph Atkinson illustrates how the family functioned as the carrier of the covenant in the Old Testament, and so it is today in the New Covenant Church. True conjugal love, grounded in Christ’s covenant with the bridal Church, is the source of the familial fruitfulness that caused the pagans in Tertullian’s day to say, “‘See…how they love one another.’”36 It may seem strange to speak of contraception as a form of liturgical abuse. After all, isn’t every instance of sin a sort of liturgical abuse? Do we not break our baptismal vows every time we give over our will to the world, the flesh, or the devil? Still, marriage has a unique place among the sacraments—for in its essence, it demands a post-ritual consummation.

Thus, while many might argue that contraception is a “private affair” between two consenting adults, the public reality of marriage is underscored by the public effects not only of flourishing married love, but also of contraception—such as increased frequency of divorce, infidelity, and domestic violence—leading to the continued dissolution of marriage in our day (cf. CCC 1606–1608).

Therefore, given this predicament that modern marriage finds itself in,

the liturgical aspects of marriage are worth examining, not only to remind the faithful of the public dimension of marriage, but also to recall why, for the sake of all men born of women, Christ deemed marriage important enough to raise to the level of a sacrament in the first place.

Jeremy J. Priest is the Director of the Office of Family Life and Pro-Life Activities for the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, OK. He recently completed his STL at the Liturgical Institute of the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL. He and his wife Genevieve have two children and live in Tulsa.

1. Pius XI, Casti Connubii (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1930), §110, quoting St. Robert Bellarmine, De controversiis, tom. III, De Matr., controvers. II, cap. 6.

2. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1968), §14.

3. John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, trans. Michael Waldstein (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2006), 532 (TOB 103.2).

4. “Although Mary and Joseph were not two in one flesh, they were truly married, precisely in the sense that any bride and groom are married at the end of the wedding ceremony, when they have consented to marriage but not yet consummated it. The decision of Mary and Joseph not to consummate their marriage in no way violated the good of marriage. Moreover, even though their nonconsummated marriage never was ‘fully constituted as a marriage,’ it was a true and ongoing covenantal communion, which was uniquely fulfilled: by the fruit of Mary’s womb, to whom Joseph, her husband, truly became father by consenting to God’s will for their marriage.”

Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume Two: Living a Christian Life (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1997), 587. See also Thomas Aquinas, STh., III q.29 a.2.

5. S. Tamar Kamionkowski, “The Savage Made Civilized: An Examination of Ezekiel 16:8,” in “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, vol. 330, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 130–131.

6. Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 279.

7. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 251.

8. Ibid.

9. See Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 261–262.

10. John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 532 (TOB 103.2).

11. The Roman Ritual: The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, Second Typical Edition (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2016), §60–61.

12. Emphasis in the Latin text.

13. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue, 31.

14. Peter J. Leithart, Sacramental Theology, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), “Segment 4:

Sacraments of the Law: Circumcision.”

15. Michael Lawrence, “A Theology of Sex,” in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ (ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005), 137–38.

16. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue, 38.

17. Benedict XVI, Dogma and Preaching, 15–16.

18. Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Seewald, God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 170–171.

19. As Lawrence H. Schiffman notes, the recitation of the Shema‘Iśrāēl is alluded to in the Dead Sea Scrolls and is “the first topic of discussion in the Mishnah,” as well as being quoted by Jesus. Such usage confirms “the significance of the Shema in the Jewish practice of [Jesus’] time.” Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), “Shema,” by Lawrence H. Schiffman.

20. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 141.

21. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 180.

22. Kim Huat Tan, “The Shema and Early Christianity,” Tyndale Bulletin 59, no. 2 (2008): 190–191.

23. The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II, Third Typical Edition. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 336.

24. Second Vatican Council, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1992), no. 10.

25. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue, 38.

26. David W. Fagerberg, The Christian Meaning of Time: Feasts, Seasons and the History of Salvation (London: Catholic Truth Society, 2006), 59–60. It is particularly pertinent here to recall that the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer, particularly the anamnetic words, are spoken to the Father and are asking him to remember the covenantal actions of the Son. 27. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue, 38.

28. Pius XII, Mediator Dei (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1947), §20.

29. “Though in some sense a very private act, as [a] liturgical [act] sexual intimacy also completes and signifies the relation of the couple as ‘one flesh’ and is an enactment and recollection of their public commitment within the community of faith.” John S. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue: An Introduction to Sexual Ethics, Catholic Moral Thought, Volume 2 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press), 45.

30. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue, 46.

31. Angelo Scola, “Marriage and the Family Between Anthropology and the Eucharist: Comments in View of the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family,” Communio 41, no. 2 (Summer 2014), 208–225, at 211.

32. John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 613 (TOB 117b.2).

33. Ibid., 532 34. Pius XI, Casti Connubii (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1930), §58.

35. The Roman Ritual: The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, §61.

36. Tertullian and Minucius Felix, Apologetical Works and Octavius, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain, vol. 10, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 99.

10

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

Q A

LETTERS A Burning Question To the Editor, David L. Augustine’s insightful article, “The Altar Fire Returns,” presents some persuasive arguments about when the Lord’s Presence may have actually returned to the Temple, since the Ark of the Covenant did not return after the Babylonian exile.

While N.T. Wright’s argument that Christ’s triumphal entry at Holy Week and Matthias Scheeben’s argument that Gabriel’s words to Our Lady carry weight, why should we not assume that the exile ended precisely when the Lord’s Presence and the Ark of the Covenant did in fact return to the Temple: at the Presentation of the Baby Jesus by Mary?

As Wright argues, there will be divine signs when the exile has ended, “the divine fire descending from God’s glorious presence.” Here, at the Presentation, the Holy of Holies returns with manifestations of the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25-27), along with fire, the lumen ad revelationem gentium, and the glory, gloriam plebis tuae Israel (Luke 2:33). Furthermore, this manifestation of fire has been celebrated for thousands of years in one of the most ancient and beautiful of liturgical celebrations, Candlemas.

Sincerely in Christ, Father Greg J. Markey Shelton, CT David Augustine responds:

Father. Markey, Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful response to my article, “The Altar Fire Returns.” My response to your query as to whether the exile ended with Mary’s presentation of the child Jesus in the temple—and which is liturgically commemorated at Candlemas—is a resounding “yes, and....”

It seems to me that there are multiple layers of typological fulfillment at different stages in Christ’s life for the various types of the Old Testament. These levels of fulfillment are stacked on top of each other. At the most fundamental level, I agree with Scheeben. I think the level of fulfillment at the Annunciation is foundational for all other levels of Christological fulfillment of the Old Testament types. Every other level of fulfillment stands on the shoulders of the Incarnation. Moreover, the temple imagery connected with the Annunciation, I still maintain, lines up quite nicely with the return from exile imagery advocated by N.T. Wright.

That said, I think you are right to also connect the return from exile imagery with the Presentation and its liturgical counterpart in Candlemas.

I accept your suggestion wholeheartedly: the Presentation is a kind of illustration of what was accomplished at its deepest level in the Incarnation. And yet the hypostatic union is the more fundamental reality, containing in itself at its core what is illustrated when Mary and Joseph carry Jesus into Israel’s temple precincts. It is moreover in this vein

THE RITE QUESTIONS : When multiple chalices are used for Mass, must water be added to each chalice?

: Canon 924 §1 states that “The most holy Eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.” Further, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated in a letter dated April 30, 2012, that in the case of several chalices “it is sufficient” to add water only to the main celebrant’s chalice. Mixing water into all the chalices, however, “would not in any way be considered to be an abuse” (see Committee on Divine Worship Newsletter, May-June 2012).

The practice of mixing water with wine was commonplace among Mediterranean peoples and references are made by Homer and other ancient authors. Avoiding drunkenness was often given as the reason, and this view persisted throughout the centuries. The 15th century artist Piero del Pollaiolo’s depiction of Lady Temperance has her pouring a thin line of water into a jug of wine.

Though the practice has cultural and practical roots, the Church has long

Q A

held that in the context of the Mass there are several symbolic meanings.

The words spoken by the priest or deacon preparing the chalice are: “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”

The wine represents the Lord and the water represents the people, echoing the words of Revelation 17:15: “The waters that you saw where the harlot lives represent large numbers of peoples, nations and tongues.” Thus, the mingling symbolizes the divine Lord’s taking on our human flesh in the Incarnation. And so we hope, in the words of St. Peter, to “come to share in the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) through the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), in an epistle written to a Brother Cecil, expanded upon other theologically important meanings. Just as the water cannot be separated from the wine after mingling, so too “nothing can separate the Church…from Christ as long as it

clings and remains in undivided love.”

For this reason, St. Cyprian goes on to argue that the wine cannot be offered without the water or the water without wine any more than the water and flour can be offered alone and become the body Christ.

