Adoremus Bulletin - July 2021 Issue by Adoremus Bulletin

Adoremus Bulletin For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

JULY 2021

U.S. Bishops to Draft Teaching Document on Eucharist By Christine Rousselle and Matt Hadro WASHINGTON, D.C (CNA)—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to move forward on several action items, including a draft of a teaching document on the Eucharist. Meeting virtually for their annual spring general assembly, June 16-18, the U.S. bishops voted on the second day of the meeting to begin drafting “a formal statement on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church.” The vote took place after extensive and, at times, spirited debate on Wednesday and Thursday, with some bishops opposing the move to begin drafting the document. Bishops supporting the vote to draft a document on the Eucharist cited the need for providing clarity and catechesis on the matter, citing polls showing a lack of belief in the Real Presence among Catholics. They argued that all Catholics—including Catholic politicians—must be aware of the Church’s teaching on worthiness to receive Communion. Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chair of the doctrine committee which proposed drafting the document, explained the committee’s reasoning behind the proposal June 17. Saying the document was the “subject of misunderstanding and even mischaracterization,” he said that bishops had been concerned about a “downward trend” in Mass attendance and a decline in faith among Catholics, coupled with a widespread move to “spiritual communion” and virtual Masses during the recent pandemic.

Adoremus PO Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385

Non- Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Madelia, MN Permit No. 4

Please see DRAFT on next page

The Rite Way to Understand a Church Building:

Theology of the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar By Denis McNamara

or nearly a century, Catholic churches and the faithful who use them have frequently been the collateral damage in architectural and theological debates. Even as early as the 1920s, the Modernist polemic argued that all buildings in a modern age should use the factory as their prototype, and therefore churches should use glass, steel, and concrete to conform to a perceived industrial spirit of the age. By the 1950s and 60s, ideas about participation drawn from the Liturgical Movement had become widespread, focusing at times on practical considerations of the altar, ambo, baptistery, and seating arrangements to the detriment of the larger sacramental meaning of the church building itself.1 By the 1970s, a body of bishops could publish the claim that a church building was a “cover enclosing architectural space” which “need not ‘look like’ anything else, past or present.”2 From the 1980s through early 2000s, the church building was frequently redefined as a large domestic interior, with furnishings and finishes meant to evoke a secular home, called an “environment,” that privileged a climate of hospitality.3 In recent years, the revival of traditional architecture has brought more traditional looking churches, often rightly supported by an appeal to the example of antiquity, the splendor due to God, or the dignity of worship. But arguments for the use of traditional architecture have frequently overlooked the biblical and sacramental nature of church buildings. Interestingly, the Church herself provides texts related to church architecture which qualify as theologia prima, that is, a first-order or primary source from which other theological conclusions are drawn. Theologian David Fagerberg has written extensively on how the law of prayer is itself theologia prima, a fount and source of theology.4 While norms and laws given in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the Code of Canon Law have been occasional touchstones in recent church design, the Church’s liturgical books provide the most important repository of her liturgical theology, and, consequently, the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar (ODCA)

Adoremus Bulletin JULY 2021

AB/ CLARK ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATIVE3. ST THOMAS AQUINAS NEWMAN CENTER, LINCOLN, NE

News & Views

XXVII, No.1

Reading the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar makes clear that the church building is more than a factory, a meeting house, an environment, a space, or a living room of God. Rather, it is a sacrament of the glorified Mystical Body of Christ.

“ Arguments for the use of traditional architecture have frequently overlooked the biblical and sacramental nature of church buildings.” reveals the Church’s own mind on the nature of her architecture. In other words, theologia prima leads to understanding the nature of things, and reading the ODCA makes clear that the church building is more than a factory, a meeting house, an environment, a space, or a living room of God. Rather,

it is a sacrament of the glorified Mystical Body of Christ. “Special Image of the Church” The opening decree promulgating the OCDA calls the church building “a special image of the Church, which is God’s temple built from living stones.” Accordingly, the very first words introducing the ritual for laying the foundation stone urge that the faithful “be reminded that the structure to be built of stone will be a visible sign of the living Church, God’s building, which they themselves constitute”(1).5 It then footnotes two sources. The first, 1 Corinthians 3:9, calls the Church in Corinth “God’s building.” The second note refers to paragraph 6 of the Please see CHURCH & ALTAR on page 4

Building Rite Up Churches aren’t simply built from the ground up, but, as Denis McNamara notes in his theological look at the dedication rites for church buildings, they are models of heaven above..................................................1

Quiet, Please: God at Work Silence can often speak louder than words, and that’s exactly why, according to Benedictine Father Boniface Hicks, the Church includes some quiet time in her liturgy...................................................................7

One, Two, Three…Liturgy! All the best things in Catholicism come in threes—starting with the Trinity, of course, but also, as Chris Carstens explains, including the main ingredients for doing liturgy right..3

Laity: Call Your Office In an exciting sequel to last issue’s take on idle time, Anthony Alt makes the case for the Divine Office as the perfect way to keep a pray light on during your off-hours.........................8

Interior Altar-ations Father Dylan Schrader says that when it comes to the altar, we can do Mass backwards, or we can get squarely behind the benefits of celebrating sacred liturgy ad orientem............6

Mass Culture Joseph O’Brien reviews a new book on Dom Gueranger and how he made rescuing culture look easy: renew liturgy—restore plainchant—rejuvenate monasticism............12

2 Continued from DRAFT, page 1 “We are all concerned about the faithful’s absence from parish life,” he said, warning that many Catholics might not return to Mass in the coming months. Rhoades cited surveys to make his point. According to a 2019 report by the Pew Research Center, only 31% of Catholics surveyed said they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. While the document does address worthiness to receive Communion, he said, it is not meant to be about one individual or one particularly bad action, but rather a “heightened” awareness of the need for Catholics to be conformed to the Eucharist. Other bishops opposed the move to draft such a document. Some argued that in addressing worthiness to receive Communion—especially among pro-abortion Catholic politicians—the bishops would be seen as partisan actors. Citing the current “political rancor,” Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento argued against drafting a document including a section on worthiness to receive Communion. Archbishop Paul Etienne of Seattle expressed concern that the Eucharist, the “source of our life and charity and unity is now enmeshed in a conversation about politics, and that’s a very difficult place for us to be.” Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington—Biden’s ordinary in the nation’s capital—expressed the need for unity and in-person dialogue. “The choice before us at this moment, is either we pursue a path of strengthening unity among ourselves, or settle for creating a document that may not bring unity, but may well further damage it,” he said. Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago argued that it would be obvious the document would be referring to particular Catholic politicians and their worthiness to receive Communion. “I don’t know how we get around that, if we pass on this document,” he said. Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego said that such a document would be divisive because it would be seen as political in stating the Church’s teaching on worthiness to receive Communion, especially among Catholics in public life. “We will invite all of the political animosities that so tragically divide our nation” into the Mass, he said, which would then become a “sign of division.” Yet some bishops disputed that a document outlining Church teaching would bring about disunity. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas said he was “somewhat amused” by those bishops who warned the conference was “rushing” into such a debate. Worthiness to receive Communion is not just about abortion, he said, as politicians supporting other grave evils such as human trafficking or racism could also be unworthy to receive. “It’s really some of our public officials” who prompted the debate about Communion by approaching the altar rail while supporting policies contrary to Church teaching, he said, not the bishops themselves. “Those who advocate for abortion no longer talk in the language of choice. They talk about it as a right,” he said, noting Biden’s support for taxpayer-funded abortion. “We’re calling everybody to integrity, including those in public life,” he said. Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane said that “we can’t have unity if we’re not rooted in truth.” He responded to bishops’ calls to wait on considering the document until they can dialogue with each other and with politicians. “This call for dialogue: sometimes I wonder if the dialogue is meant not truly to listen, but to delay,” he said. “All of us want what’s best for the people we serve,” he said, pointing to the “salvation of the souls.” Bishop James Wall of Gallup stressed the need for clarity from the bishops on the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. “I just make a plea on behalf of a poorer diocese,” he said. “We rely upon the work of the conference,” he said, noting that a teaching document would be “very helpful to me, to my priests, to religious, to the lay faithful.” “If the world really understood” the Real Presence, he said, bishops could double all Masses at parishes and still not have enough room for attendees. Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler stressed the need for a connection between confession and Communion. The measure passed by a vote of 168 to 55, with six abstentions. A simple majority was required for passage of the action item. The U.S. bishops’ doctrine committee will now lead the process of drafting the document, with input from other conference committees. A draft of the document could be ready to be debated, amended, and voted on by the bishops at their November meeting— which is currently planned to be held in-person in Baltimore, Maryland. Results of voting for the various action items of the spring meeting were announced on June 18, the third and final day of the meeting. The bishops also authorized the

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

NEWS & VIEWS

development of a statement on Native American ministry, approved several liturgical translations, and approved a pastoral statement on marriage ministry. They also held a canonical consultation on two causes of canonization, for Servant of God Father Joseph Verbis LaFleur, and Servant of God Marinus (Leonard) LaRue. The bishops voted overwhelmingly to “consider it opportune to advance on the local level” their causes of canonization. Three action items concerned the approval of ICEL translations of readings and prayers for the feast of Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, as well as translations of prayers and intercessions for the Liturgy of the Hours and a translation of the Order of Penance. The action items passed by a vote of 188 to 2, 186 to 3 (with one abstention), and 182 to 6 (with two abstentions), respectively. The items required two-thirds of all Latin Church bishops present to vote in favor of approval. Adoremus editors compiled CNA reporting of the USCCB Spring Assembly for this story.

Pope Names Archbishop Roche as Cardinal Sarah’s Successor By Courtney Mares

VATICAN CITY (CNA)—Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche on May 27 as the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Roche, the current secretary for the congregation, succeeds Cardinal Robert Sarah, who served as its prefect for six years until the pope accepted his resignation in February at the age of 75. The Vatican announced the English archbishop’s appointment along with the nomination of Italian Bishop Vittorio Francesco Viola of Tortona as the congregation’s secretary and Spanish monsignor Aurelio García Marcías as under-secretary. Archbishop Roche, 71, has worked in the divine worship congregation since his appointment by Benedict XVI in 2012. He was an auxiliary bishop of the English Diocese of Westminster from 2001 to 2002, when he was named coadjutor bishop of Leeds in West Yorkshire. He served as bishop of Leeds from 2004 to 2012, with his tenure marked by controversy over church closures. He was also chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) from 2002 to 2012, helping to oversee a new translation of the Roman Missal. In recent years, Archbishop Roche has acted as a gobetween for the pope and Cardinal Sarah in liturgical issues. He was entrusted with writing a commentary to the 2017 motu proprio Magnum principium, which shifted the responsibility of translating liturgical texts to bishops’ regional and national conferences. The commentary came out along with the publication of the motu proprio. Pope Francis accepted Cardinal Sarah’s resignation on February 20. The Guinean cardinal, who turned 75 in June 2020 and was the most senior African prelate at the Vatican, was appointed head of the liturgy department in 2014. Italian media reported that the pope asked the Italian Bishop Claudio Maniago to carry out a visitation at the Vatican congregation shortly after Cardinal Sarah’s departure. The congregation’s newly appointed secretary, Bishop Viola, 55, is a Franciscan. He served as custodian of the Papal Basilica of St. Mary of the Angels in Assisi and former president of Assisi Caritas before Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Tortona, northern Italy, in 2014. Bishop Viola is also a good friend of Bishop Domenico Sorrentino of Assisi, who was secretary of the divine worship congregation from 2003 to 2005. With this latest appointment, Pope Francis is conferring the title of archbishop upon Bishop Viola. Msgr. Aurelio García Marcías, 56, has worked as the head of the office of the divine worship congregation since 2016. Originally from Pollos, Spain, he was ordained

Adoremus Bulletin

Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy PHONE: 608.521.0385 WEBSITE: www.adoremus.org MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS & CHANGE OF ADDRESS: info@adoremus.org

a priest for the Archdiocese of Valladolid in 1992 and holds a licentiate in philosophy from the University of Salamanca and a Ph.D. in Liturgy from the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant’Anselmo in Rome.

