Adoremus Bulletin - March 2023

Adoremus Bulletin

For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

For the Forgiveness of Sin: The Revised Order of Penance

News & Views

Traditionis Custodes: Cardinal Says Only Vatican Can Dispense from Certain Obligations

By Hannah Brockhaus

CNA—The head of the Vatican’s liturgy office said on February 21 that dispensations from two of the rules in Traditionis custodes can only be granted by the Vatican, not by the diocesan bishop.

The February 21 rescript (a form of official clarification in response to a question or request) from Cardinal Arthur Roche said Pope Francis had confirmed that a dispensation to use or erect a parish church for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in a diocese is “reserved in a special way to the Apostolic See.”

Permission for a priest ordained after July 2021 to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass can also only be granted by the Vatican, the document states.

The rescript says that Cardinal Roche’s office, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, exercises the authority of the Holy See to uphold or dispense from these two obligations.

“Should a diocesan bishop have granted dispensations in the two cases mentioned above he is obliged to inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which will evaluate the individual cases,” Cardinal Roche said.

Rumors of new restrictions against the Traditional Latin Mass

Story continued on page 2

By Michael Brummond

Times of change or transition are commonplace in our human experience. Such moments, both large and small, can be opportunities for renewal and refocus. The purchase of a new car or wallet offers us the prospect and resolution of keeping the new one cleaner than the one replaced. For Catholics the movement from Ordinary Time to the season of Lent is a transition often associated with spiritual and liturgical renewal. Each celebration of the sacrament of Penance is also a moment of transition, allowing us an opportunity for conversion from sin to new life.

Over the last several years, the English-speaking Church has been receiving revised translations of her liturgical books, and each of these is also a moment of change and thus an opportunity for renewal and revitalization. Some of these transitions were of seemingly larger import, such as the 2011 reception of the newly translated third edition of the Roman Missal Others are more modest in their changes and impact. This is perhaps the case with the most recently revised liturgical book, The Order of Penance (OP). Nevertheless, this moment still has the potential for a renewed focus on this sacrament and its liturgical celebration.

Fruit of Vatican II

Before considering the recent changes in translation, it may be helpful to revisit the genesis and contents of the Order of Penance itself.1 Vatican II’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), was rather sparse in its directives regarding this sacrament: “The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament” (SC, 72). In 1966, the commission tasked with implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium, known as the Consilium, undertook the study and revision of the rite. The members of the Consilium considered the existing Tridentine rite, older Western forms of penance, as well as practices of the Eastern Churches. There was a widespread desire that individual confession would be supplemented by a form of communal celebration.

“ The post-conciliar rite was published in 1973 with not one, but three forms: the Order for Reconciling Individual Penitents, the Order for Reconciling Several Penitents with Individual Confession and Absolution, and the Order for Reconciling Several Penitents with General Confession and Absolution.”

Some members also hoped for multiple formulas of absolution from which to choose. The work was not without difficulty and the new rite was promulgated only after many modifications and after the work of two different committees. One of the main reasons for the prolonged preparation was the question of general absolution, the practice of which some Consilium members were hoping to expand. In response, in 1972 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued

Think You’ve Heard It All?

Priests say that all the time when it comes to confession. However, as Michael Brummond explains, in the revised Order of Penance, priests and penitents alike will be hearing something new 1

Play (and Say) the Rite Music

Father Dylan Schrader puts succinct words to music, explaining why knowing—and using— the proper terms for what we sing at Mass are crucial to understanding the power of the Mass 5

Eastward and Onward!

In this reprint from Pope Benedict XVI’s book The Spirit of the Liturgy, the late pontiff explains

Pastoral Norms on the Administration of General Absolution. A new study group was formed to rework the draft in keeping with these new norms. As a result, the post-conciliar rite was published in 1973 with not one, but three forms: the Order for Reconciling Individual Penitents, the Order for Reconciling Several Penitents with Individual Confession and Absolution, and the Order for Reconciling Several Penitents with General Confession and Absolution.

The praenotanda, or Introduction, to the Order of Penance serves as a kind of theological and pastoral overview of the sacrament. The pre-conciliar rite contained its own introduction, but this newly composed and theologically rich text “intended to synthesize the traditional doctrine, theology, and practice as set out by the Council of Trent and nuanced by Vatican II.”2 It begins with richly biblical language, placing reconciliation within the larger context of salvation history, highlighting its trinitarian,

Please see PENANCE on page 4

why praying ad orientem is the way to go for a wholly liturgical encounter with Jesus 7

To Eden…and Back Again

The second of Matthew Tsakanikas’s two-part essay returns us to the old Eden to find our way to the new Eden and further liturgical insights into how Exodus informs Genesis 9

An Orthodox Paradox

According to Peter Martin’s review of Mary Stanford’s new book, The Obedience Paradox obedience is key to understanding how married life blossoms only when one dies to self 12

Vatican II’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was rather sparse in its directives regarding Penance, saying only that “The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament.”

Continued Adoremus Bulletin, March 2023

circulated for weeks. Pope Francis published the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which restricted the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, in July 2021. In December 2021, the Vatican issued an explanatory note and “responsa ad dubia” (“answers to doubts”), responding to questions about some of the legal provisions of Traditionis custodes and further restricting its celebration.

Ukrainian Catholics To Celebrate Christmas on December 25, in Shift toward West

By Peter Pinedo

CNA—The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) announced on February 6 that it is switching its fixed-date religious celebrations to match the Gregorian calendar used by the Church in the West.

Ukrainian Catholics have been among the few remaining sects under the papacy to celebrate holidays according to the Julian calendar, which celebrates Christmas on January 7 and Epiphany on January 19. The Russian Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches under the Patriarchate of Moscow follow the Julian calendar.

Now, Catholics in Ukraine will celebrate feasts on the same dates as Catholics in the U.S. and other Western nations, meaning Christmas will be observed on December 25 and Epiphany on January 6.

The change will take place at the beginning of the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s liturgical year, September 1, 2023.

The head of the UGCC, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv-Galicia, said that the decision was made “taking into account the numerous requests of the faithful and having conducted prior consultations with the clergy and monastics of our Church about the urgent need to reform the liturgical calendar of the UGCC in Ukraine.”

Major Archbishop Shevchuk clarified that only holidays that occur on a fixed date every year, such as Christmas, will now be celebrated on the same days as in the West.

Holidays that move from year to year, such as Easter, will continue for the time being to be celebrated in the old style.

According to the release, there is an ongoing dialogue between the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches to settle on a new arrangement for the two to celebrate Easter on the same day. The two Churches hope to be in agreement in time for the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in 2025.

“In preparation for this anniversary, collaborative work is underway in a dialogue between Rome and Constantinople on a renewed Paschalia, according to which all Christians will celebrate Easter on the same day,” the statement said.