In a homily by St. Faustus of Riez (d. 495) we find that the meaning of the water and wine is not just a cultural tradition but is a necessary part of the rite from what we know of the Passion of Our Lord. “Blood and water flowed from his sacred side when he was pierced with the lance,” he wrote.

And the Council of Trent affirms this interpretation when it taught that the water is to be mixed into the wine (see Session XXII).

Though the roots of the practice may be cultural, the deeper theological meaning reminds us of how intimately our Savior loves us and invites us to participate in his divine life through the reception of his body and blood.

— Answered by Deacon Omar Gutierrez, Archdiocese of Omaha

: For the reception of Holy Communion, should there always be a paten?

: In both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite Mass, the Church assumes the use of the Communion plate; the paten is the vessel holding the hosts. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) includes the Communion

plate in the list of things to be prepared for Mass (see n. 118c). The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum also mentions it, citing GIRM, n. 118: “The Communion plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some

fragment of it falling” (n. 93). Neither document stipulates that is to be used specifically or only when Holy Communion is received on the tongue.

— From the April 2018 Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship Newsletter

that I accept Wright’s suggestion that the return happened at the cleansing of the temple, but there with an especial emphasis on the idea of Jesus’ ministry serving to cleanse Israel from the existing impediments to the divine indwelling.

As I note in the article, however, and still maintain, I also think that there is a further operative fulfillment of the outpouring of divine fire— intimately connected with the motif of indwelling, since the antitype to the Old Testament fire communicates the divine indwelling—with the outpouring of blood and water from Jesus’ side on the Cross, which is the Christological real-symbol for the events of Pentecost.

On Pentecost, in the celebration of the sacraments of initiation, and in the life of the Church more broadly,

the divine indwelling is communicated from head to members, and the end of exile from the divine presence is communicated to the mass of humanity insofar as human beings are incorporated into Christ, being sublated from our natural state by the action of the divine grace-fire imparted by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, as I intend to argue in a forthcoming work on this subject, this fire imagery too has a liturgical counterpart: the dispersal of the new fire of the Paschal Vigil from the Paschal Candle, Jesus Christ (the merits of his Passion being poured out via his resurrected humanity) to the candles held by the assembled congregation, whom he leads in procession from grace to glory.

In Christ, David L. Augustine

Help us help you, Adoremus!

Adoremus, I wish you would indicate when the $40 yearly subscription is due each year—as they used to do in St. Louis. On the paper’s address it indicated something like: “Your last subscription was paid on [date].”

Thank you, Jo Harsy Fargo, ND

Adoremus replies: Thank you, Jo, for the letter—and reminder.

Subscribers can find the date of their last donation immediately above their name on the mailing label on page one (see below example). We are grateful for your support!

11

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

Adoremus Thanks Millennium ($1,000+) 2 Anonymous

Jubiliee ($500+) Mrs. Alison J. Krutzig Big Lake, Minnesota Sustaining ($200+) Mr. David A. Bertocchi Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mr. Richard L. Corriveau New Freedom, Pennsylvania Mr. and Mrs. Robert Elder Annandale, Virginia Rev. Msgr. George E. Highberger Peoria, Arizona Mrs. Lucille E. Kelly Monroe, Wisconsin Mr. Anthony E. Nunes Lemoore, California Mr. Brian A. Ragen St. Louis, Missouri Dr. Michael Raybeck, MD New Orleans, Louisiana 2 Anonymous Patron ($100+) Mrs. Carole J. Adams Shingletown, California Mrs. Dorothy A. Agnew New Market, Alabama Noel Armstrong North Chesterfield, Virginia Mr. and Mrs. Daniel V. Atwood Woodstock, Connecticut Mr. and Mrs. John Barnes Manchester, New Hampshire Venry G. Batti Tulare, California Mr. Herman J. Belz Rockville, Maryland Msgr. William J. Blacet Mission, Kansas Miss Mary Rose Brandt Silverton, Oregon Fr. Richard E. Cannon Hopkinton, Massachusetts Rev. Eugene Casserly Pensacola, Florida Mr. Oswaldo Castro Potomac, Maryland Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. Christman Danville, Illinois

our donors for special gifts received in the past months. We are deeply grateful for your financial support of the work of Adoremus.