Pope Francis to Restrict Traditional Mass? By Andrea Gagliarducci

VATICAN CITY (CNA)—The Congregation for the Divine Worship might soon issue a document modifying some of the provisions of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, a source within the congregation told CNA. Rumors about possible restrictions imposed on Summorum Pontificum spread recently after the Pope had a closed-door Q&A with the members of the Italian bishops conference gathered in Rome for their annual plenary assembly. Speaking with the bishops, the pope indeed hinted at new regulations about the celebrations of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, although he did not get into details, two bishops attending the conference told CNA. According to the sources, the pope did say that a third draft of the document is currently under study. With Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI universally liberalized the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of St. John XXIII. In the letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio in 2007, Benedict XVI established that “in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” He added, “I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal [that of 1962] was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.” According to CNA’s source at the Congregation for the Divine Worship, the modifications to Summorum Pontificum would restore the need to get consent from the local bishop to celebrate it. The source said that this and other possible changes “have been requested by some local bishops, complaining about the need to better regulate the conditions for celebrating the Mass in the Ancient Rite.” The source said that the most common complaint is that “sometimes, the group of people requesting the Vetus Ordo is tiny, and adding such celebration and keeping the church open for such small amount of people can be troublesome in dioceses with priests’ shortage.” In 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a nine-point questionnaire about Summorum Pontificum to the presidents of bishops’ conferences worldwide, since the Pope wished to be “informed about the current application” of the motu proprio. But the document restricting the Extraordinary Form will not come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) but from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. One of the proposals on the table is to require that priests who want to celebrate the Traditional Mass will have to establish a specific community at a specific church. CNA’s source said that the first two drafts of the document ended up being “too tough” on the priests and faithful devoted to the Vetus Ordo. The third revision, according to the source, takes more into account “the possibility that restrictive regulations might be perceived as a step back in the path of the liturgical harmony desired by Benedict XVI.” The source said that completing the last draft and preparing it for publication is the task the new undersecretary of the congregation, Msgr. Aurelio García Marcías, Msgr. García will be consecrated a bishop next month, a dignity not typically given to undersecretaries. According to CNA’s source, this unusual decision might mean that Pope Francis is inclined to move the competencies on communities attached to the Traditional Latin Mass from the CDF to Divine Worship. EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher WEBSITE AND TECHNOLOGY: Matt Korger MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond SOCIAL MEDIA: Jesse Weiler INQUIRIES TO THE EDITOR P.O. Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 editor@adoremus.org

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky = Helen Hull Hitchcock The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

AB/ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON ON FLICKR.

Three Essential Ingredients for a Perfect Liturgy By Christopher Carstens, Editor

rofessional liturgists are often rightly accused of overemphasizing ritual details: the number of swings of a thurible, the precise placement of candles on the altar, or the manner of tying a cincture. While exactitude in such matters is not itself a fault (says this “professional liturgist”), losing the bigger liturgical picture in striving for such exactitude is. Ritual and rubrical precision are not ends in themselves: rather, they serve a greater reality. So, lest one get lost in the liturgical weeds, it is helpful from time to time, especially during this time of summer vacation and opportunities for human recreation, to take a step back and look with fresh eyes at what happens in the liturgy: what are its most basic structures? What, in fact, is the liturgy? Adoremus Bulletin has been publishing solid liturgical information and commentary for 27 years now. Still, despite this track record, the essence of the liturgy can continue to be a slippery thing. In fact, by way of illustration, explain to your spouse, friend, or coworker—or even yourself—in 50 words or less, what the liturgy is. How did you do? The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, offers a concise definition early in the document, one that we can examine with much benefit now. “The liturgy,” it says, “is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members” (7). Within this definition or description, we see three persons, or group of persons, involved in the liturgy, whose work in its celebration can clarify our big-picture look at the liturgical landscape. First, the liturgy is an “exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ.” Here is the essence of the liturgy—the work of Christ the High Priest. Jesus, in cooperation with Father and Spirit, is the Prime Minister of the liturgy, its principal actor. His “priestly office” or work is nothing other than his Paschal Mystery—his suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension—by which he passed from the fallen world of sin to the glorious heaven of the Father. His passage, in fact, has bridged earth to heaven, so that now we too can cross over with him. The Trinitarian bridge-building project stands beneath (is the sub-

While few liturgists would deny the importance of the art of swinging a thurible, no liturgist—nor any baptized person—can overlook the overall structure of the liturgy, which is a grand cooperation between the Trinity, the priest and his ministers, and the faithful.

stance) of every liturgy: the Mass, sacraments, sacramentals, Liturgy of the Hours, funerals. What’s more, it is done perfectly every time: whereas you or I may have a bad day on the job, Christ always works perfectly. Hence, from this angle, every liturgy is absolutely perfect. Second, this “priestly office of Jesus Christ” is made present to us “by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs.” That is, Jesus’ priestly work of reconciliation carried out in the flesh some 2,000 years ago has been turned into—clothed in, as it were—rites and sacraments. St. Leo the Great famously put it this way: “What was visible in our Savior has passed into his sacraments.” But it is not simply the seven sacraments that make Jesus and his work present to us today, even though these are the most privileged channels. Every liturgical element— such as swinging thuribles, properly placed candles, and tied cinctures—reveal, even if in a smaller way, Christ. This liturgical and sacramental manifestation of Christ is principally the work of the priest-celebrant and the ministers who assist him and the assembly. The Church likens this task to a work of art—an ars celebrandi, or “art of celebrating”—where the Father’s true masterpiece, Jesus, is displayed before the praying Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A perfect liturgy (perhaps “less imperfect” in practice is the better way to say it) thus finds priest and ministers celebrating with humility, devotion, and obedience to the Church’s ritual books. Third, the definition found in Sacrosanctum Concilium tells us that the liturgy is celebrated “by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.” As we saw above, the priest-celebrant occupies a

privileged place among the praying Church, standing in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis). But a head without a body is as lifeless as a body without a head: the members of Christ’s body, each of the baptized, join with the head in actively participating in the “priestly exercise of Jesus Christ.” And while the priest captains the liturgical celebration with mind and heart, the faithful—each according to his or her ability, be it the eight-day-old newly baptized infant or the octogenarian grandmother—engage fully, consciously, and actively in the liturgical rite, and not, as Pius XII said in his 1955 encyclical on liturgical music, like “like dumb and idle spectators” (Musicae Sacrae, 64). In short, there are three bodies of liturgical actors who reveal the essence of the liturgy: 1) the Trinity, 2) the priest and his ministers, and 3) the faithful. The Trinity always works perfectly; unfortunately, the human actors work less so. The priest’s ars celebrandi shines when following the Church, but is lackluster when it follows his personal inclinations; likewise, the faithful’s sanctity and worship excel when actively participating with intelligence, but fall flat when we become too passive during a liturgical celebration. This liturgical look at the big picture is always helpful, even necessary, to bear in mind, but especially so as we free ourselves from the many COVID-inspired restrictions that wormed their way into so many aspects of the liturgical rite. Ceremonial details are important—God is in the details—but so too is keeping our eyes fixed on the larger truth of the matter: that the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ is substantially present to the praying Church in 2021. How perfect!

On the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar

atholic liturgical and sacramental theology is not abstract. Emulating the model of the incarnate Christ, it is concrete and tangible, existing in signs perceptible to the senses. The Church’s theology of church buildings, for example, finds sacramental expression in particular rites, specifically those found in the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar. Since these orders of celebration are used on relatively rare occasions—when new churches, chapels, and altars need to be initiated or inaugurated—many Catholics will never witness them, which is unfortunate, as these beautiful rites are among the Church’s most impressive ceremonies. Whether or not you have participated in any of the rites of the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar, see what treasures the following quiz might uncover for you the next time you enter your church and sacrifice at its altar. 1. The Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar (ODCA) belongs properly to: a. The Rituale Romanum (“Roman Ritual”). b. The Pontificale Romanum (“Roman Pontifical”). c. The Antiphonale Romanum (“Roman Antiphonal”). d. The Missale Romanum (“Roman Missal”). 2.Which of the following rites was added to the ODCA upon its revision following the Second Vatican Council? a. Rite for laying a foundation stone. b. Rite for blessing a sacristy. c. Rite for blessing a new welcoming area or reception hall. d. Rite of blessing a church building already in use. e. Rite of blessing a new baptistery.

3. True or False: Mass can be celebrated on an altar even before it is dedicated or blessed. 4. During the celebration of “The Order of the Dedication of a Church,” the first reading must always come from: a. Genesis 1:1–2:2. On the creation of heaven and earth. b. Exodus 26:1-30. On the instructions given to Moses for erecting the tent in the wilderness. c. 1 Kings 8:1-21. On the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. d. Nehemiah 8:1-10. On the reading of the law in the Temple following the return from Babylon. e. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. On the Mystical Body of Christ. 5. At the celebration of “The Order of Laying a Foundation Stone or the Commencement of Work on the Building of a Church,” what distinguishing feature marks the site? a. The papal flag stands near the doors of the future church building. b. A chair for the presiding bishop occupies its approximate location in the future church. c. A cross is placed where the future altar will be built. d. The perimeter of the future sanctuary is marked out and the ministers carry out their roles from within this approximate “footprint” of the future church’s sanctuary. 6. True or False: the ODCA sees the parish pastor of the new church or altar as the normative minister of the rite. 7. Which of the following ODCA rubrics guides the use of relics in altars? a. Relics must be those of martyrs; relics of non-martyr saints are not allowed.

b. Relics must be of such a size as to be recognizable as parts of human bodies. c. Relics must be inset into an altar stone, which is itself placed within the top of the altar. d. Relics may only be obtained from the Holy See’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints so that the relics' authenticity may be guaranteed. 8. True or False: In order to highlight the dignity of the baptized faithful, the current ODCA envisions that the walls of the nave be anointed with sacred chrism, the same oil used following the baptism of infants and adults. 9. Chapter III of the ODCA, “The Order of the Dedication of a Church in Which Sacred Celebrations Are Already Regularly Taking Place,” may only be used if: a. The diocesan bishop determines that the church building merits a re-dedication. b. The cost of the renovation or addition is more than 25% of the total appraised value of the church building. c. The altar of the church building is new and has not yet been dedicated. d. The church building has never been previously dedicated or consecrated. 10. Which of the following rites for the dedication of an altar is most significant: a. Depositing of relics. b. Anointing the table (mensa) of the altar. c. Prayer of dedication. d. Celebration of the Eucharist upon the altar. e. Completing canonical documents. Please see ANSWERS on page 11

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

AB/BERTKNOT ON FLICKR. ST. JOSEPH CHURCH, BRACKEN RIDGE, AUSTRALIA

For nearly a century, Catholic churches and the faithful who use them have frequently been the collateral damage in architectural and theological debates. Even as early as the 1920s, the Modernist polemic argued that all buildings in a modern age should use the factory as their prototype, and therefore churches should use glass, steel, and concrete to conform to a perceived industrial spirit of the age such as this Catholic church exhibits.

God dwelled in the world. Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, sacramentally manifests Christ’s glory, is made of many members, and renders Christ present in the world. The church building follows suit: it is made of many architectural members rightly assembled which become a “sign of the living Church” brought to glory. Church building, then, is not a mere pleasant nicety, but an integral part of Christian revelation which God builds through us, as the ritual itself recalls: “you entrust the construction of sacred buildings to your faithful… grant that they may grow into the temple of your glory…assembled by your hand in the heavenly city” (LFS, 30). Just as the Father builds the Mystical Body through Christ, he builds church buildings through his Church, and they signify Christ’s Body in the world.