Vatican News reported that Major Archbishop Shevchuk said that until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian Greek Catholics were divided on whether to make the change, but now more than 90% of Ukrainian Greek Catholics support moving from the Julian calendar and its associations with Russia.

“The desire and need for the calendar reform were much more potent than we could have hoped, and this is good news,” Major Archbishop Shevchuk said.

Even though the switch received broad support, the Ukrainian Church will allow individual parishes to continue celebrating feasts according to the Julian calendar if they “feel they are not yet ready for such a step” and obtain special permission from their bishop. This exception will remain possible until 2025, by which point the UGCC wants all parishes to follow the Gregorian calendar.

Pope Francis Urges Conference Participants to Live Liturgy Fully

By Joseph O’Brien

Pope Francis enjoined the faithful to continue to embrace their role in and love for the liturgy in an address he delivered to participants in a liturgy conference in Rome this past January.

The conference, which drew diocesan heads of liturgical celebrations from around the world, was a formation course in the liturgy, and took place January 16-20 at the Pontifical St. Anslem Institute in Rome. The conference’s theme, “Living liturgical action fully,” was taken up by Pope Francis in his address, given on last day of the event. Citing his most recent document on the liturgy, the Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, Pope Francis commended the participants for attending an event which “is in keeping with the indications of the Apostolic Letter…on

liturgical formation. Indeed, the conduct of celebrations demands preparation and commitment.”

Pope Francis stressed the importance of preparation, both academic and spiritual, for the proper celebration of the liturgy.

“This service of yours to the liturgy requires, besides in-depth knowledge, a profound pastoral awareness,” he said. “I rejoice to see that once again you are renewing your commitment to the study of the liturgy. As Saint Paul VI said, it is the ‘primary source of that divine exchange in which the life of God is communicated to us; it is the first school of our soul’ (Allocution for the closing of the Second Session of Vatican Council II, 4 December 1963). Therefore, the liturgy cannot be fully possessed, it is not learned like notions, crafts, human skills. It is the primary art of the Church, that which constitutes and characterizes her.”

In carrying on their work, Pope Francis called on the participants at the conference to keep in mind the vision for the liturgy set out by the Second Vatican Council.

“One of the cardinal principles of Vatican II returns here: we must always keep the good of the communities, the pastoral care of the faithful (cf. ibid., 34) before our eyes, to lead the people to Christ and Christ to the people. It is the primary objective, which must be in first place also when you prepare and guide the celebrations. If we neglect this, we will have beautiful rites, but without strength, without flavor, without meaning, because they do not touch the heart and the existence of the people of God.”

Pope Francis defined the theme of the conference, “to live liturgical action fully” not as an “aesthetic joy…but rather wonder.”

“Wonder is different to aesthetic pleasure: it is the encounter with God,” the pope said. “Only the encounter with the Lord gives you wonder. How can this objective be achieved? The answer is already found in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In paragraph 14, it recommends the formation of the faithful, but—the Constitution says—‘it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing thus unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.’”

In his address, Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of ars celebrandi, the proper art of celebrating the liturgy.

“I encourage you to help seminary superiors to preside in the best way possible,” the pope said, “to take care of proclamation, gestures, signs, so that future priests, along with the study of liturgical theology, learn how to celebrate well: and this is the style of presiding. One learns by watching daily a priest who knows how to preside, how to celebrate, because he lives the liturgy and, when he celebrates, he prays.”

Liturgy directors can also play a role in improving the liturgy throughout their dioceses, Pope Francis said in his address.

“Your task is not to arrange the rite for one day,” he said, “but to propose a liturgy that is imitable, with those adaptations that the community can embrace in order to grow in the liturgical life. In this way, gradually, the celebratory style of the diocese grows. Indeed, going to the parishes and saying nothing in the face of liturgies that are a little slapdash, neglected, badly prepared, means not helping the communities, not accompanying them. Instead, delicately, with a fraternal spirit, it is good to help pastors reflect on the liturgy, to prepare them with the faithful.”

Pope Francis closed his remarks by noting the importance of cultivating silence in the liturgy.

“In this age, we talk, we talk…. Silence. Especially before the celebrations—a moment that is at times taken for a social gathering,” he said.

“Silence helps the assembly and concelebrants to concentrate on what is to be done,” Pope Francis continued. “Often sacristies are noisy before and after celebrations,

Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

PHONE: 608.521.0385 WEBSITE: www.adoremus.org

but silence opens and prepares for the mystery: it is silence that enables you to prepare for the mystery, it permits its assimilation, and lets the echo of the Word that is listened to resound.”

Society for Catholic Liturgy Call for Papers

The 2023 Conference for the Society for Catholic Liturgy (SCL) has announced its theme: “Remain in me”: Liturgical Formation and the Eucharistic Revival. The annual conference will be held this year in St. Paul, MN, on September 21-22 and is accepting papers for the event.

The theme this year takes its inspiration from Pope Francis’s recent motu proprio on the liturgy, Desiderio Desideravi: “We see that the liturgical year is for us the possibility of growing in our knowledge of the mystery of Christ, immersing our life in the mystery of His Death and Resurrection, awaiting his return in glory. This is a true ongoing formation. Our life is not a random chaotic series of events, one following the other. It is rather a precise itinerary which, from one annual celebration of His Death and Resurrection to the next, conforms us to Him, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ” (64).

In his Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, Pope Francis calls for a “serious and vital liturgical formation” of the people of God through a “rediscovery of a theological understanding of the liturgy.” At the same time, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for a three-year Eucharistic Revival (2022-2024), culminating in a Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis, IN, in 2024.

According to the official announcement of this year’s theme, the SCL believes it has “a specific scholarly contribution to make in responding to both calls to action. We would like to pose a question: Is it possible that the recommitment to liturgical formation and the Eucharistic Revival can be integrated? How can a plan for the liturgical formation of the faithful contribute to the Eucharistic Revival in the United States?”

Referring to the Eucharistic congresses of the past century, the announcement noted, “the Eucharistic rites of the Church were presented as ways in which the whole Church might develop a new spiritual fervor that would serve as a medicine against individualism, secularization, violence, and injustice. At the heart of these efforts was the desire for a deeper participation in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the ‘true vine’ in which the life of the world remains, continuously sanctified by the prayer of the Church.”

“A re-engagement of the faithful in this deeper understanding of the liturgy,” the statement continued, “in the mode of a scholarly conference, can facilitate an authentic liturgical formation of the people of God, and enable a richer Eucharistic Revival for the 21st century. For this reason, we welcome the submission of abstracts for this theme.

See https://liturgysociety.org for specific topic suggestions.