Fr. Peter Filipkowski Whiting, New Jersey

Fr. Richard O’Rourke Harker Heights, Texas

Fr. Rolando Silva Rogers City, Michigan

Mr. James Furey Tampa, Florida

Fr. Joseph Olczak Rockville, Connecticut

Mr. Kenneth Solak San Francisco, California

Fr. Fred R. Gaglia, Ph.D. Denver, Colorado

Dr. Luana Pesco-Koplowitz Plainville, New York

Mr. William G. Stoops. Jr. Richmond, Virginia

Mrs. Beverly A. Getzmeyer Rogers City, Michigan

Mr. Daniel L. Pratt Lake Frederick, Virginia

Fr. Edward S. Szymanski Timonium, Maryland

Mr. R.Jean Gray Excelsior, Minnesota

Mrs. Margaret D. Sant Wetumpka, Alabama

Mrs. Penelope C. Greene Somerset, Pennsylvania

Mr. and Mrs. Henry A. Schaedler Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Mr. and Mrs. Louis A. Terrenzio, Jr. Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania

Miss Diane Harris Middlesex, New York

Diane Schick Clinton Township, Michigan

Mr. David P. Helm Temecula, California

Mrs. Rita Z. Schulteis Germantown, Wisconsin

Edward Helmrich Larchmont, New York

Mary A. Seguin Alpena, Michigan

Mrs. Ann Howe St. Louis, Missouri

Mrs. Calvert Shenk Ann Arbor, Michigan

Mr. Hubert F. Johnson Louisville, Kentucky

Mrs. Charlotte Shuter Aurora, Indiana

Mrs. Carol Kahn Pearland, Texas Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Kasel Adams, Minnesota Dr. Louise J. Keating Cleveland Heights, Ohio Louise A. Keefe Wollaston, Massachusetts Rev. Daniel Ketter Marietta, Georgia Fr. Dennis W. Kleinmann Chantilly, Virginia Frederick Koester Annandale, Virginia Dr. Arthur M. Kunath Ft. Thomas, Kentucky Charlotte and Barry Le May San Jose, California Leslie and Zona Leger Rayne, Louisiana Fr. Paul Lehman Caldwell, New Jersey

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas P. Vacek East Bernard, Texas Mr. Kevin R. Walsh Yonkers, New York Mr. F. Gregory Walsh Ronkonkoma, New York Mr. Bradley L. Williams Indianapolis, Indiana 9 Anonymous

MEMORIAL FOR: LAWRENCE AND WILLIAM EHORN- Their family MILTON MANOUKIAN - Lorraine Manoukian CALVERT SHENK - His wife Ila IN THANKSGIVING MRS. ALISON J. KRUTZIG MARGARET D. SANT OTHER BRENNEN LEGER, HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION His grandparents

GOOD VOCATIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS LIFE Adoration Convent

Our special thanks to our Friends, Members, and to all our faithful monthly donors. May God bless each of you for your generosity. A Mass is said for all our donors each month.

We appreciate your prayers, and we remember you in ours.

Carolyn R. Lemon San Francisco, California Fr. Frank E. Lioi Auburn, New York Maureen A. Long Lindenhurst, Illinois Mrs. Theresa A. Manning Las Vegas, Nevada

Rev. Adam J. Cichoski Lindenwold, New Jersey

Dr. and Mrs. Patrick A. Metress Annandale, Virginia

Dr. and Mrs. Kermit Cromack, Jr. Corvallis, Oregon

Fr. James A. Mezydlo Chicago, Illinois

Mr. Daniel A. D’Agostino Triangle, Virginia

Mr. and Mrs. Anthony C. Muller North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Mr. Joseph M. Di Nallo New Hope, Pennsylvania

Lillian Nelson Los Gatos, California

Justin Dziowgo Omaha, Nebraska

Msgr. Joseph Nicolo Blue Bell, Pennsylvania

Mrs. Anne Englund-Nash Santa Margarita, California

Mrs. Shirley A. Norris Elwood, Illinois

Mrs. Pauline Ferris Newaygo, Michigan

Dr. Elke U. O’Donnell Cambridge, Massachusetts

Continued from USCCB on page 3

present format of the Breviary and give parish priests a breviary they can use?

Archbishop Gregory: Your Excellency, I think this touches on one of the [main] issues, namely, that the Holy See asks us to issue books that conform to the Latin editio typica.

It’s certainly possible that, after we have approved the official texts, we or another agency could put together, based on the approved texts, a more parish priest friendly edition [of the Breviary]. But I think right now we’re obliged to translate and put things in the order that the Roman editio typica has laid out. We can modify, and sometimes that has happened, those texts once they are officially recognized.

Bishop Robert Baker (Bishop of Birmingham, AL): Just following Bishop Trautman’s comments, I think there is a validity to what he asks.

My question would be on the hymns.