“ Church building is not a mere pleasant nicety, but an integral part of Christian revelation which God builds through us.” The introduction goes further in elucidating the true nature of the church building, calling it a “special sign of the pilgrim Church on earth and an image of the Church dwelling in heaven” (DC, 2). Here is explained the broad meaning of Christ’s Mystical Body and the full liturgical assembly in general: it includes and signifies the people assembled in the earthly pews and those brought to heavenly glory: the angels and saints. Fittingly, the Introduction also paraphrases Sacrosanctum Concilium 122, noting the building should be “a sign and symbol of heavenly realities” (DC, 3). In sacramental theology, a sign points to another reality somewhere else, while a symbol makes present and active the reality it signifies, meaning that the church building is not simply a reminder of the nature of Christ’s Mystical Body but is expected to rise to the level of sacrament, broadly conceived. And the implications are clear. God’s earthly people are meant to grow into membership in this body through the sacraments of the Church, and the church building foreshadows the glorified unity of heaven and earth which awaits them at the end of time. AB/LAWRENCE OP ON FLICKR. THE FORERUNNERS OF CHRIST WITH SAINTS AND MARTYRS, BY FRA ANGELICO.

Continued from CHURCH & ALTAR, page 1 Second Vatican Council’s document Lumen Gentium, which aptly summarizes this analogous relationship between Christ, the Church, and the church building: “Often the Church has also been called the building of God. The Lord Himself compared Himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles, and from it the Church receives durability and consolidation. This edifice has many names to describe it: the house of God in which dwells His family; the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This Temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Holy Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. As living stones, we here on earth are built into it” (6). Accordingly, the very first prayer in the ODCA asks that the people present may “grow into the temple of [God’s] glory” in the context of a church building because “places of worship built out of stone” signify that very reality (LFS, 13). The operative theological word here is temple, a building which serves primarily as the place where God dwells with his people, but secondarily as a building outside of fallen time and space which presents a microcosm of glorified, restored creation.6 In the Old Testament, the Temple of Solomon was a carefully designed building composed of costly stones perfectly assembled (1 Kings 5:15), and people marveled that its stones were so finely cut as to need no mortar. To enter the Temple was to leave the earth, return to the glorified Garden, and stand in the restorative Presence of God. The Temple was also called the “house” of God, not because it resembled domestic structures, but because God chose to dwell there with his people, much as the genealogical line of Christ was called the “house” of David. The Temple’s fulfillment occurs when Christ says, “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” followed by the author’s explanation: “but he spoke of the temple of his body” (John 2:19-21). Christ, then, was the new and perfect “place” where God dwelled with his people, particularly after the Resurrection, where Christ’s body was radiant with divine life. And the Church, which continues Christ’s mission in the world and so “is” Christ, shares a similar structure. Under Christ’s headship, its many members assemble perfectly and make Christ—that is, God’s Presence—known in the world. For this reason, Paul could describe the members of the Church as both “God’s building” and Christ’s Mystical Body (1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 12: 12-31; Colossians 1:18). 1 Peter 2:5 similarly urges Christians to be like living stones built into a spiritual house. The comparison is clear: Christ’s own personal body was glorified, made of many members, and through it

temple of God built of living stones.” The unambiguous ontological conclusion follows: “Rightly, therefore, from ancient times the name ‘church’ has also been given to the building in which the Christian community is gathered to hear the Word of God, to pray together, to take part in the sacraments, and to celebrate the Eucharist“ (DC, 1). Here the theologia prima available in the Church’s liturgical books leaves no room for ambiguity, decimating the common mantra that the Church is only truly the people, so therefore the church building has no value beyond practical necessity.7 It also invalidates the commonly used anti-sacramental terms “environment” and “space” for church buildings. According to the Church’s own books, the church building is a tangible, material sign of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the space that it encloses takes its character from its tangibility determined by the decisions of its architect. As an image of the glorified Mystical Body of Christ, it is, like Christ’s own person, “at once the house of God and the house of the People of God” (LFS, 22).8

Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, sacramentally manifests Christ’s glory, is made of many members, and renders Christ present in the world. The church building follows suit: it is made of many architectural components rightly assembled which become a “sign of the living Church” brought to glory.

Unambiguous Claims The theology of the church building is developed and unambiguously presented in the introduction to Chapter II of the ODCA, under the heading, “The Nature and Dignity of Churches.” The word “nature” is a flashing light in ecclesiastical documents, telling the reader about the fundamental meaning of the mystery celebrated. Citing John 2:21, the introduction reads: “Through his Death and Resurrection, Christ became the true and perfect temple of the New Covenant and gathered a people to be his own” (“The Order of the Dedication of a Church” (DC), 1). In other words, Christ perfectly fulfilled God’s promise to dwell on earth with his people and make them one with the Father. Importantly, it notes that “this holy people…is the Church, that is, the

Liturgical Prayers as Theologia Prima The prayers and readings of the Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar overflow with theological content, from the prayer at the laying of a foundation stone which speaks of the “holy Church” as “built on the foundation of the Apostles with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone” (LFS, 17) to the readings from the Book of Kings on Solomon’s Temple (LFS, 19) to Isaiah prophesying of the coming of Christ as the “precious cornerstone as a sure foundation” (LFS, 19). The Universal Prayer for the laying of a foundation stone takes a sweeping biblical view, asking God to “gather his scattered children” (LFS, 30) in an echo of his gathering the tribes of Israel. These scattered children are like the uncut stones scattered across a building site, waiting to be

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

“hewn and dressed by God’s hand” (LFS, 30) and become ready to be assembled into the building itself. This sheds light on 1 Peter 2:5, in which Christians are equated with “living stones being built up as a spiritual house.” But the greatest richness of theological content lies, perhaps, in the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer in the liturgy of the dedication of the church itself (DC, 75). In five short sentences, it summarizes the entire theology of the church building, beginning by explaining why churches exist at all. While acknowledging that God has “made the whole world a temple” of his glory so that his name “might everywhere be extolled,” the first sentence notes that church buildings are permitted by God’s graciousness: “you allow us to consecrate to you apt places for the divine mysteries.” The word “consecrate” traditionally indicates that things pass “from common or profane order to a new state, and become the subjects or the instruments of Divine protection.”9 Unlike the homogenous space of the world, the space inside a consecrated church is made “apt,” or especially fitting, for the celebration of God’s own saving work. And so, the second sentence notes, this “house of prayer, built by human labor” is dedicated joyfully to God’s majesty. As the prayer continues, it makes two further claims: “here is foreshadowed the mystery of the true Temple, here is prefigured the image of the heavenly Jerusalem.” The word “mystery” can be translated as sacrament. The “true Temple,” of course, carries multiple meanings, but in each case, it signifies the intimate union of God with his creation, from the Garden of Eden as “temple” where Adam and Eve lived in easy relationship with God to the Temple of Solomon as microcosm of glorified heaven and earth. But the term “heavenly Jerusalem,” of which the church building is the image, absorbs and completes the previous terms. “Heavenly Jerusalem” is identical with heaven itself at the end of time, when the rift between God and humanity that has festered since the Fall is completely overcome, and God and his people are so unified as to be called “married” in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7), an eternal state of unified, glorified, transfigured bliss made possible by Christ. This Christological, theological, and eschatological claim is then sealed by the next sentence: “For you made the Body of your Son, born of the tender Virgin, the Temple consecrated to you, in which the fullness of the Godhead might dwell.” The Church is Christ’s body, and the church building is an image of that body brought to glory.

The final paragraph of the preface continues the notion of heaven as Jerusalem, calling it a “holy city.” Like a body and a building, a city is a corporate entity made of many members which must be properly arranged under proper headship to thrive. “Built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone,” the rest of the city is “to be built of chosen stones given life by the Spirit and bonded in charity.” “Chosen stones” refers to the many members of Christ’s body, given life by the Spirit the way a soul gives life to a body. In yet one more architectural analogy, the members are bonded together by God’s love—another name for the Holy Spirit—the way stones would be joined by mortar, or absence of mortar, as with the Temple of Solomon. When the City-Church-Body is fully assembled, the prayer proclaims, God will be “all in all” for “endless ages,” and the “light of Christ will shine undimmed forever.” It is easy to see how a great church images this theological reality: every stone is in its proper place after being shaped by workers’ hands, and gem-like color and radiance shine forth while the worshipers inside sing together the perfect praise of God made possible by Christ and the Holy Spirit. A Place for Eternity Church architecture and its allied arts, then, allow worshipers to participate in time and space in that which is outside of time and space: the realized perfection of God’s eternal plan for salvation. Much more than a meeting house, more than a neutral backdrop for liturgical action, more than a living room, the church building is part of the rite itself, a theological contribution for the eye in the way that sung prayer addresses the ear.

AB/WIKIMEDIA

“ Much more than a meeting house, more than a neutral backdrop for liturgical action, more than a living room, the church building is part of the rite itself, a theological contribution for the eye in the way that sung prayer addresses the ear.” The Universal Prayer for the laying of a foundation stone takes a sweeping biblical view, asking God to “gather his scattered children” in an echo of his gathering the tribes of Israel. These scattered children are like the uncut stones scattered across a building site, waiting to be “hewn and dressed by God’s hand” and become ready to be assembled into the building itself. This sheds light on 1 Peter 2:5, in which Christians are equated with “living stones being built up as a spiritual house.” Notice in these 1916 photos of the construction of Holy Name of Jesus Church, New Orleans, how the scattered stones—images of God’s people—are gradually formed into the church—an image of God’s Son.

In each case, the mind is engaged, the soul is uplifted, and God’s self-revelation is encountered. And in each encounter, Christ’s saving power is applied and serves as a stroke of the Savior-mason’s hammer, preparing each Christian little by little to be placed in the great “cathedral” of heaven which is the Christ’s glorified Mystical Body. The Church’s liturgical books give the theological principles, and God then gives to man the task of sharing in his plan: building up the kingdom until he comes.

Dr. Denis McNamara is Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Center for Beauty and Culture at Benedictine College in Atchison, KS, and cohost of the award-winning podcast, “The Liturgy Guys.” 1. Liturgical scholar H.A. Reinhold summarized the planning of church buildings with the phrase: “Form follows function. Bring the congregation close to the altar, bring the congregation close together, eliminate obstructions.” See Randall B. Smith, “Don’t Blame Vatican II: Modernism and Modern Catholic Church Architecture,” Sacred Architecture 13 (2007). 2. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1978, par. 42. 3. Among others, see Richard Vosko, God’s House is Our House: Reimaging the Environment for Worship (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2006); Marchita Mauck, Shaping a House for the Church (Chicago: LTP, 1989). 4. See David Fagerberg, Theologia Prima: What Is Liturgical Theology

(Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2004). For commentary on its application to church architecture, see Denis R. McNamara, Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy (Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2009), chapter 1. 5. “Order of Laying A Foundation Stone or the Commencement of Work on the Building of a Church,” chapter 1 of Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018), chapter 1, paragraph 1. The full Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar contains seven chapters, each of which has a different chapter number and name. This essay cites chapter 1 as “LFS,” and chapter 2, “The Order of the Dedication of a Church” is cited as “DC.” 6. For a succinct but thorough description of the theology of temples, see entry “Temple,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill Book Company and The Catholic University of America, 1967-1996). For a more thorough academic investigation of the Temple, see Yves Congar, The Mystery of the Temple (London: Burnes and Oates, 1962). 7. This dualist approach to the Church and church architecture is so widespread, particularly in Protestant Evangelical circles, that it is almost impossible to pin it to one source. For a representative sample of popular polemic, see John Pavlovitz, “Remember, The Bible Never Mentions a Building Called ‘Church’,” Relevant Magazine, June 24, 2019; https://www.relevantmagazine.com/faith/remember-biblenever-mentions-building-called-church/, accessed 14 December 2020. This flawed theology was nonetheless evident in the aforementioned Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, for example, paragraph 29 which claims that the “architectural floor plans” of the early Church were designed as “general gathering spaces.” 8. This fountain of theological imagery is similarly echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which notes that churches “are not simply gathering places, but make visible the…dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.” (CCC, 1180). 9. See The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917), entry “Consecration.” https:// www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm, accessed 31 January 2021.