Presentations are expected to be in the form of a scholarly paper, 30 minutes in length for full panels, 20 minutes in length for student panels. Please submit proposals by March 24, 2023 to Sister Esther Mary Nickel, RSM at nickel.esthermary@aod.org. Papers can be submitted for publication in the Society for Catholic Liturgy’s journal Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal

CORRECTION

On page 8 of the article “Let Your Saturday Be Saturday and Your Sunday Be Sunday: How Pastoral Concerns and Canonical Reforms Inflated the Sabbath and Deflated Its Importance” by John Grondelski, which appeared in the January 2023 issue (Vol. XXVIII, no. 4) of Adoremus Bulletin, the Swiss cities of Bern and Fribourg were incorrectly identified as cities in Germany. The editors regret this error, which was theirs and not the author’s.

EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens

MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien

CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest

GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson

OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher

MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond

SOCIAL MEDIA: Jesse Weiler

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky

INQUIRIES TO THE EDITOR P.O. Box 385 | La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 editor@adoremus.org

= Helen Hull Hitchcock

The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ

Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgical Long View

By Christopher Carstens, Editor

With the passing of Pope Benedict XVI, Adoremus and its supporters have lost one of their founding fathers. Adoremus, now in its 28th year, was in large part founded by the support of then-Cardinal Ratzinger. When Father Fessio, a friend and student of Joseph Ratzinger, first pitched the idea of beginning a liturgical bulletin—one directed not simply to specialists, but to all Catholics interested in celebrating the Church’s liturgical treasure—it was the Cardinal’s response that sealed the deal: “Yes, I agree we need that kind of movement… and I think the time is ripe for the kind of journal you are describing.”

Since then, Adoremus has gladly followed the liturgical insights of Joseph Ratzinger—first as Cardinal, then as Pope—and promoted his vision of the sacred liturgy. Indeed, one of Adoremus’s founding principles rests upon a short excerpt of this 1986 work, Feast of Faith: Approaches to Theology of the Liturgy: “What is exciting about Christian Liturgy is that it lifts us up out of our narrow sphere and lets us share in the Truth. The aim of all liturgical renewal must be to bring to light this liberating greatness” (p.75).

Not all in the Church, of course, shared such a liturgical vision. Some may wonder, in fact, if such a broad liturgical perspective is relevant today. Can the cares and concerns surrounding the sacred liturgy in 2023 find any solution in a claim from 1986, or a liturgical review founded in 1995, or a Pope whose office ended in 2013?

Much has been written on the liturgical legacy of the late Pope Benedict, from his introduction of the now-eponymous (i.e. “Benedictine”) altar arrangement, to encouraging an interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium in continuity with the longer tradition, to the mutual enrichment of liturgical forms in Summorum Pontificum. Each of these instances (and more) exemplify the long-view of the liturgy—and this is a perspective as necessary now as ever.

Consider Ratzinger’s statement cited above: “What is exciting about Christian Liturgy….” What, indeed, is so exciting about it? Most stories today, unfortunately, have little to do with liturgical “excitement” and more

One of Adoremus’s founding principles rests upon a short excerpt of Pope Benedict’s 1986 book, Feast of Faith: Approaches to Theology of the Liturgy: “What is exciting about Christian Liturgy is that it lifts us up out of our narrow sphere and lets us share in the Truth. The aim of all liturgical renewal must be to bring to light this liberating greatness.” Pope Benedict is pictured here with one of Adoremus’s other founders, Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio.

to do with liturgical discord and division. The Cardinal continues: liturgy “lifts us up out of our narrow sphere.” Here, too, the liturgical discussions of the day often limit themselves to the “narrow sphere” of ritual forms—books (2002 or 1962?), language (Latin or vernacular?), or law (such as a bishop’s authority to regulate particular liturgical practices).

On the contrary, says Ratzinger, “the aim of all liturgical renewal must be to bring to light [the liturgy’s] liberating greatness.” Speaking personally, far too much of my liturgical energy is mired in anxiety, conflict, and minutiae—hardly “liberating greatness.”

In short, much of the modern liturgical movement and of the Church’s liturgical apostolate is lost in the proverbial trees, with the larger liturgical forest long invisible. And it is for this reason that Cardinal Ratzinger’s long view of history and tradition—as well as it’s forward-looking and eschatological vision—is needed today.

The Mission, Goals, and Principles of Adoremus

For more than 25 years, Adoremus has fostered the sound formation of Catholic laity in matters relating to the Church’s worship consistent with the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and aided Catholics (including priests and seminarians) with reliable information and encouragement. Adoremus provides sound resources to promote a more reverent, beautiful, and holy celebration of the Mass and other forms of worship. Since its founding, Adoremus has held to the following guidelines:

1. Adoremus Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy is an association of Catholics, established on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1995, to promote authentic reform of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite.

2. The mission of Adoremus is to rediscover and restore the beauty, the holiness, and the power of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition while remaining faithful to an organic, living process of renewal. The purpose of such a renewal cannot be expressed more eloquently than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s statement in Feast of Faith: “Christian Liturgy is cosmic Liturgy, as Saint Paul tells us in the Letter to the Philippians. It must never renounce this dignity, however attractive it may seem to work with small groups and construct homemade liturgies. What is exciting about Christian Liturgy is that it lifts us up out of our narrow sphere and lets us share in the Truth. The aim of all liturgical renewal must be to bring to light this liberating greatness” (75).

3 Adoremus was inspired to reconsider the liturgical renewal by Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter on the 25th Anniversary of the Liturgy Constitution (Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 1988). The pope was

concerned not only with questions of liturgical translation, but also with liturgical renewal as a whole. He wrote: “For the work of translation, as well as for the wider implications of liturgical renewal for whole countries, each episcopal conference was required to establish a national commission and to ensure the collaboration of experts in the various sectors of liturgical science and pastoral practice. The time has come to evaluate this commission, its past activity, both the positive and negative aspects, and the guidelines and the help which it has received from the episcopal conference regarding its composition and activity” (20).

4. Adoremus fully and unreservedly accepts the Second Vatican Council as an act of the Church’s supreme Magisterium (teaching authority) guided by the Holy Spirit, and regards its documents as an expression, in our time, of the word of Christ Himself for His Bride, the Church.

5. Adoremus believes the aim of Liturgy is union with Christ in communion with the Church. The experience of the years following Vatican II—declining Mass attendance, dramatic decreases in priestly and religious vocations, diminished belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in other core doctrines of the Catholic Church, and a widespread loss of the sense of the sacred—makes clear the need for genuine liturgical reform.

6. Adoremus’s guiding principle for authentic liturgical reform is enunciated in Sacrosanctum Concilium: “[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of

Such a correction cannot, of course, ignore the immediate issues of our time. Much as revelation takes the form of written texts, so the Paschal sacrifice of Christ exists today as liturgical ritual. Consequently, ritual forms—old and new, Latin and vernacular, local and universal, “gathering songs” versus “entrance chants” (see page 5)—are entirely significant. These ritual details are the tangible locus where heaven meets earth. Still, it is only within the larger liturgical vision (Thank you, Pope Benedict!) that liturgical details gain significance. As I have remarked previously in my Bulletin editorials, too much energy is spent in the wrong places: if I were as eager about my divinization as the latest news analysis, I could truly be “excited” to escape my “narrow sphere,” “share in the Truth,” and experience the “liberating greatness” the Church’s liturgy has to offer.