I know you’re going to revise those, and I just wonder if there is possible input on that ahead of time. In other words, what are we going to put in place of those [present] hymns? I think that might be problematic for diocesan priests.

Archbishop Gregory: Bishop, we will be sending in a future transmission the hymnody that has been laid out. We are also working on an appendix of hymns that might be available at the back of the Breviary. But we committed ourselves to using the hymns that are in the Latin texts [i.e., in the Latin typical edition], but we are also looking at additional hymns that we could use as part of an appendix.

The Latin Church members of the USCCB voted the next day 175-62 in favor of the ICEL Gray Book translation of the Liturgy of the Hours: Proper of Time for use in the dioceses of the United States.

12

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2018

By Father Gerald Dennis Gill Editor’s note: Liturgy is likened to a work of art, and the celebrant’s craft to an ars celebrandi, an “art of celebration.” Ars celebrandi, Pope Benedict says, is “the fruit of faithful adherence to the liturgical norms in all their richness” and “the primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 38). It denotes the skill and care with which the celebrant directs the liturgical celebration, for it is through the medium of the liturgy’s beautifully-executed signs and symbols that the saving person and work of Jesus shines forth.

Father Dennis Gill, Director of the Office for Divine Worship in Philadelphia and Rector of the Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul, begins here a series explaining the craft of the presider’s art.

Future entries by Father Gill will appear in the Bulletin and on the Adoremus website, www.adoremus.org.

“Good morning, and let us begin our prayer, ‘In the name of the Father…’.”

At times even with the most solemn of celebrations of the Eucharist, once the priest celebrant arrives at the chair, he first addresses the assembly with a friendly “Good morning!” Sometimes, he follows this with an introductory phrase to the Sign of the Cross, “Let us begin our prayer, ‘In the name of the Father….’” Most priests and most people may wonder why there is any question about the use of these two phrases. The more important question, however, is what does the celebration of Mass expect at this point that renders both phrases out of order?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the front matter that introduces the Roman Missal and directs the celebration of Mass, provides a theological description of the Introductory Rites—the Entrance Chant, the Greeting, the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Collect. “Their purpose is to ensure that the faithful

who come together as one, establish communion and dispose themselves properly to listen to the word of God and to celebrate the Eucharist worthily” (GIRM 46). All of the several elements of the Introductory Rites just listed act together to achieve this purpose. From the Entrance Chant through to the Collect, each element combines, one flowing into the next, to give this part of the Mass “the character of a beginning, an introduction and a preparation” (see GIRM 46).

For the priest celebrant to announce his “Good morning!” after the Entrance Chant is to puncture artificially what has already begun as far as the celebration of the Mass is concerned. The Entrance Chant reminds us that Christ assembles us—priest and people—to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries. All the faithful are united in some way with the priest as he reverences and venerates the altar, the centerpiece of the Eucharist, and incenses the signs of Christ’s Sacrifice, the altar and the cross, when this takes place. By this time, the beginning of the Mass is well underway; the preparation for the Word and Sacrifice has commenced.

What comes next does not allow for the “Good morning!” interruption, something colloquial or pedestrian, no matter how friendly or sincere. Rather, what comes next is our declaration of our baptismal prerogative to celebrate the Eucharist: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This is immediately followed by the greeting, “The Lord be with you. /And with your spirit,” or one of the other options, where “the mystery of the Church gathered together is made manifest (see GIRM 50).

So is there a fitting moment to say “Good morning!” to those assembled for Mass? For the priest celebrant, perhaps not “Good morning!”, but after the liturgical greeting and before the Penitential Act, a brief introduction to the Mass of the day is possible which can include a word of welcome to all (see GIRM 50 and Order of Mass 3).

Continued from PODCAST on page 7 thank for their success. Mark Balasa is a Catholic businessman and financial manager who helped co-found Balasa Dinverno Folz LLC, a wealth management firm located about 25 miles south of Mundelein in Itasca, IL. He and his wife Laurel Balasa provided the financial donation which made the Liturgy Guys podcasts possible.

“I often hear people say that young people leave the Catholic Church not because of what it stands for, but because they don’t know what it stands for,” Balasa says, explaining that he was attracted to the project through his acquaintance with the late Cardinal Francis George, who founded LI, and Father Douglas Martis, who served as its director during much of Cardinal George’s tenure as Archbishop of Chicago.

“It was part of Cardinal George’s initial mission for the institute. How do we re-evangelize and reeducate young Catholics in particular about the beauty of the faith, the liturgy, and the sacraments? Anything that can be done to broaden and support that mission, my wife and I believe, is time and money well spent. The Liturgy Guys fits that bill perfectly.”