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

“Altared” States: Easterly Orientation in the Celebration of the Eucharist

By Father Dylan Schrader

ave you ever been to a Mass where the priest invited people (perhaps children) from the congregation to stand with him behind the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer? I have. While this practice is illicit,1 it is not my intention in this article to focus on that fact. Instead, I would like to reflect on what likely motivates this practice and what it can teach us about the orientation of our prayer during the Mass.

An Alternative Solution I would like to dwell more on this point, for it seems to be an attempted solution to a pastoral problem. The problem is that the people in the congregation—at least in this priest’s opinion—see themselves as merely watching the priest, as separated from him, perhaps even as isolated from him by the interpolation of the altar itself. The attempted solution in our imaginary scenario lies in re-locating and re-orienting certain members of the congregation so that they are on the same side of the altar as the priest and facing the same direction as him. Now imagine a Mass celebrated ad orientem, with the priest offering the Eucharistic Prayer toward the apse of the church and the congregation behind him. What does this posture signify? It expresses precisely what the come-up-behind-the-altar approach means to—that the people are not the priest’s audience. In a Mass at which the Eucharist Prayer is offered ad orientem, all face the same direction as the priest. All are associated with him as he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice in the person of Christ. All are behind the altar. The interior and spiritual orientation of the Mass is reflected in and bolstered by the physical posture of the priest together with the people. What does it mean to say that the congregation is associated with the priest? It means that they are doing something, even that—in a certain way—they are doing what the priest is doing. The faithful gathered for Mass not only attend the Eucharistic sacrifice, they offer it. As Pius XII puts it in Mediator Dei: “Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the ‘character’ which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus, they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.”2 To be sure, the lay faithful do not offer the sacrifice in the person of Christ as the head of the Church. Only the celebrating priest does this. His role is unique and not reducible to being a delegate of the laity. The Eucharist’s consecration is effected “by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful.”3 Bound Together for Glory But merely insisting on the unicity of the ministerial priest’s power to consecrate obscures what the Eucharistic liturgy truly is, just as forgetting that same unicity does. The liturgy is not primarily an action of the ordained priest, just as it is not an action that originates within the congregation. It is Christ’s action. He was and remains the “leitourgos of holy things” (Hebrews 8:2), the “Apostle and high priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1). The ordained priest participates in this action of the Lord’s in his person as head, while the congregation participates in the same action as the Mystical Body. It is the one Christ, the whole Christ, who offers and is offered in

AB/LAWRENCE OP ON FLICKR

In Loco Christi? Imagine a typical parish Mass (pre-COVID if you wish). Now imagine that the priest has asked certain members of the congregation to stand with him behind the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. These folks leave their usual places in the nave and enter the sanctuary. Probably, they are self-conscious as they stand near the priest and the other ministers while the rest of the congregation looks on. They are in their street clothes while the priest, the deacon, and the servers wear sacred vestments. The priest and the deacon are busy about things at the altar, the servers ring bells and wait for their cues, but the displaced members of the congregation stand with “nothing to do.” They may feel like awkward spectators, as one sometimes feels when watching another person work. Now it is most likely not the intention of the priest who invited these members of the congregation to stand with him at the altar to reduce them uncomfortably to watching him pray. On the contrary, he probably means to do the opposite. He wants to affirm them as active participants and to associate them with himself. This affirmation is expressed, in terms of posture, by having them stand behind the altar with him as he offers the Eucharistic Prayer.

In a Mass celebrated ad orientem, all face the same direction as the priest. All are associated with him as he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice in the person of Christ. All are behind the altar. The interior and spiritual orientation of the Mass is reflected in and bolstered by the physical posture of the priest together with the people.

the Mass.4 If priest and people are engaged in a single action, it makes sense for them to face together in a single direction. This is especially the case since the sacrificial action of the Mass is essentially directional. It is offered to the Father, by Christ, while the Holy Spirit binds the Church to Christ in his act of offering. A single action aimed at a single goal calls for a single orientation. There are other moments, such as the homily, where the priest addresses the congregation and not God the Father. At those times, of course, facing the people is obviously appropriate. But the sacrificial action, the heart of which is the Eucharistic Prayer, is different. Here the priest speaks to God, not to the people. But—and this point is crucial—the fact that the priest is not addressing the people does not mean they are not involved. The celebrant does not speak to them precisely because they are involved. They are not recipients of the oblation: they are co-offerers. This is why it is problematic to refer to ad orientem worship as “the priest with his back to the people.” This characterization, while common (and literally correct), makes the congregation the point of reference—which implies that the congregation is the goal of the priest’s action. Besides ignoring God, this attitude also leaves the congregation with nothing to do. While there is a great deal to be said for spiritual receptivity as opposed to excessive activism, the congregation should never become merely an audience. Even though they kneel in silence during the Eucharistic Prayer, the faithful, too, are meant to offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice through and with the priest. To quote Pius XII again, “the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.”5 Priest and people together offer the sacrifice, though in different modes. This is why the priest commands the congregation to pray (“Orate!”) for the acceptability to God of “my sacrifice and yours.” And so, to speak of “the priest with his back to the people” is—unintentionally of course—to insult the lay faithful, as if they had nothing to contribute to the offering of the Mass but instead were only watching it. The deacon also stands and kneels behind the priest, but we

do not speak of “the priest with his back to the deacon.” Why? Because we understand that the deacon is not the point of reference. He is there with the priest. He is involved in what the priest is doing, though according to his own office. So are the laity. Just as we do not say that the people in the first pew stand with their backs to all the people in church behind them, neither should we speak of the priest with his back to the people. When the ad orientem posture is used, the deacon, and the people in the first pew, and the people in the second, and so forth, all face the same direction as the priest. All face with him because all share in the same sacred action. Common Extraordinary Journey With the right catechesis and the gradual re-introduction of ad orientem worship in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite,6 we can accomplish in a liturgically correct way what the practice of inviting people up behind the altar seeks in a more awkward manner to accomplish. We can express by our physical orientation the spiritual truth of the celebration—that the priest and people are united in a singular act of worship, an act directed toward God. Although priest and people participate in this act in qualitatively distinct ways, it remains one act. The priest is not a performer, and the baptized are not spectators. We march together as the militant Church on her path to triumph. It is a path that leads up to the altar of God because it is the path of the cross, the necessary condition for following in the footsteps of our Captain. When we celebrate Mass ad orientem, we approach, priest and people, that little mount Calvary in the sanctuary of our parish church, all in the same movement, all on the same side, all behind the altar. Father Dylan Schrader is a priest of the Diocese of Jefferson City, MO. He holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. 1. Notitiae 17 (1981): 61. 2. Mediator Dei, 88. 3. Ibid., 92. 4. Ibid., 20. 5. Ibid., 93. 6. It is sometimes mistakenly thought that Vatican II or the Roman Missal of the Ordinary Form changed the orientation of the priest during the Eucharistic Prayer. In fact, Vatican II did not say a single word about changing the tradition of ad orientem worship, and the rubrics of the Ordinary Form continue to presume this posture, while also envisioning the option of facing the people. For a fuller examination of the history of ad orientem worship and current liturgical law, see Uwe Michael Lang, Turning towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

The Quiet That Speaks: The Silent Prayers of the Priest at Mass By Father Boniface Hicks, OSB Editor’s note: The following entry begins a series of pieces by Benedictine Father Boniface Hicks, on the private prayers of the priest at Mass. Future entries of “The Quiet That Speaks” will be published in our electronic newsletter, AB Insight, and be posted on our website, Adoremus.org.

AB/ VATICAN MEDIA/CNA

he Roman Ritual for the Mass instructs the priest to offer certain prayers quietly (secreto). These “private” prayers of the priest in the celebration of the Holy Mass carry layers of meaning. Both priest and people benefit from some mystagogical reflection on these prayers. That reflection begins with the importance of reciting prescribed, yet unheard prayers, and then follows with specific reflections on the words, gestures, and context of the Mass for each of the prayers. To start, we must first consider the value of prescribing prayers for the priest to say but that the people cannot hear. This goes together with a more general reflection on the meaning of intentional periods of silence in the Mass. The Roman Rite Mass prescribes periods of silence at various points, including after the readings, after the homily, and after the reception of Holy Communion. These silences are not merely emptiness or a lack of something to say or do. To the contrary, they are a sign that we are fully engaged in something in those moments that words would only cheapen. Like the silence that fills heaven for about half an hour when the Lamb opens the seventh seal (Revelation 8:1), silence in the Mass is a sign that something profound has happened and we are summoned to sustain our interior attention without the distraction even of good words or other gestures. Therefore, silence in the Mass carries a meaning of a shared, hidden fullness with God, a form of divine communion and intimacy. It is intended in the same spirit as Jesus’ exhortation for us to go into our inner room and pray to the Father in secret where the Father who sees in secret will reward us (Matthew 6:6). Some might interpret Jesus’ words as referring only to the need for private prayer outside of the public worship of liturgical prayer. The intentional silences in the Mass and the unheard prayers of the priest, however, are intended to overcome that false dichotomy, and they point out the way that our secret prayer is also supposed to permeate the Mass. This is the sign value of seeing the priest’s lips moving silently or possibly hearing only the whispering sound of his low voice as he addresses his secret prayer to the Father. Thus, the very fact that the prayers are intended not to be heard is an important ritual action in the Mass. Each of these prayers then are a sign of the secret inner dialogue that takes place between God and each believer during the Mass, and they are also specifically a sign that the priest himself carries out a personal inner dialogue with God during the Mass. He is not merely a functionary who mechanically carries out certain ritual words and gestures in order to bring about a particular result, however powerful and important that result may be. He is also personally a participant in these sacred mysteries. His own relationship with God grows through his silent, internal participation in the prayers of the Mass. That comes through especially clearly in the conclusion of the Preparation of Gifts in which several of the silent prayers are prescribed. After silently (or mostly silently) preparing the altar, the priest says, “Pray brethren that my sacrifice and yours….” Here we see that the priest is playing a different role from the faithful (distinctly offering the sacrifice of Christ in a way the faithful are not), and yet with the silent prayers that he has been saying in preparing the gifts, we see that he also has his own personal participation, similar to the rest of the faithful. Obviously, there is nothing “secret” about the content of the prayers spoken quietly by the priest. They are easily accessible and published in the vernacular for all to find. They are also not meant to exhaust the inner prayer of the priest, but to serve as initial liturgical formulations that help him to enter into and offer himself more fully at those points in the liturgy. They are also meant to provide starting points for the personal prayer of the lay faithful at those points of the Mass. As stated concisely on the Vatican’s webpage for liturgical celebrations: “The celebrant’s silence and his gestures of piety move the faithful who are participating in the celebration to be conscious of the need to prepare themselves, to convert, given the importance of the liturgical moment in which they are taking part: before the reading of the Gospel, or at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer.”1

“The celebrant’s silence and his gestures of piety,” writes the Holy Father’s Office for Liturgical Celebrations, “move the faithful who are participating in the celebration to be conscious of the need to prepare themselves, to convert, given the importance of the liturgical moment in which they are taking part: before the reading of the Gospel, or at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer.”