But maybe such a vision is unrealistic in this fallen world. It was, after all, Ratzinger’s own observation that we’re still in a wounded world and living among the shadows: that heavenly Temple in which we wish to abide in today’s liturgy is “still under construction” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 64). What, then, shall we do?

Here, as elsewhere in the liturgical world, opinions differ—and perhaps they must. For one, none of us (save God) has any idea what tomorrow’s magisterial direction might bring. For another, each of us lives in rather different circumstances with varying liturgical experiences and needs: my small parish in rural Wisconsin differs from the convent in New Mexico which, in turn, is unlike the liturgy at St. Mary Cathedral in Sydney, Australia. Still, while much varies and remains unknown, sound principles do exist for the future of the reform of the sacred liturgy. On this point, I am grateful that Adoremus’s original mission, goals, and principles remain as firm as ever.

As Adoremus’s editor, I will read these from time to time; and I encourage you, our readers, to do the same (see below). Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, Father Jerry Pokorsky, and Helen Hull Hitchcock have built Adoremus on solid ground. So, too, has Joseph Ratzinger blessed Adoremus with insights that have guided us from the start and that will help us see clearly amidst the liturgical uncertainty in the future. If we adopt this long view, excitement, Truth, liberation, and greatness await.

the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new form adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (23).

7. Adoremus accepts the liturgical changes approved by appropriate Church authorities since the Council as the legitimate exercise of the Church’s disciplinary authority over the Liturgy. Adoremus seeks a more authentic observance of the liturgical norms approved since the Council.

8. With Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (cited above), Adoremus believes liturgical changes approved since the Council should be reviewed and measured against a deeper understanding of the Council’s teaching and a hermeneutic of reform and renewal. We believe the Church should reflect carefully on these changes, and evaluate them in the light of the original conciliar texts and of the experience of Catholic faithful since the Council, including changes more in harmony with the authentic renewal of the Liturgy expressed in the Council documents.

9. Adoremus believes that the liturgical reform mandated by the Second Vatican Council cannot be accomplished by a return to the pre-conciliar Liturgy, although it does not oppose lawful use of the present discipline that permits celebration of the pre-conciliar Liturgy under certain conditions.

10. Adoremus encourages cooperative effort and a fruitful exchange of ideas with all faithful Catholics, and seeks to build support for a new liturgical movement. Adoremus provides a forum for many Catholics concerned about the Liturgy and gives voice to their legitimate desires, opinions, and questions, in order to foster greater understanding and appropriation of and actual participation in the Church’s worship.

AB/FATHER JOSEPH FESSIO

Continued from PENANCE, page 1

Christological, and ecclesiological foundations (OP, 1). It shows the connection between Penance and the other sacraments, particularly baptism and the Eucharist (OP, 2). It goes on to consider reconciliation in the life of the Church, which is at once holy but always in need of purification (OP, 3). Here it highlights both the personal and communal dimension of sin and reconciliation (OP, 5). The Introduction then outlines the essential parts of the sacrament, what the tradition has recognized as matter—contrition, confession, satisfaction—and the form—the words of absolution (OP, 6).

The Introduction then turns to the offices and ministries in the celebration of this sacrament. Notably, it begins with “the whole Church, as a priestly people” as the first subject of the work of reconciliation (OP, 8). It then turns to the priest as the minister of the sacrament and some words on his pastoral exercise of the sacrament (OP, 9-10). Finally, it considers the role of the penitent (OP, 11). The celebration of the sacrament is detailed in terms of its place, time, and vestments (OP, 12-14). The

in God. There follows an optional reading from scripture, a feature of individual confession regrettably underutilized. Next comes the confession of sins and the acceptance of satisfaction or penance, followed by the “prayer of the penitent,” usually known as the Act of Contrition. The Order provides a number of texts for this prayer (OP, 85-92). The new translation now includes for the first time the Act of Contrition familiar to many Catholics (“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you…”). The penitent’s prayer is then met with the absolution of the priest. The celebration ends with the proclamation of praise of God and the dismissal of the penitent.

including an intention to confess individually at a proper time the sins that cannot be confessed at this time. The penitents then indicate their desire for absolution by a sign such as kneeling and are invited to make a general act of confession (“I confess to almighty God…”). Absolution is given with the usual formula, or a version containing an expanded tripartite prayer. The celebration concludes with a short proclamation of praise, blessing, and dismissal. In cases of extreme need, such as imminent danger of death, the rite can be shortened even to include simply the essential words of absolution.

The fourth chapter of the Order of Penance includes various texts to be used in the celebration of reconciliation. The variety of texts given for the prayer formulas and scripture readings highlights a treasury of options rarely taken advantage of. The texts are often rich in scriptural quotations or allusions, and provide ample material for a mystagogical catechesis on this sacrament.

Finally, several helpful appendices outline the procedures for the absolution from censures, dispensation from irregularities, as well as several examples of non-sacramental penitential celebrations for a variety of occasions.

New Translation of Order of Penance

The revised Order of Penance is not a revision of the rite itself or even another edition from what was previously in use. It represents a fresh translation of the first (and only) Latin edition from 1973 in line with the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, which lays out the guidelines for translations of

Introduction then walks through details of celebrating each of the three forms of the rite (OP, 15-35) as well as non-sacramental penitential celebrations (OP 36-37). We may be less familiar with these nonsacramental celebrations as they are not frequently utilized. Their existence shows that penance, even in its liturgical manifestation, is not limited in the life of the Church to the sacrament of Reconciliation. These are “gatherings of the People of God to hear the word of God, which invites them to conversion and to renewal of life as well as announces our freedom from sin through the Death and Resurrection of Christ” (OP, 36). One could imagine such services being used with children preparing for their first confession, with catechumens or candidates for full communion, or in communities where priests are unavailable to hear confession for a long period of time. The Introduction then closes with the various adaptions within the competence of the conference of bishops, the diocesan bishop, and the minister of the sacrament (OP, 38-40). Needless to say, each aspect of the Introduction is a fitting subject for further study.