Thanks to the Balasas’ generosity and the Liturgical Institute’s cooperation, when it came to drawing in a young listenership, the Liturgy Guys hit their mark— and hit it hard.

“Catholic college students are serious listeners,” McNamara says. “For instance, a group of students from Vanderbilt [in Nashville, TN] came up to a conference sponsored by the Liturgical Institute, and at the end they asked if they could get their picture taken with the Liturgy Guys. We had no idea college students were listening.”

But there’s more than the momentary frisson of fame that drives the Liturgy Guys to drive their liturgical points home. The program has also been a

AB/CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY

To Begin in the Beginning…

Liturgy is likened to a work of art, and the celebrant’s craft to an ars celebrandi, an “art of celebration.” The skill and care with which the celebrant directs the liturgical celebration is a key ingredient to revealing the saving person and work of Jesus.

Father Dennis Gill is Rector and Pastor of the Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia and the Director of the Office for Divine Worship for the Archdiocese. Father Gill completed his graduate studies in Sacred Liturgy at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of St. Anselmo in Rome. In addition to multiple parish assignments, Father Gill served a fiveyear term as the Director of Liturgy at

transformative experience for their listeners.

“This next generation of 20-year olds are learning about liturgy,” McNamara says, “and are really into it and that’s important because they’re going to have kids to pass this love for the liturgy on to the next generation.”

According to Balasa, the success also has some help from the heavenly realities which the Liturgy Guys have made their bailiwick.

“Why are these podcasts so successful?” he asks.

“Because the Holy Spirit is helping us to find ways to reach those people not in the pews and helping those same people to get into pews.”

The young people attending the Liturgy Guys’ live broadcast in April, saw—and heard—why the Liturgy Guys are so effective. UW-Madison junior Aaron Siehr never heard the Liturgy Guys before that night, but through an invitation from a friend attended the evening’s broadcast, which helped him see why the liturgy is central to the Catholic experience.

“I’ll steal Bishop Barron’s idea—he says that beauty is the arrowhead of evangelization,” Siehr says. “The liturgy is an opportunity for people to encounter the Church in a beautiful way, and if they’re drawn to that beauty at first, it makes them easier to be intellectually and spiritually stimulated to go deeper into the Church’s teachings.”

Assistant Faculty Associate Tracey Reitz teaches chemistry at UW-Madison, but it was The Liturgy Guys’ chemistry that brought her to The Brink.

“I like how they spoke about lectio divina as a conversation between God and me,” she says. “At the end of the conversation, if you’re talking with a friend, you usually make a resolution—when are we going to talk next? It’s the same thing with God. The liturgy helps us see that. I like how the Liturgy Guys put it in realistic terms.”

the Pontifical North American College in Rome. He is professor of Sacred Liturgy at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary and lectures on the sacred liturgy throughout the country. Father Gill is author of Music in Catholic Liturgy: A Pastoral and Theological Companion to Sing to the Lord and the forthcoming book, Ars Celebrandi: An Artful and Careful Celebration of the Eucharist, both available from Hillenbrand Books.

Taking God’s Call As such talk is true of God so it is for the Liturgy Guys—and for those with ears to hear, the Liturgy Guys’ podcast chatter brings to mind another sort of three-way conversation….

Chris: Think of the dynamics of what happens at the Liturgy of the Word at Sunday Mass. God is speaking to us through the Old Covenant, but it’s a little unclear and shadowy. Then we turn around in the Psalm and speak back to God, although it’s not in our own words, but in the words of the Psalm. And then God speaks back to us in the epistle, the gospel, and homily. We next speak back to God when we recite the Creed, and offer our petitions. The dynamic that’s happening is this back and forth conversation…

Denis: The words of the liturgy are from God, to God, and about God. Chris: This is what’s so beautiful about what God has done. When two people are having a conversation…

Jesse: Or three!

Chris: Right. Just think of the dynamics of what happens in salvation. God the Father speaks a word—Jesus is actually the Word—and man hears it. Then Jesus, who is fully man, he reciprocates on behalf of man (which he is), the Word (which he is), to God (which he is).

Jesse: But that’s like the game telephone, and we all know what happens when we play that game…

Chris: No, God can’t play telephone. He’s God so he gets the conversation right all the time. He’s the speaker, the receiver and the Word that goes between them. This is an easy and substantial conversation especially for ears that know how to hear….