Munda Cor Meum The first of the priest’s quiet prayers is in preparation for the proclamation of the Gospel: Munda cor meum ac labia mea, omnipotens Deus, ut sanctum Evangelium tuum digne valeam nuntiare (“Cleanse my heart and my lips, almighty God, that I may worthily proclaim your holy Gospel”). When there is a deacon reading the Gospel, a variant of this prayer is offered as a blessing for the deacon, but the rubrics prescribe that in the absence of a deacon the priest says this prayer quietly while bowing before the altar. The ritual calls for a combination of words, gesture, and location which all carry sacramental significance at this particular point in the Mass.

“ Silences in the Mass are a sign that we are fully engaged in something in those moments that words would only cheapen.” What is the significance of this particular point in the Mass? The proclamation of the Holy Gospel is a high point for the Liturgy of the Word and it takes place last among the readings to indicate its importance. Even though the other readings from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles may have occurred later historically, the Gospel always presents Christ’s mysteries most directly, and so it comes at the end to show its primacy of place. Jesuit Father Joseph Jungmann states that there is a “strict rule which holds true in all liturgies, that the last of the readings should consist of a passage from the Gospels” because “they contain the ‘good tidings,’ the fulfillment of all the past, and the point from which all future ages radiate.”2 The significance of the proclamation of the Gospel is also set apart by the restriction of who may proclaim it. It is ordinarily proclaimed by the deacon in Western liturgies, because he is the highest assisting cleric, or in his absence the priest or bishop himself proclaims it.3 The significance of this proclamation of the saving mysteries as contained in the Gospel gives the reason for the quiet preparatory prayer in its words, gesture, and location. Such a prayer can be found already in the earliest Roman Ordo.4 The content of the prayer focuses on the worthiness of the one who proclaims the holy Gospel. This is no wonder since the minister is taking on the very voice of Christ himself. The Second Vatican Council emphasized that when the Scriptures are proclaimed at Mass, it is Christ himself who speaks.5 The proclamation of the Gospel has the power to open hearts and bring about repentance and conversion, to cleanse our sins and strengthen our discipleship. It is the great meta-story of salvation history in which every other personal story finds meaning. It brings us into an encounter with the Lord and Lover of Mankind. Seen through a spousal lens, it is also the love story or the love song of the Divine Bridegroom who woos his Bride and gives her his Word before he gives her his Body. For all these reasons, the text of this prayer emphasizes the need for worthiness in the minister and asks that his heart be cleansed. There is something very personal about the request for the minister’s heart to

be cleansed. When he says the prayer over the deacon who proclaims the Gospel, he does not make a judgment on the deacon’s heart, but only asks that the Lord would be in his heart (“May the Lord be in your heart and on your lips, that you may proclaim his Gospel worthily and well, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit”). But for himself, the priest acknowledges his need for a divine cleansing to produce a pure heart for the sake of a pure proclamation of the saving words God has entrusted to his Church. This is one of the “apologetic prayers” that the priest offers, which is a theme that will re-emerge in this series of reflections on the priest’s quiet prayers. “Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). The most important thing is for the priest’s heart to be cleansed and filled with the Gospel that he proclaims. Then, out of the abundance of his heart the words flow authentically, authoritatively, and effectively through his lips. Even with the cleansing of his heart, this abundance can only happen if his heart is also filled with the Gospel. That raises the question of the priest’s preparation for Holy Mass. A priest reads the Gospel differently when he has first prayed with it. The practice of lectio divina can greatly enhance the liturgical proclamation and should be considered a necessity for every liturgical reader, but most especially for the one who proclaims the most important liturgical scripture, namely the Gospel. When he has prayed with the Gospel and understands its twists and turns, its unexpected phrases, exhortations, and ironies, then the priest can proclaim it from the abundance of his heart, owning the words and announcing them as if they were his own. This prayer is to be made as the priest bows before the altar. The gesture of bowing indicates reverence and humility. The fact that the priest bows before the altar in particular also connects the proclamation of the word with the Eucharistic sacrifice. Other liturgical norms also reinforce that connection: for example, by directing that the principal celebrant also ordinarily be the homilist.6 This prayer with its accompanying gesture and connection with the altar reinforces who the priest is, his orientation to the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice, and his need for God’s grace to carry out this ministry. As mentioned earlier, the priest should not feel that this ritual prayer exhausts all possible personal prayer at this powerful moment in the Mass. Especially if the priest will also be preaching, it would be appropriate to add a personal word from the heart to ask for God’s grace in giving the homily. Pope Benedict XVI reminded us of an ancient prayer that included this request for help with preaching: “Send your Paraclete Spirit into our hearts and make us understand the Scriptures which he has inspired; and grant that I may interpret them worthily, so that the faithful assembled here may profit thereby.”7 Inspired by the spousal interpretation of the Eucharist as described in Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, another personal prayer I sometimes add is: “…that I may worthily proclaim your Gospel and woo your Bride.” The priest stands by the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the position of the Divine Bridegroom and it is his responsibility to pray, preside, and speak in such a way that he opens Please see SILENT on page 11

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

AB/Saint Joseph on Flickr

Eternity by the Hour: The Divine Office and Sanctification of Time

The Divine Office is also referred to more recently as the Liturgy of the Hours, a title which perhaps more clearly brings out a particular aspect of what is occurring through our praying of it: the hours of the day, the hours of our lives, are given back to Christ, and he is praised. Our entire days and hours are rendered, as it were, a liturgy.

By Anthony Alt

Merton and Joe It took until my junior year in high school before I had heard of the Divine Office. One evening while my father and I drove around taking landscape photographs, he asked whether I had ever read Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain. I had not. But the next day, I was in Barnes & Noble (before bookstores became mostly extinct) searching for a book on photography. While walking through an aisle, my eye happened upon a book with an arresting picture of a mountain on the cover: The Seven Storey Mountain. With my father’s comment still fresh in my mind, I purchased it and proceeded to my favorite coffee shop (Mo Java) where I devoured Merton’s autobiography. Merton spoke in a particular section about how he began the practice of praying the Divine Office (and much to my consternation at the time, frequently quoted Latin phrases from the Psalms, before I had learned Latin). His description of praying the Psalms of the Divine Office while gazing out the window on a train to and from retreats at the monastery intrigued me. He riffed on the beauty of weaving the Psalms into the fabric of his day, during the breaking of the morning sun and the night darkness enveloping the countryside, and prayer in general. The copious amounts of caffeine I consumed that day in the coffee shop (I indeed had mo’ and mo’ java!) had conspired with grace and Merton’s words to bring about a singular change in me. As a result of this java-fueled “Merton moment,” as I call it, I tracked down a copy of the Divine Office so that I could punctuate my own days with it. Over the course of the past 25 years (and after having learned Latin), I have come to know firsthand the essential structure that

AB/WIKIMEDIA

n his recent article, “‘Idle’ Worship: Religious Structures and the Redemption of Time during Pandemic” (May 2021 Adoremus Bulletin), Benedictine Abbot Austin G. Murphy admirably underscores the importance of using free time well for one’s spiritual growth, and how it requires implementing structures in the form of beneficial liturgical and devotional practices. COVID-19 has affected daily habits and routines, and we should indeed reflect upon the structures we have implemented or failed to implement for use of our time, and particularly for those of us who are among the laity. Forced changes to our daily lives can be tremendous opportunities for growth, and so we should take the words of Winston Churchill to heart: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” I wish to pick up the conceptual thread of Abbot Murphy’s insightful piece by focusing on the importance of one liturgical practice for purposes of sanctifying time: the Divine Office.

Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain speaks in a particular section about how he began the practice of praying the Divine Office. “His description of praying the Psalms of the Divine Office while gazing out the window on a train to and from retreats at the monastery intrigued me,” writes Anthony Alt. “He riffed on the beauty of weaving the Psalms into the fabric of his day, during the breaking of the morning sun and the night darkness enveloping the countryside, and prayer in general.”

the Divine Office provides to time and the spiritual life, particularly for a layman. Present Each Day Each day is new; each day requires that its time be sanctified. But one must know the why before the how, and that starts with appreciating the concept of time. “In Christianity time has a fundamental importance. Within the dimension of time the world was created; within it the history of salvation unfolds, finding its culmination in the ‘fullness of time’ of the Incarnation, and its goal in the glorious return of the Son of God at the end of time. In Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, time becomes a dimension of God, who is himself eternal” (Pope St. John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (TMA), 10). Moreover, “[f]rom this relationship of God with time there arises the duty to sanctify time.” Because “Christ is the Lord of time [and] its beginning and end,” that means that “every year, every day and every moment are embraced by his Incarnation and Resurrection” (TMA, 10). Therefore, Christ is the focal point of time, and time should be viewed in relation

to him. This implies an intrinsic connection between our calendar year and the liturgical year, and our days should be “permeated by the liturgical year” (TMA, 10). As part of the Church Militant, our “most pressing duty” is “to live the liturgical life, and increase and cherish its supernatural spirit” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei (MD), 138). Thus, our duty to sanctify time is inseparable from living a liturgical life. Our efforts to sanctify time by living a liturgical life, however, are not aimed at an abstract, impersonal goal. Rather, they are aimed at closer union with Christ himself, and that union is tailored to each person. The Church’s “sacred liturgy calls to mind the mysteries of Jesus Christ” and “strives to make all believers take their part in them so that the divine Head of the mystical Body may live in all the members with the fullness of His holiness. Let the souls of Christians be like altars on each one of which a different phase of the sacrifice, offered by the High priest, comes to life again, as it were: pains and tears which wipe away and expiate sin; supplication to God which pierces heaven; dedication and even immolation of oneself made promptly, generously and earnestly; and, finally, that intimate union by which we commit ourselves and all we have to God, in whom we find our rest. The perfection of religion is to imitate whom you adore’” (MD, 152). Call the Office But how is all of this done? In a particular way, this is accomplished through the Divine Office. The Divine Office provides both the pillars for the edifice of each day and the windows streaming in light to permeate the different periods of each day. The liturgical life, of course, has as its end the worship of God, “which is based especially on the eucharistic sacrifice,” but it “is directed and arranged in such a way that it embraces by means of the divine office, the hours of the day, the weeks and the whole cycle of the year, and reaches all the aspects and phases of human life” (MD, 138). Each day is a building block, and when these days are stacked together, buttressed by the Divine Office, one’s life gradually and consistently is sanctified through the praise of God and becomes a “sacrifice of praise,” which each of us is called to do (Hebrews 13:15). Indeed, the Divine Office “is devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praises of God” (Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), 84). For good reason then the Divine Office is referred to as the prayer of the “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (MD, 142). The Divine

Office centers “especially around the person of Jesus Christ” (MD, 151), and by praying it at different points throughout the day, time becomes infused with the praise of God, and Christ is invited into our unique circumstances. Structure, yes, we need structure to our day, our life. No other opportunity for such structure surpasses the Divine Office in sanctifying our time. It continually keeps us united with Christ. But I write especially for those readers who perhaps have not yet recognized the efficacy of the beautiful and ancient tradition of praying the Divine Office and perhaps have not made it an integral part of their lives. The Divine Office is not restricted to priests and religious; the Church encourages the laity to pray it as well (SC, 100). The laity, in particular, need this holy structure to their days, which have twists and turns unforeseen, often wearying. But therein lies the beauty of the Divine Office. The circumstances of life are connected back to Christ, and we are able to embrace every moment as a manifestation of the will of God. And our lives, through that embrace, render praise back to God. The Divine Office is also referred to more recently as the Liturgy of the Hours, a title which perhaps more clearly brings out a particular aspect of what is occurring through our praying of it: the hours of the day, the hours of our lives, are given back to Christ, and he is praised. Our entire days and hours are rendered, as it were, a liturgy.