The Order of Penance then devotes a chapter each to the three liturgical forms of the sacrament, beginning with the form Catholic faithful are most familiar with, reconciling individual penitents. This form begins with the reception of the penitent which includes a greeting by the priest, the sign of the cross, and an invitation to the penitent to trust

The second form highlights the communal nature of the sacrament. This is the order of reconciling several penitents with individual confession and absolution. Colloquially, many Catholics might recognize this as a “penance service” they experience at Lent or Advent. This celebration begins in the church where all are gathered with introductory rites that include a song, greeting, and opening prayer akin to a collect at Mass. There follows an ampler celebration of the Word of God, the structure of which mirrors the biblical readings at a Sunday Mass. There is then a homily and a collective examination of conscience. The Rite of Reconciliation begins with a general formula of confession of sins. This is not an enumeration of individual sins, but a corporate acknowledgement of sin and the need for God’s mercy. The Lord’s Prayer is said and, after this, penitents disperse to individual confessionals for individual confession and absolution. The liturgy envisions that penitents remain in the church after their individual confessions for a proclamation of praise for God’s mercy, a concluding prayer of thanksgiving, and the concluding rites which include a blessing and dismissal.

The third form is the order of reconciling several penitents with general confession and absolution. Sometimes known simply as “general absolution,” this form does not include the individual, integral confession of sins. The rather narrow applications of this form of the sacrament are dictated by the Code of Canon Law §961-963, as well as the Introduction to the Order of Penance, 31-34. In short, this form may be used in two scenarios. First, general absolution may be granted if danger of death is imminent and there is not sufficient time for individual confessions. One might imagine here soldiers going into battle, or passengers on a sinking ship. Second, the diocesan bishop may determine that there is other grave necessity which, due to the number of penitents and lack of confessors, would preclude individual confession (and thus possibly the grace of Eucharistic communion) within a suitable period of time (the complementary norm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) interprets this as one month). One could envision such a case particularly in mission territories or other locales that are rarely visited by a priest. In general, the rite follows the pattern of the second form above, with a few exceptions. First, a brief instruction is given regarding the proper interior disposition for the sacrament,

liturgical texts into vernacular languages. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) prepared the translation according to these principles, and the USCCB voted in June 2021 to approve the translation for use in the United States. In April 2022 the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments approved the text. The new translation may be used beginning Ash Wednesday 2023 and will be mandatory as of Divine Mercy Sunday (Second Sunday of Easter) 2023.

Some might first observe the modification of the title. The Rite of Penance is now the Order of Penance. This reflects the Latin title, Ordo Paenitentiae. It also recognizes that, generally speaking, an ordo is a collection of rites, as is the case in this liturgical text.

The most noteworthy changes are found in the formula for absolution. Catholics have been used to hearing, “God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins.” The new text will read “poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins.”

The new translation is, in the first place, closer to the Latin original. The words “among us” do not appear in the Latin and have thus been removed. “Poured out” renders more faithfully the Latin effudit. More than mere literalism, however, the revised text captures much of the biblical language about the mission of the Holy Spirit. Liturgiam authenticam notes that “the manner of translating the liturgical books should foster a correspondence between the biblical text itself and the liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition which contain biblical words or allusions” (49). The Holy Spirit is often spoken of as being “poured out” in the sacred scriptures, such as on the day of Pentecost in fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel (Acts 2:17, 33). Consider also Romans 5:5 where Paul tells us that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” This pouring out of the Spirit is intimately connected to the forgiveness of sins. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Because we are dead or at least wounded through sin, the first effect of the gift of love is the forgiveness of our sins” (CCC, 734). Certainly,

“ The new translation now includes for the first time the Act of Contrition familiar to many Catholics: ‘O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you…’”

The new translation of the Order of Penance is closer to the Latin original. For example, “poured out”—rather than simply “sent”—renders more faithfully the Latin effudit. More than mere literalism, however, the revised text captures much of the biblical language about the mission of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is often spoken of as being “poured out” in the sacred scriptures such as on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17, 33).

AB/THANK YOU (23 MILLIONS+) ON FLICKR. THE CATHEDRAL BASILICA OF ST. LOUIS, ST. LOUIS, MO.

“ While the revised translation becomes mandatory later this year, it is important to note that the continued use of the previous language would not invalidate the sacrament.”

“Gathering Song” or “Entrance Chant”: What’s in a Name?

By Father Dylan Schrader

Our gathering song is number 867 in the red book....” Everyone stands. The music starts. The servers and priest enter. For many Catholics in the United States, this is how Mass begins. One almost never hears priests, cantors, and other parishioners referring to the “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant,” despite the fact that these are the official terms for these parts of the Mass.

Before going further, I want to be clear: My intention is not to condescend to or berate the musicians and singers who give themselves in service to the sacred liturgy. Not at all. Many parish musicians wish they were given more support, more formation, and more resources. Usually, they are the ones whose sense of duty and devotion has emboldened them to charge into the largely thankless field of parish music ministry, where they too often suffer the whims of priests and the complaints of their fellow parishioners.

No, this article is not meant to be a gotcha for music ministers or a pedantic scolding for pastors. It aims merely to identify and explain the official terms for the singing that occurs at several key points of the Mass and to encourage the adoption of the official terms in place of idiosyncratic expressions like “gathering song” or “opening hymn.”

A Brief History

The traditional practice of the Roman Rite is to sing antiphons at the entrance, offertory, and Communion of Mass. An antiphon is a short text, usually a line of Scripture, relevant to the liturgical day being celebrated. The antiphon precedes, is inserted within, and follows the verses of a psalm. The antiphons for a given Mass are part of it, just as the Collect or Prayer after Communion are. The antiphons contribute to the identity of the particular Mass being celebrated.

In fact, it is even customary to refer to a given Mass by the first few words of its entrance antiphon, since this is the first text proper to that Mass. For instance, a Mass for the dead is called a Requiem Mass because the entrance antiphon begins Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine (“Eternal rest, grant unto them, O Lord”). Likewise, the third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete Sunday and the fourth Sunday of Lent Laetare Sunday after their entrance antiphons.

Before Vatican II, the Missale Romanum contained antiphons for the entrance, offertory, and Communion. The sung versions of each Mass’s antiphons with their verses were found in the Graduale Romanum as well as other collections such as the Liber usualis 1 There were even adapted versions, such as the “Rossini propers”2 for parishes that might need easier versions of the chants. Whether the choir sang the antiphons or not, the priest always recited them at the proper times from the Missal.

When Mass was not sung but only recited (a Missa lecta or “low Mass”), many parishes had the custom of singing hymns at the points during the Mass where the proper antiphons would otherwise be sung. The 1958 instruction De musica sacra expressly permitted the singing of vernacular hymns during low Mass.3 However, the practice of singing vernacular hymns during low Mass, in itself legitimate, created the sense among the faithful that the Mass itself is recited and that hymns are added to Mass at key points, such as the beginning, the offertory, Communion, and the end. Many parishes still labor under this misconception.

The reform surrounding Vatican II aimed to move away from the idea that only the priest and ministers in the sanctuary are responsible for the liturgy. The vision of full, active, and conscious participation meant that the congregation should not be excluded from the liturgical texts themselves—in this case the proper antiphons.