“ The Divine Office is devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praises of God.” Make a Plan So for those of you open to something new for your days, perhaps this can be your “Merton moment”—as it was for me so many years ago. Consider taking up the Divine Office. If you are unfamiliar with Latin and praying the Divine Office in general, you can ease into making it part of the rhythm of your day in several ways. First, I would encourage the practice of praying with an actual book (not a phone or computer monitor), with pages before you that you can feel and flip. Holding the words in your hands accords with human nature’s innate desire to possess something tangible; it allows you to see, touch, and say the words. For beginners, the one volume Christian Prayer in English will provide you with everything you need to get started. Christian Prayer follows the liturgical calendar of the Ordinary Form, is relatively inexpensive (and used copies are even more so), and it is also portable. Besides price, the key difference between the one-volume Christian Prayer and the four-volume Liturgy of the Hours is that Christian Prayer does not have the Office of Readings (comprised of three Psalms and two substantive readings) for each day. The daily format of the Divine Office has the following “Hours” for prayer:

1. Office of Readings (also called Matins) can be prayed at any time during the day or night 2. Morning Prayer (also called Lauds). 3. Daytime Prayer requires only one of the following in the Ordinary Form (though you can pray all three): a. Mid-morning Prayer (also called Terce). b. Midday Prayer (also called Sext). c. Mid-afternoon Prayer (also called None). 4. Evening Prayer (also called Vespers). 5. Night Prayer (also called Compline). Because each of these sets of prayers only takes a few minutes, carving out the time will not be overwhelming. The ideal is to pray each “Hour” during the approximate time period that it occurs during the day. Thus, one should strive to pray Morning Prayer before or around breakfast in the morning before the day is underway; Daytime Prayer occurring at some point between Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer; Evening Prayer around dinner time; and Night Prayer prior to going to sleep to complete the day. Daytime Prayer and Night Prayer are the shortest of the Hours, though in some ways the most important. It is essential to turn the mind and heart to God during the course of the day, and again before we sleep. Besides being a beautiful way to adorn one’s day, these prayers are also brief, which makes it easy to remain steadfast in praying them. If you follow the liturgical calendar of the Extraordinary Form, look for a Roman Rite diurnal, which

AB/WIKIMEDIA

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

Because “Christ is the Lord of time [and] its beginning and end,” that means that “every year, every day and every moment are embraced by his Incarnation and Resurrection” (Tertio Millennio Adveniente 10). Therefore, Christ is the focal point of time, and time should be viewed in relation to him. This implies an intrinsic connection between our calendar year and the liturgical year, and our days should be “permeated by the liturgical year” (TMA, 10).

contains all of the Hours except Matins. Unless you are familiar with Latin, however, it would be advisable to consider using an English translation in order to first accustom yourself to praying the Divine Office. The Divine Office in the Extraordinary Form is longer than the revised Liturgy of the Hours in the Ordinary Form. Beginners should not try tackling the Divine Office in the Extraordinary Form all at once. Try one or two of the Hours. It is better to pray less, but to do it devoutly, than to hurriedly pray more. For the laity in particular, there is no canonical obligation to pray the Divine Office; this fact should help discourage rushing through the Psalms and readings from Sacred Scripture merely for the sake of completing every part of the Divine Office. Besides, such haste is counterproductive: the Divine Office should be about praising God, not showing God what you can do.

“ Let the souls of Christians be like altars on each one of which a different phase of the sacrifice, offered by the High priest, comes to life again.” — Pope Pius XII In addition, when you first obtain a breviary (whether Christian Prayer, the four-volume Liturgy of the Hours, a diurnal, or the Roman Breviary), take the time to read through the rubrics which give the instructions and describe the different sections of the book. If, however, you cannot resist the latest technology or prefer not to purchase a physical book, there are numerous apps online that you can use that will provide you with the relevant Psalms, antiphons, readings, and prayers for each Hour. The convenience of accessing everything on your phone requires praying with your phone, which requires making some adjustments mentally. A phone is used for many things, precluding it from being entirely dedicated to worshiping God in the same manner as a breviary. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on using the phone to directly praise God and refrain from any other use during prayer time. You have to silence your phone and your mind. And there should be some period of time before and after praying during which the phone is not being used for checking the Internet or reading and responding to messages. That way, your time of prayer is carved out, not blurred with the mundane. The Family Hour(s) For those with a family, the Divine Office is an excellent way to pray together. From experience, our family has found that children are keen on having a copy of the Divine Office they can call their own once they can start reading (particularly if it has a zipper cover). Keep it somewhere accessible. I will often pull out my breviary while sitting at the table or while on the couch and in-

“ When it comes to praying the Divine Office, there really is no time like the present.” vite whomever is closeby to pray with me, though keeping it always as an option, not as something mandatory. Even if there are no takers, if I say the words quietly, those within earshot will often chime in to the parts they know, even if while doing something else. Such invitations at times like Saturday morning coffee or at night when the evening winds down are low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking. But do not wait for the perfect time to pray, whether by yourself or with those in your family, because the “perfect” time is elusive and chasing it is a quixotic endeavor. I make a special mention about endeavoring to pray at least one of the Hours together with your spouse, particularly Night Prayer, which firmly strengthens the bond between spouses. Night Prayer in particular is an opportune time to acknowledge our sins and shortcomings of the day and seek forgiveness not only from Our Lord, but our beloved spouse. It is a balm at the end of the day. The Divine Office is also well-suited for other gatherings. Men in particular need something to do in common, and so before enjoying a beer together (for example), men could try praying the Divine Office in an informal setting, giving them a common purpose. In this way, men will find in the Divine Office an uplifting prelude to praising the goodness of God’s creation through more fermented means. How Soon Is Now? For those already praying the Divine Office and perhaps for whom this form of the liturgy has become rote, let your spirit be quickened by the beauty and dignity of what you are doing. Double down. Those praying the Divine Office are “sharing in the greatest honor of Christ’s spouse, for by offering these praises to God they are standing before God’s throne in the name of the Church their Mother” (SC, 84). In addition, look for ways to teach others to pray the Divine Office. And for those priests charged with leading a parish, take to heart the exhortation that “[p]astors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts” (SC, 100). When it comes to praying the Divine Office, there really is no time like the present. Nunc coepi (“Now, I begin.” Psalm 77:10). Anthony Alt is a lawyer, husband, father of five, and parishioner of St. Agnes in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is a former seminarian for the Diocese of Lincoln and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and was a hermit for a time. Alt was Editor in Chief of Ave Maria Law Review, and he and his wife, Nell, are editors of the book Nunc Coepi—A Year of Prayer. He can be contacted at hermitnonmonachus@gmail.com.

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

:H ow does a priest celebrate

Mass with only one minister? Or even alone?

The following replies are from the March-April 2021 Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter and are reprinted here with the Committee’s permission.

: Chapter Four of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) delineates different forms of celebrating Mass. The first two sections of the chapter discuss the most common ways Mass is celebrated: “Mass with the People” and “Concelebrated Mass,” both of which presume the presence of a community and a variety of ministers exercising their proper roles. The third section of the chapter, however, discusses the celebration of Mass when there is no congregation. Titled “Mass at Which Only One Minister Participates,” the section also makes reference to another form of celebrating Mass, namely, the celebration of Mass by a solitary priest, without the presence of a congregation or even a server. Whether celebrated with only one minister or by a solitary priest, both forms are sometimes colloquially referred to as “private Masses” (although that term is sometimes applied also to a Mass celebrated with a small group of the faithful). What follows is a brief background of these two forms of celebrating Mass and a review of current legislation concerning them. Mass at Which Only One Minister Participates In the first and second editions of the post-Conciliar Roman Missal—the former Sacramentary—the usual form of celebrating Mass is termed “Mass with a Congregation” (De Missa cum populo). The third edition keeps that same name, albeit with a new English translation (“Mass with the People”). The first and second editions of the Missal contrast this form with “Mass without a Congregation” (De Missa sine populo), while the third edition changes the title to “Mass at Which Only One Minister Participates” (De Missa, cuius unus tantum minister assistit). This background perhaps explains why certain rubrics of the Missal still maintain the distinction between Masses with the people and those without the people, as is seen in the rubrics for Thursday of Holy Week and before the Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions. All three editions of the Missal contain an Order of Mass for celebrations at which one minister assists the priest. The first and second editions seem to reflect certain aspects of the 1962 Missale Romanum, such as the recitation of the Confiteor at the foot of the altar, and the reverence of the altar and recitation of the Entrance Antiphon following the Confiteor but before the Kyrie.

Continued from WARRIOR on page 12

had impassioned Dom Guéranger since his youth,” Oury writes. St. Cecilia figured largely in Guéranger’s fascination for the early Church; in fact, he had written a biography of the saint, and he saw her as an avatar of his ideas. Indeed, Guéranger’s ideas and achievements regarding the liturgy at both St. Peter’s and St. Cecilia’s were embodied by this third-century martyr. “The church for [St. Cecilia’s],” Guéranger writes, quoted by Oury, “whose arches resound with nothing but the ancient and sweet Gregorian melody, is a powerful draw to the heart and eyes of the pilgrim. We feel that Cecilia truly chose […] this sight as one of her dwellings.” Revise and Renew It is hoped that the wealth of resources which Dom Oury provides in his book will help introduce Dom Prosper Guéranger to the wider English-speaking world. It is also hoped, however, that with a second printing, the editors at Loreto Publishing will correct the great many editorial flaws within the text itself. For example, the text notes that the author of a pamphlet addressing the fate of the Papal States was “correcting the the proofs himself ” [sic]. Alas, that the publisher and editor of the Oury translation did not take such

THE RITE QUESTIONS Liturgical actions from the Entrance Antiphon through the Universal Prayer are to be carried out at the left side of the altar, before moving to the center of the altar for the remainder of the Mass. The third edition of the Missal, however, harmonizes more of these rubrics with the instructions for Masses with the people. The Order of Mass for each form is now more consistent, and references to the chair and the ambo, absent from previous editions, are incorporated into those of the third edition. Masses with a single minister are permitted except in the following cases: when a concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory, on Holy Thursday, and for the Mass of the Easter Vigil (see GIRM, 199, and Roman Missal, Thursday of Holy Week, 1). Otherwise, no special reason or necessity is required to justify this form of celebrating Mass. The Order of Mass with the Participation of a Single Minister (OMPSM) is found in the Missal immediately after the chants for the Eucharistic Prayers and before the first Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation. Variations from what one sees in the regular Order of Mass include the following: • The Introductory Rites may occur at the chair or the altar (see GIRM, 256). • The Confiteor of the Penitential Act uses second person pronouns in the singular (see OMPSM, 3). (Curiously, the invitation before the Prayer over the Offerings uses the plural [see 18]). • There is no rubric regarding the Homily. • While the norm for the Universal Prayer in the regular Order is descriptive (“Then follows the Universal Prayer” [20]), in this case, the norm is permissive: “there may follow the Universal Prayer” (11; see GIRM, 264). • The corporal, purificator, and chalice may be placed on the altar at the usual time or at the beginning of Mass (see OMPSM, 12, and GIRM, 255). • While the regular Order says that the words at the solemn depositio of the bread and wine may be prayed “in a low voice” or “aloud,” here the rubric simply indicates “saying” before the two prayers (see OMPSM, 13 and 15). • If the minister is not to receive Holy Communion, the Priest omits the invitation, “Behold the Lamb of God,” and begins immediately with, “Lord, I am not worthy” (see OMPSM, 26, and GIRM, 268). • The Concluding Rites occur as usual, but the dismissal is omitted (see GIRM, 272).