Continued from PENANCE, page 4

the Holy Spirit has been “sent among us,” but the language of pouring out stresses the superabundance of the divine generosity (see CCC, 731).

A second and even more subtle change to the formula comes when the priest says “through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace.” The revised text will now read, “may God grant you pardon and peace.” While for the simple verb “give” one might expect a form of the Latin dare, the Latin of the rite is tribuat. The latter can mean give, but it seems to have a broader semantic range than dare Tribuo has the sense of grant, bestow, or assign. In English, “grant” carries a higher linguistic register than “give” and is often used in legal contexts or is accompanied by a formal act. Though no strict rule applies, it seems more fitting to say that the sun “gives” heat, while the state “grants” certain rights. This slightly elevated way of speaking is fitting for the sacrament; as Liturgiam autheticam states, “it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech. Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship” (47). In a private correspondence with this writer, Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, executive director of ICEL, said that “there is a powerful suggestion here that God ‘grants’ rather than simply ‘gives’ pardon and peace as a result of the ministry of the Church in this sacrament. So, there is a desire to strengthen the idea of God’s agency in granting forgiveness in direct response to the Church’s

Instead of being busied with separate devotional singing while the priest recited the real texts of the Mass, the people would also join in the antiphons or at least hear them sung by the choir. To this end, Vatican II called for the revision of the official chant books and the publication of a collection of simple chants for smaller churches.4 The Graduale simplex in usum minorum ecclesiarum (“Simple Gradual for the Use of Smaller Churches”), published in several editions from 1967 on, is a fruit of this directive. Thus, a forceful and somewhat famous notice in Notitiae from 1969 explained that the provision of De musica sacra, 33, allowing the congregation to sing hymns while the priest recited the antiphons, had been superseded by the reform. “It is the Mass, Ordinary and Proper, that should be sung, not ‘something’…. This means singing the Mass and not just singing during the Mass.”5

Like the pre-Vatican II editions of the Missale Romanum, the short-lived 1964 Roman Missal, whose instructions for celebrating Mass remained in Latin, spoke of the “antiphona ad Introitum,” “antiphona ad Offertorium,” and “antiphona ad Communionem.”6 The 1964 instruction Inter Oecumenici and the 1967 instruction Tres abhinc annos maintained these terms.7 However, the 1967 instruction Musicam sacram spoke more broadly of the “cantus ad introitum,” “cantus ad offertorium,” and “cantus ad communionem,” and also used the description “cantus ad processiones introitus et communionis” (“chants for the entrance and Communion processions”).8 It also acknowledged the legitimacy of the regional custom of substituting other songs (alios cantus) for the chants of the Gradual.9 When the Novus ordo Missae was promulgated in 1969, this way of speaking entered the Missal itself. What in Musicam sacram had been descriptions crystallized as proper names in the 1969 Missal.

Broad Terms Adopted

Two factors especially influenced the adoption of the broader terminology (speaking generally of cantus instead of only specifically of the antiphons). First, a discrepancy was introduced between the antiphons to be sung and the antiphons to be recited. That is, there would be one antiphon text meant for singing and another—often entirely different—to be recited when the antiphon was not sung.10 The sung antiphons would be found in the Graduale Romanum or Graduale simplex, while the antiphons for recitation would be found in the Missal itself. This difference dovetailed with the decision that in the Novus ordo Missae the Offertory antiphon should be omitted when not sung with the result that there are no Offertory antiphons in the modern Missale Romanum or Roman Missal, whereas the sung Offertory antiphons are still found in the Graduals.

Second, there was the choice to continue allowing the substitution of other sung texts for the antiphons and to codify this possibility in the Missal itself. This meant that what was being sung at the entrance, offertory, or Communion might not be the antiphon at all but instead something else. Naturally, if the antiphon was only one possibility, a more general term was needed to cover the other possibilities. Unfortunately, in most parishes, “something else” became the usual experience, with the majority of Catholics probably having no idea that the proper antiphons even exist.

Like Musicam sacram, the 1969 Institutio generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR), used the terms “cantus ad introitum,” “cantus ad offertorium,” and “cantus ad Communio-

Please see CHANT on page 6

This revised prayer of absolution may be used as of Ash Wednesday, February 22, 2023, and its use is obligatory as of April 16, 2023. Here follows the new approved text, with changes in bold:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and poured out [vs. “sent”] the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God grant [vs. “give”] you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, [sign of the cross] and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

request.” Thus, the minor change from “give” to “grant” is also a sacramental sign that more clearly reveals both God’s action through the Church and the dignity of the reality unfolding in sacramental absolution. While the revised translation becomes mandatory later this year, it is important to note that the continued use of the previous language would not invalidate the sacrament. Force of habit can be hard to overcome, and it would be understandable if priests who have recited the formula of absolution countless times may, on occasion, use the form to which they have become

accustomed. In that case, the penitent need not be concerned that his sins are not forgiven. Indeed, the Introduction to the Order of Penance tells us that “the essential words are: ‘I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’” (OP, 19). These words remain untouched by the new translation.

Transition and Opportunity for Renewal

The Order of Penance is likely one of the least frequently utilized liturgical books. The rather simple structure of individual confession, along with its frequent repetition in the ministry of most priests, makes continual reference to the text somewhat superfluous. Nevertheless, we hope that this moment of change will also be an opportunity to refresh and renew the Church’s liturgical practice and vision for the sacrament of Penance. While shorter aids are already being produced that include the changes to the rite, it should be hoped that acquiring the revised Order of Penance will be an occasion for clergy and laity alike to revisit the rich liturgical options it provides as well as the theological and pastoral vision it contains.

Mike Brummond holds a Doctorate in Sacred Liturgy from the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary, IL. He is associate professor of systematic studies at Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corners, WI.

“It is the Mass, Ordinary and Proper, that should be sung, not ‘something’…. This means singing the Mass and not just singing during the Mass.”

1. For details on the work of the Consilium, see Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 664-683; James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 205-215).

2. James Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 227-228.

Continued from CHANT, page 5

nem” to describe what is sung at the entrance, at the offertory, and at Communion.11 The Latin terminology has remained unchanged up through the current edition of the Missale Romanum 12

In contrast, the official English renderings of these terms have changed several times over the years. The initial 1969 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) used the names “entrance song” and “offertory song” for the first two chants. It rendered cantus ad Communionem as both “the song during the communion” and “communion song” due to the rephrasing of other grammatical elements in the relevant Latin instruction.13 These English terms remained the same when the complete translation of the 1969 Missale Romanum was published as the 1974 Sacramentary.14 However, in the 1985 Sacramentary, which served as the English-language implementation of the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum, these chants came to be called: “entrance song,” “presentation song,” and “communion song.”15

By 1998 the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) had drafted a fresh English translation of the Missale Romanum. In this 1998 draft Sacramentary, the three chants discussed in this article were referred to as: “opening song,” “song for the preparation of the gifts,” and “Communion song.”16 Although essentially complete, ICEL’s 1998 Sacramentary never received approval from the Holy See and thus never came into parish use. The draft was scrapped and a new version begun, which eventually became the Roman Missal now in use since 2011. One of the factors prompting a new English version was the promulgation of the third major edition of the Latin Missale Romanum in 2000, appearing in 2002. Another was the 2001 instruction from the Holy See on translating liturgical texts, Liturgiam authenticam Yet another was friction between the Holy See and ICEL, and the institution of the Vox clara committee to work with ICEL on future translations.

While work on a complete English translation of the 2000/2002 Missale Romanum was beginning, a provisional rendering of the new GIRM was published in 2003 so that rubrical changes could be more easily introduced into English-speaking regions even before the full Missal was ready. In this 2003 GIRM, the three chants are called: “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant.”17

The 2007 document, Sing to the Lord, prepared by the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), incorporates the terminology of the 2003 GIRM, but it also employs a variety of descriptions it treats as more or less synonymous. For instance, it speaks of “the Entrance chant,” “an Entrance chant or song,” “Entrance song or chant,” “the Entrance chant or song,” “the Entrance song,” and “the Entrance Chant (song).”18 In any case, the English terminology of the 2003 GIRM became official with the promulgation of the complete Roman Missal that was introduced in parishes in 2011.19

The following table summarizes the history:

Liturgical Book or Text Terminology Used

1962 Missale Romanum antiphona ad Introitum, antiphona ad Offertorium, antiphona ad Communionem

1964 Roman Missal antiphona ad Introitum, antiphona ad Offertorium, antiphona ad Communionem

1967 Musicam sacram cantus ad introitum, cantus ad offertorium, cantus ad communionem cantus ad processiones introitus et communionis

1969 Missale Romanum – 2008 cantus ad introitum, Missale Romanum cantus ad offertorium, cantus ad Communionem

1969 General Instruction of the entrance song, Roman Missal – 1974 offertory song, Sacramentary song during the communion / communion song

1985 Sacramentary entrance song, presentation song, communion song

1998 draft Sacramentary (never opening song, promulgated) song for the preparation of the gifts, Communion song

2007 Sing to the Lord Entrance chant or song, Offertory chant or song, Communion chant or song

Note: this document also uses a great variety of other descriptions

2003 preliminary General Entrance Chant, Instruction of the Roman Missal Offertory Chant, 2011 Roman Missal Communion Chant

The traditional practice of the Roman Rite is to sing antiphons at the entrance, offertory, and Communion of Mass. An antiphon is a short text, usually a line of Scripture, relevant to the liturgical day being celebrated. The antiphons for a given Mass are part of it, just as the Collect or Prayer after Communion are. The antiphons contribute to the identity of the particular Mass being celebrated. In fact, it is even customary to refer to a given Mass by the first few words of its entrance antiphon, since this is the first text proper to that Mass. For instance, the fourth Sunday of Lent is called Laetare Sunday after its entrance antiphon.

AB

Understandably, when the 2011 Roman Missal was implemented, more effort went into helping ministers and congregations learn the changes in the Mass prayers than into explaining the terminology of “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant.” However, now, a decade after the new English translation of the Missal, and nearly two decades after the 2003 translation of the GIRM, many parishes remain unaware of the official names of these three chants, continuing to use a hodgepodge of idiosyncratic terms when announcing hymn numbers or filling out liturgy planning sheets.

Clarity in Terms

What are we to make of “Entrance Chant,” “Offertory Chant,” and “Communion Chant”? Each term consists of two words. They are capitalized, which identifies them as proper names. The Entrance Chant is not just a chant that happens to be sung at the entrance but is the proper name of a part of the Mass. The use of the definite article (which Latin lacks) underscores the same point: it is the Entrance Chant, not just a chant during the entrance.

Each term’s first word, as a modifier, identifies the particular procession or event that the sung text accompanies: the entrance procession, the procession with the gifts, and the Communion procession. The singing of the texts at these points in the Mass are not independent rites or acts, like the Gloria or responsorial psalm. Instead, they belong to the class of sung texts that accompany another rite.20

The second word in each term is “chant.” The translators of the Missale Romanum had a variety of options for turning the word cantus into English. “Song,” “singing,” “chant,” and “chanting” can all be legitimate translations of cantus. Why not render cantus ad introitum as “the singing at the entrance” or leave it as “entrance song” like it was in the 1969 GIRM and the subsequent editions of the Sacramentary?

There are several reasons for using the word “chant.” One is the normative value of Gregorian chant. “The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy.”21 Even apart from the particular significance Gregorian chant has for the Roman Rite, the word “chant” has a sacral connotation that “song” lacks. Other words, such as “hymn,” also have religious connotations, but “hymn” would exclude the proper antiphons, which are decidedly not hymns.

Why Adopt the Official Terms?

Why should parishes use the official terminology? One reason is simply that it is official. These terms are standardized, not idiosyncratic. Calling these three chants what the Missal calls them would lead to greater consistency. Printed hand missals and missalettes generally use the official terms, so if the cantor announces a “gathering song,” parishioners who are following along may wonder what happened to the Entrance Chant mentioned in the missalette. It even happens that within the same parish one cantor might say “gathering song” while another says “entrance hymn.” All this creates confusion and gives the impression that the Church has nothing official to say about what is sung at these points during the Mass.

Another reason to use the official terms is that they are not used in other contexts. You might hear “opening song” at a concert; “Entrance Chant” signals that you’re in church. As mentioned above, the official terms also highlight the connection between these chants and the processions they accompany. They are not extraneous musical pieces inserted into the Mass or simply sung while Mass is going on. They are companion chants to the sacred actions taking place.

Finally, deliberately using the word “chant” serves as a reminder that the sung antiphons remain the ideal—they are texts of the liturgical books themselves, part of the particular Mass being celebrated—and that Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman liturgy. Even when Gregorian chant is not actually used (would that it were!), the official terms help to keep it from being forgotten entirely. The vice-regent is not the king, no matter how absent the king may sadly be.

Official Silence: Singing at the End of Mass

The liturgical books are generally silent about singing at the end of Mass, with exceptions such as funerals, where a chant accompanies the procession from the church to the cemetery, and other special situations. As far as typical Masses go, the 2011 GIRM states: “Then the Priest venerates the altar as usual with a kiss and, after making a profound bow with the lay ministers, he withdraws with them.”22

The custom of singing at this time is certainly not contrary to the rubrics, but we are left with a lacuna. There are official names for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion Chants, but what should we call the singing that accompanies the procession at the end of Mass? For the following four reasons, I submit “Recessional Chant” as a possibility.23

First, the term “Recessional Chant” is congruous with the official names of the other chants. Second, it clearly identifies that this chant accompanies a procession. Third, other options such as “Departure Chant” or “Exit Chant” are jarring and

From Eden to the Temple: Signs of Things to Come

By Matthew A. Tsakanikas

Editor’s note: Part I of Dr. Tsakanikas’s entry, “Sinai as Interpretive Key to Genesis: Entering the Cult to Enter the Mind of the Author,” appeared in the January 2023 Bulletin.