ings, the instructions, and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted” (254; see canon 906). It is important to note the genre of the norm: this is a prohibition that admits of exceptions. Celebrations of the Mass in this form are therefore extraordinary and should be avoided. Nevertheless, the Church’s law also strongly encourages priests to celebrate Mass daily (see canon 904), and should a priest be faced with the choice to celebrate Mass alone or not to celebrate Mass at all, the law recommends his celebration alone. In various times and places there have been restrictions or even prohibitions against Masses celebrated alone. For example, in the early ninth century, Theodulf, bishop of Orléans, exhorted the priests of his diocese never to say Mass alone.1 More recently, the 1949 Instruction Quam plurimum of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments cites several cases in which Mass may be celebrated alone, e.g., during a pandemic, when otherwise a priest would have to abstain from the Eucharist for a lengthy period of time; or when necessary to consecrate a host to be used as viaticum; or if the server were to leave during the Mass.2 Clearly, these are not everyday circumstances. The first and second editions of the Roman Missal, as well as other law in force before the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, required a serious necessity (gravis necessitas) for a priest to celebrate Mass alone. Current law is less restrictive, requiring “a just and reasonable cause.” According to canonist John Huels, “Such a cause would be demonstrated whenever a member of the faithful is unavailable and when the priest is unable to participate in a communal celebration, e.g., as a result of illness, infirmity, or travel.” He adds, “A just and reasonable cause would not be the mere convenience of the priest or his preference for celebrating alone.”3 As is the case for Masses with a single minister, it is also prohibited as noted above: when a concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory, on Holy Thursday, and for the Mass of the Easter Vigil. The Missal does not provide a special Order for Mass for use when a priest is by himself, and, as mentioned above, the GIRM says only that “the greetings, the instructions, and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted” (254). Based on this laconic norm, a priest in these circumstances would use the Order of Mass with the Participation of a Single Minister, making the necessary adjustments. —Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship

Masses Celebrated Alone The Missal attends to this form of Mass in a single paragraph of the GIRM: “Mass should not be celebrated without a minister, or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greet-

1. Cf. “Kapitular VII” in Capitula episcoporum, vol. 1, ed. P. Bommer (MGH) (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopoli Hahniani, 1984), 129. 2. Cf. sec. III, no. 2: Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 41 (1949), 493-511, at 507. 3. “ The Eucharistic Celebration (cc. 899-933)” in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. John P. Beal et al. (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000), 1103.

pains in their own work! In fact, there seems to be a double irony here—magnified by the great number of editorial flubs—that a publishing house should overlook such editorial details in a work on the life of Guéranger, whose lifework was to ensure that every detail of the liturgy was correct and correctly understood. Likewise, in a future edition of the book, the editors ought to consider employing footnotes to provide a greater sense of the various contexts in which Guéranger lived and operated. Oury presupposes a working knowledge of post-revolution France, especially in the years which chronicle Guéranger’s life (1805-1875). The major events and figures of this period are touched on but inadequately explained for those unfamiliar with French history during this period. Footnotes would go far to help the reader better understand, for example, references to Gallicanism, Ultramonatism, and Jansenism and to such figures as Robert Lamennais, Charles Montalembert, and Jean-Baptiste Lacordaire, all of whom played an important role in Guéranger’s life. Editorial issues aside, however, Dom Guéranger: A Monk at the Heart of the Church provides a fully drawn (if imperfect) portrait of the man who had almost singlehandedly renewed the liturgy as the cultural heart of the Church. It also provides a living example of how Catholics can save civilization, one celebration of the Holy Mass at a time.

MEMORIAL FOR Carlos Gallegos from Leo Gallegos Fay Marie Kortes from James Kortes

TO HONOR Deacon Vincent J. Barreca, Jr. Dedication to Christ and His Divine Mercy from his brother Nicholas and Eileen

PRAY FOR Speedy recovery for William R. Vernon from Shirley Vernon

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

whether relics intended for deposition are authentic. It is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity deposited under it. c) A reliquary must not be placed on the altar or in the table of the altar but under the table of the altar, in a manner suitable to the design of the altar” (“The Order of the Dedication of a Church,” 5; see also “The Order of the Dedication of an Altar,” 11).

Readers’ Quiz Answers:

2. d. Rite of blessing a church building already in use. According to Annibale Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975, “Many cases were adduced in which a church was dedicated only after a period (sometimes of years) during which it had already been in use out of necessity or for some other reason, or in which old churches were inaugurated again after a complete restoration. It was asked that some suitable celebration be provided for these occasions. The study group therefore prepared a ‘rite for the dedication of a church already in general use for sacred celebrations’” (p.794). The contents of the current Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar include: I. The Order of Laying a Foundation Stone or the Commencement of Work on the Building of a Church. II. The Order of the Dedication of a Church. III. The Order of the Dedication of a Church in Which Sacred Celebrations Are Already Regularly Taking Place. IV. The Order of the Dedication of an Altar. V. The Order of Blessing a Church. VI. The Order of Blessing an Altar. VII. The Order of Blessing a Chalice and Paten. part from the addition of the above-named order A for dedicating a church already in use, some chapters of the preconciliar Pontifical were omitted from the postconciliar edition and, in some cases, published elsewhere, including the “inauguration of a place intended for liturgical celebrations and other uses,” the “blessing of a new cross to be displayed for the veneration of the faithful,” the “blessing of a bell,” the “blessing of a cemetery,” the “public supplication when a church has been the place of a serious offence,” and the “crowning of a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (see Bugnini, 793-4). 3. False. “Since, in fact, an altar becomes sacred principally by the celebration of the Eucharist, in order to respect this truth, care should be taken that Mass is not celebrated on a new altar before it has been dedicated, so that the Mass of the Dedication may also be the first Eucharist celebrated on the altar itself ” (“The Order of the Dedication of an Altar,” 13). 4. d. Nehemiah 8:1-10. “In the Liturgy of the Word,” the ODCA states, “three readings chosen from those in the Lectionary for Mass (no. 816) for the Rite of the Dedication of a Church are proclaimed. The First Reading is always, even during Easter Time, the passage of Nehemiah which recounts the gathering of the people of Jerusalem in the presence of Ezra the scribe to hear the proclamation of the Law of God (Nehemiah 8:1-4a, 5-6, 8-10)” (“The Order of the Dedication of a Church,” 12). Liturgical scholar A.G. Martimort explains that the passage exemplifies to a degree the structure of Old Testament liturgical gatherings, where the people are called together to hear God’s word and respond to it in prayer and praise before offering sacrifice. The passage also signifies the importance of the word of God in Judaism and, now, Christianity. Martimort writes, “[A]fter the return from the Exile there was the eight-day-long assembly that signaled the beginning of Judaism (Neh 8–9). Continued from SILENT, page 7 the heart of the Bride to receive her divine Bridegroom more fully, consciously, and actively in his Word and in his Body. Father Boniface Hicks, O.S.B., became a Benedictine monk of St. Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, PA, in 1998. Since his ordination to the priesthood in 2004, he has provided spiritual direction for many men and women, including married couples, seminarians, consecrated religious, and priests, even as he completed his Ph.D. in computer science at Pennsylvania State University. He

AB/JOSEPH O’BRIEN

1. b. The Pontificale Romanum (“Roman Pontifical”). The Pontificale Romanum is the collection of texts used almost exclusively by the bishop, including rites for ordination, for blessing holy oils and consecrating Sacred Chrism, for the consecration of virgins, and the dedication of churches and altars. (The Rituale Romanum contains liturgical rites used by priests, including for the sacraments; the Antiphonale Romanum comprises texts and musical notation for the Liturgy of the Hours; the Missale Romanum is the ritual book for the celebration of Mass.)

Bishop William Patrick Callahan of the Diocese of La Crosse in Wisconsin anoints the mensa of the new altar at St. Philip Church, Rolling Ground, Wisconsin, in July 2020.

The convocation was no longer a direct act of God but was done in his name; his presence was nonetheless ensured through signs: the cloud, the ark, the temple, or even simply the book we call the Bible. The reading of the book became an increasingly solemn event, for it was truly God who spoke in it” (The Church at Prayer, Volume I: Principles of the Liturgy, 92-92). 5. c. A cross is placed where the future altar will be built. As described in the Introduction to the rite of blessing, “In the place where the altar will be located, a wooden cross of appropriate height is placed” (“The Order of Laying a Foundation Stone or the Commencement of Work on the Building of a Church,” 6). Additionally, “Insofar as possible, the construction site of the church should be well marked out, and it should be possible to walk around it conveniently” (5). 6. False. “It is the responsibility of the Bishop, who has been entrusted with the care of a particular Church, to dedicate to God new churches built in his diocese. If, however, he cannot himself preside at the rite, he is to entrust the office to another Bishop, especially to one who is his associate and assistant in the pastoral care of the faithful for whom the new church has been built; or, in altogether special circumstances, to a Priest, to whom he is to give a special mandate” (“The Order of the Dedication of a Church,” 6; “The Order of the Dedication of an Altar” contains a nearly identical rubric at number 12). There is a parallel between the initiation of a person and the inauguration of a church or an altar: each is sprinkled with water, anointed with sacred chrism, and “receive[s] the Body of Christ” (“The Order of the Dedication of an Altar,” 23) in their respective transformations from earthly beings to images of Christ. The minister for Christian initiation and the dedication of churches and altars is also the same: the bishop. 7. b. Relics must be of such a size as to be recognizable as parts of human bodies. The current norms for the use and placement of relics are as follows: “The tradition of the Roman Liturgy of placing relics of Martyrs or of other Saints under the altar is fittingly to be retained. Nevertheless, the following should be noted: a) Relics for deposition should be of such a size that they can be recognized as parts of human bodies. Hence, enclosing excessively small relics of one or several Saints is to be avoided. b) The greatest care must be taken to determine became the programming manager and an on-air contributor for We Are One Body Catholic radio in 2010 and has recorded thousands of radio programs on theology and the spiritual life. He has extensive experience as a retreat master for laity, consecrated religious, and priests. He became the Director for Spiritual Formation for St. Vincent Seminary in 2016 and the seminary’s Director of the Institute for Ministry Formation in 2019. Father Boniface has offered many courses on spiritual direction and the spiritual life. He is author of Through the Heart of St. Joseph and, together with fellow Benedictine Father Thomas Acklin, he is author of Spiritual Direction:

8. False. While the ODCA does call for the anointing of the walls of the church building, its motivation for the instruction is not directly connected with the baptismal dignity of the faithful. Rather, “the anointing of the church signifies that it is given over entirely and perpetually to Christian worship. Twelve anointings are made in accordance with liturgical tradition, or, as circumstances suggest, four, signifying that the church is an image of the holy city of Jerusalem.” In addition to the anointings, crosses are also placed upon the walls: “It is praiseworthy to keep the ancient custom of placing crosses made of stone, bronze or other suitable material or of carving them in the very walls of the church. Thus twelve or four crosses should be provided according to the number of anointings (cf. above) and suitably distributed on the walls of the church at a convenient height. A small bracket should be fitted under each cross into which is fixed a small candlestick with a candle to be lighted” (“The Order of the Dedication of a Church,” 16, 22). 9. c. The altar of the church building is new and has not yet been dedicated. Not just any church that has had a large or small restoration is a suitable candidate for a dedication after it has begun to be used. The Introduction to the chapter explains that “in churches such as these a distinction is made for good reason between those that have been built recently, in which case the motive for the dedication is clearer, and those that have been standing for a long time; for the latter to be dedicated it is necessary: a) that the altar has not yet been dedicated, since it is rightly forbidden both by custom and by liturgical law to dedicate a church without dedicating the altar, for the dedication of the altar is a principal part of the whole rite; b) that there is something new or greatly changed with respect to the building (for example, the church has been completely restored) or to its juridical status (for example, the church has been raised to the rank of a parish church)” (1). 10. d. Celebration of the Eucharist upon the altar. “The Order of the Dedication of an Altar” explains that the “celebration of the Eucharist is the most important rite, and the only necessary one, for the dedication of an altar. Nevertheless, in accordance with the common tradition of the Church, both East and West, a special Prayer of Dedication is also said, by which the intention of dedicating the altar to the Lord for all time is signified and his blessing is implored” (21). Liturgical scholar Father Louis Bouyer explains the origins of the Eucharist, the anointings, and the depositing of relics. There were three ways, he writes, “which were used in the ancient Church for the consecration of an altar or a church, all three of which are now contained in the Dedication ceremony of the Pontificale Romanum. The Roman tradition held, in a very theological way, that a place became consecrated for the Eucharistic celebration simply by the first celebration that was held there. The Gallican tradition added various washings and anointings symbolic of a kind of baptism of space and time to make it fit for the Eucharistic celebration; but in the African tradition, the dedication of an altar or a church required that the relics of martyrs be brought to it. A place was understood to be consecrated for the Eucharistic celebration by reason of the fact that in that place the Eucharist had, so to say, achieved its final purpose, as witnessed by the holy relics” (Liturgical Piety, 220). A Guide for Sharing the Father’s Love and Personal Prayer: A Guide for Receiving the Father’s Love. All of his books have been published by Emmaus Road Publishing. 1. http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_ doc_20100216_preghiere_en.html 2. Joseph Jungmann, SJ, Missa Sollemnia, vol. 1, 442. 3. Ibid, 443. 4. Ibid, 444. 5. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_ councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html 6. GIRM, 66; Homiletic Directory, 5. 7. Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, 16.

Adoremus Bulletin, July 2021

Dom Prosper Guéranger: Liturgical Warrior for Christian Culture

Dom Guéranger: A Monk at the Heart of the Church by Dom Guy Marie Oury, OSB (trans. By Hope Heaney), Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2020. 526 pp. ISBN: 978-1622921522. $29.95. By Joseph O’Brien, Managing Editor

om Guy Marie Oury’s Dom Guéranger: A Monk at the Heart of the Church is not a perfect book, but it is an important book, if only because it offers our dying culture a road map to recovery. I say “dying culture.” It should come as a surprise to no one that our culture—and Western Civilization as a whole—is dying. I say this not as a matter of pessimism. Nor am I discounting divine intervention. But there are symptoms enough to show that our culture is very much like the “patient etherized upon a table” in T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” What are the symptoms that our patient is dying? We could point to particulars: the broad-scale acceptance of abortion; declining birthrates in most Western countries; the destruction of the family through permissive divorce laws and so-called “same-sex” marriage; and most recently, society’s pandemic confusion over natural gender and the complementarity of the sexes. As Catholics, believing as we do that God continues to work in and through the world, we cannot simply throw up our hands or throw in the towel. But how do we begin to regenerate a culture so seemingly hopeless? The answer is right before our eyes—and present to our other senses as well—in the sacred liturgy. Benedictine Father Cassian Folsom understands this better than most, having formed an effective Catholic counterculture with his fellow monks at the Benedictine Monastery of Nursia in Italy. As Father Folsom notes in a 2018 presentation at the Avila Institute (and reprinted in the May 2019 issue of Adoremus), liturgy plays an essential role in culture. “Culture always comes from the worship of something, the veneration of what we care most deeply about,” he says. “In Western civilization, a glorious culture of extraordinary beauty developed from the worship of God in the Catholic liturgy, in particular in the sacrifice of the Mass. Since that culture has gradually and progressively separated itself from its origins in the Catholic cultus, it is no longer sustainable. In many places in Europe, splendid cathedrals which once throbbed with life are now reduced to museums: empty shells of a past no longer understood, no longer loved—indeed, a past that is sometimes hated.” Father Folsom adds that, while modern culture still has its gods to worship, they are, if we may judge them by their fruits, death-dealing gods, which require a corrective or a “shock to the system.” That shock is found in the liturgically structured life of the Benedictine community. And now, with Dom Oury’s Dom Guéranger available in English (it was originally published in French in 2000), we have another Benedictine’s word for it. Cultured Approach Dom Prosper Guéranger was one of the greatest Churchmen of the 19th century and a case study in how to provide the necessary “shock” to recapture the mystery of the Christian faith. Consider: he founded the first Benedictine community in post-revolutionary France in 1836, now known as St. Peter’s Abbey, at the priory of Solesmes after it was abandoned during the French Revolution. Guéranger also restored Gregorian chant within the Church, culminating in the Second Vatican Council’s pronouncement that it deserves “pride of place” in all liturgies (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116); and he renewed a love for and knowledge of the Roman liturgy in France—leading his successors to spread that same love and knowledge throughout the rest of the Western world. In the preface to Dom Guéranger, Dom Philip Anderson, abbot of Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma (which claims its roots in Solesmes), sums up Guéranger’s life and contributions succinctly: “The abbot of Solesmes was a man of a great and single idea. He had from the start the genial intuition of his mission, and he devoted himself entirely to it: that of restoring to our disinherited age all the scattered treasures of the thousand-year tradition of Christianity, and above all the forgotten riches of antiquity that the Church preserves in her liturgy.” Abbot Philip also recounts the great abbot’s particular accomplishments regarding the liturgy. “Many Catholics know Dom Guéranger as the author of The Liturgical Year, a guide to the Church’s liturgy that has

helped them understand and appreciate the riches of the Roman Catholic liturgy. Many have also heard of the work accomplished by his monks at the Solesmes abbey in France for the restoration of Gregorian chant.” He adds that “this incomparable liturgist was also a saintly monk, whose cause of beatification has begun [in 2005] in the Diocese of Le Mans, France, where he lived and died. He is now given the title of ‘Servant of God.’” In addition, Abbot Philip notes, Guéranger “was the friend of saints and of popes. Pope Blessed Pius IX… wrote, along with many other high praises of Dom Guéranger, the following words: [‘]By his virtue, piety, zeal, knowledge, and by the work of a lifetime, he showed himself to be a true disciple of Saint Benedict and a perfect monk.[’]” The dynamic Benedictine father of Solesmes had also “contributed written works ‘full of faith and sacred learning’ that served to uphold the Holy See in making…ex cathedra pronouncements” defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Papal Infallibility in 1870. And yet, except within liturgical circles, it seems that knowledge of Guéranger’s accomplishments is often eclipsed by other equally important figures in the Church at the time, including most notably his contemporary across the Channel, Cardinal John Henry Newman (whom, as Oury relates, Guéranger met during a visit which was both brief and awkward as the Churchmen were stymied by a language barrier—Newman knew little French and Guéranger less English). So it is that Dom Oury has done a great service in providing a meticulously researched and wide-ranging biography of Dom Guéranger. In doing so, he also provides the Catholic reader with a working account of how to restore culture—beginning, as Father Folsom notes, with a keen focus on the liturgy. Old: the New New If we consider the secular forces at work in France— and they were legion—after the bloody revolution had decimated the faith in that country, it is clear why Guéranger saw the liturgy as the best possible antidote to the moribund state of the French Church and the liberal waywardness of French society. Oury cites Guéranger writing in his autobiography that the liturgy transcends any particular culture both in its mystery and in its history: “Liturgy is the language of the Church, the expression of its faith, its vows, its tributes to God: thus, antiquity must be chief among its main characteristics. Any liturgy that comes into being having nothing to do with the liturgy of our fathers is unworthy of the name…. A civilization does not achieve seventeen centuries of existence without a sufficient language to express its thought….” For Guéranger, the liturgy was not merely what one did on Sundays; rather, it was the clearest and most powerful way that the faithful could achieve sanctity and make manifest to the rest of the world the four marks of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. “Starting with the current state of the liturgy,” Oury writes, “Dom Guéranger planted the ideas of unity and

a return to unity among the primary objectives of his teachings and his battle [with secular French society and a compromised French Church]. Beyond these objectives, he formed a theology of the Church and a theology of the liturgy…. Dom Guéranger considered the liturgy as the primary visible manifestation of the Church and of its true nature; in a way, it could be said that the liturgy was the basis for the life of the Mystical Body.” But if liturgy was the lodestar by which Guéranger sought to renew the faith of France—and the world— he also saw the liturgy necessarily within the context of a society in but not of the world—the Benedictine ideal. “One key notion held by Dom Guéranger,” Oury writes, “which he repeated constantly as the basis for his thinking and the source of his other teachings, was that the essence of monastic life did not differ from Christian life. Monastic life was a Christian life in its fullest state of perfection, lived in accordance with every demand.” The liturgy was not simply reserved, in other words, for the spires and clerestory of monasticism but was to transform all members of society—from the inhabitants of the rudest cottage to the denizens of the most regal castle. “In Dom Guéranger’s mind,” Oury writes, “Christian life as a whole had a liturgical and sacerdotal character, both participation and pre-figuration of the eternal liturgy…. Liturgical assemblies on earth were the reflection and imitation of the heavenly liturgy eternally celebrated by angels and saints; liturgical assemblies were a communion with the heavenly liturgy.” The importance of culture remained a keystone for Guéranger’s teachings on the liturgy; it was not to exist in a vacuum, nor was it to be condemned as an outdated and esoteric practice with no real-world application. As Oury notes, “Father Guéranger heralded the advent of a new type of post-Christian society: ‘Another era is approaching, one that is faithless and indifferent to truth and error….’ But he remained convinced that the permanent confusion of minds would never be the norm. ‘I have no doubt that one day Catholicism will return to its place in this world, to which it alone holds the secret.’” St. Cecilia at Solesmes While Guéranger did not live long enough to see his plans come to full fruition, he did accomplish a few momentous steps toward realizing a world newly enamored with and informed by the liturgy. One of these steps was the Abbey of St. Cecilia in Solesmes, a monastery for Benedictine nuns, which he founded nine years before his death. Named for the third-century martyr to whom Guéranger had an ardent personal devotion (not surprisingly, since she is the patron saint of music), the abbey was formed on the same model he used for his monks at Solesmes. According to Oury, St. Cecilia’s served as a great comfort in Guéranger’s declining years, but it also served as an opportunity to further spread his ideas about the liturgy. “The work of the foundation and the training at Sainte-Cecile had taken precedence over the abbot of Solesmes’ other tasks, ones he had started or planned,” Oury writes. “At the same time, Sainte-Cecile forced him to clarify his thoughts and apply his monastic ideas. He had before him a breeding ground that was particularly receptive to his ideas.” Throughout his struggle to gain support for the Roman liturgy in a country still in the throes of Gallicanism and habituated to the Gallican Rite, Guéranger always sought supra-legal means to reintroduce the Roman Rite into France. “I tried to express my feelings of respect and affection for the Roman liturgy,” Guéranger states, quoted by Oury, “and I set forth the need for the liturgy to be ancient, universal, sanctioned, and pious—principles that were in direct conflict with the French liturgies. I did not attack the abuse from a legal perspective; it seemed all too obvious to me that Rome had yielded on that point. But I laid siege to obstructing the French position and by compromising the disastrous Gallican liturgy in a simple comparison between it and the foundations of the Catholic institution.” Thus, with St. Cecilia’s, Guéranger found a perfect second laboratory for his ideas about the liturgy—a laboratory full of women devoted to Christ their bride whom he hoped would help his monks foster a love for the liturgy throughout French society. Both St. Cecilia and the monastery she patronized embodied Guéranger’s view of the liturgy as a force for good in secular society. “The establishment of Christianity in Rome, the first generations, and the developing influence of the apostolic See over the entire Church were subjects that Please see WARRIOR on page 10