The greatest Father and Doctor of the East, St. Gregory Nazianzen, is clear that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a boundary that the immature were not to cross until they had been properly prepared: purified and enlightened as on the slopes of Mount Sinai. St. Gregory is in agreement with the Father and Doctor, St. Ephrem the Syrian, who observes that the Tree of Knowledge was the part of creation that participated in God’s presence. By shrouding the Tree of Life like a veil, the Tree of Knowledge enabled immature man to be in God’s presence and take on God’s likeness in the gift of self that the tree enabled through the obedience of faith.

At the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, man was to surrender his will in obedience to the Truth: the Lord who promised freedom and fulfillment in the truth. The tree was where man clung faithfully to loving in truth (the likeness of God) by free choices to surrender to God in worship:

“And [God] gave [Adam] a Law, as material for his free will to act upon. This Law was a commandment as to what plants he might partake of, and which one he might not touch. This latter was the Tree of Knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning when planted; nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to men—let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that direction, or imitate the serpent. But it would have been good if partaken of at the proper time; for the Tree was, according to my theory, Contemplation, which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter upon; but which is not good for those who are still somewhat simple and greedy; just as neither is solid food good for those who are yet tender and have need of milk.”1

Even before reaching the Trees at the center of the Garden and receiving “Contemplation” from God, man was being prepared by the other trees of the Garden to recognize God’s goodness and rightly understand a Holy of Holies when it was approached. Man was learning to love God with all his heart, mind, and soul, and be brought into a fuller union through love. Just before explaining that all the other trees probably also represented divine concepts, Nazianzen explained that God gave free will to man “in order that good might belong to him as the result of his choice, no less than to Him Who had implanted the seeds of it.”2 Man was to become like God through exercising his freedom as guided by the truths of heavenly conceptions.

As Part One of this essay argued that Exodus gave final

“Even before reaching the Trees at the center of the Garden and receiving ‘Contemplation’ from God, man was being prepared by the other trees of the Garden to recognize God’s goodness and rightly understand a Holy of Holies when it was approached.”

form to Genesis, Nazianzen similarly followed an exegesis in which the Garden of Eden needed to be understood in light of the Tabernacle of Moses. Nazianzen refers to all the trees of the Garden as being signs given to Man and Woman to learn about the things of heaven and so Man and Woman were assigned “to till the immortal plants, by which is perhaps meant the Divine conceptions [θείων εννοιών ίσως or fortasse divinarum cogitationum], both the simpler and the more perfect.”3

Because of the assumptions involved in his exegesis, Nazianzen had not made an unjustified stretch in perceiving the meaning of the trees in Eden as being signs and communicating “divine conceptions [or thoughts, cogitationum].” He rightly saw them as partaking in the hidden εννοιών (intentions)4 and plans of God. If the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting (or Tabernacle) in Numbers were understood to be signs of the greater and more holy things of heaven (cf. Hebrews 9:24), then likewise the trees of Eden (the Garden of God) would be seen as divine and holy conceptions and Nazianzen was reading in accord with a proper historical exegesis and not just a spiritual one. His exegesis showed the same method for reading Genesis and the Edenic narratives through the historical cult that was established in Exodus and Numbers and as experienced at Sinai.5 Similarly, biblical

scholar Margaret Barker argues that St. Basil the Great— Nazianzen’s closest friend—held to such an exegesis in following Origen.6

Perceiving that Genesis 1-3 is best read through the final

“ The Tent of Meeting was much more than a sign and symbol of Eden or pattern of union between heaven and earth. Its very presence and organized ritual gave hope that all mankind would again be granted entrance into the Holy of Holies.”

form (or penultimate form) that the Exodus experience established (including the experiences in the Book of Numbers), then looking at the Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers gives explanation to Nazianzen’s mention of trees as “divine conceptions.” According to Numbers, servants who were not inside God’s original covenant of sonship—or the amended priesthood (the Levitical one)—were not only forbidden to touch the furnishings of the Tabernacle, they were not supposed to even look upon them: “they shall not go in [to the Tent of Meeting] to look upon the holy things even for a moment, lest they die” (Numbers 4:20). This is why the direct sons of Aaron had to wrap the Tabernacle furnishings before the Kohathites could touch or transport them. (It should be noted that “Man” and “Woman” of Genesis 2 were in the Garden and foreshadowed participation in divine filiation and sonship and so could look upon the trees, except the one that was shrouded.)7

Seeing with eyesight was viewed as a kind of touching with the eyes of that which is holy and pleasant and meant only for those in the Tabernacle to contemplate during their assigned service. The furnishings became holy once the kabod, or Glory, descended upon the Tabernacle as it had on Mount Sinai and Moses had arranged the furnishings according to the heavenly pattern shown to him. Those who were not priests by direct family lineage of Aaron were forbidden to see the arrangement or touch the “most holy” objects and furnishings involved with the Holy of Holies from that point forward (cf. Numbers 4:20). These furnishings (or “trees” as some lampstands like the menorah were called) were concepts of heavenly realities (even mysteries of creation)8 and not for the “immature” nor “greedy” who had not gone through purification rites and anointings of the Levitical priesthood. They were “divine conceptions” because they were sacramental signs which God showed Moses as representations of “heaven itself” (cf. Hebrews 9:24) and “powers of the age to come.” Those without the proper covenant and priesthood, those without the proper consecration or disposition, were not to touch these concepts and conceptions because—in the words of Nazianzen—the “immature” might then “greedily” seek to possess God’s holiness instead of receiving it as a gift gradually bestowed in contemplation of the goodness of the Christ which they foreshadowed. Only Christ can develop filial obedience and make humans into sons in the Son, children of Divine Wisdom:

“And we all, with unveiled face [like Moses in the Tent], beholding the glory of the Lord [through faith in Christ], are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit…. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:7).

Signs of Things to Come

The tent of meeting was made by human hands and was only a pattern based upon a higher and spiritual reality. As that higher reality was perceived through the representations on earth and contemplated, their fuller meaning inspired the religious leadership and laity under their guidance to hope for the eschatological kingdom which the Messiah would bring. Each of the Tent’s symbols were viewed as a part of an unfolding plan and purpose to unite men with God and reconcile heaven and earth (cf. Ephesians 1), God and man. They were not secrets to be controlled, or esoteric knowledge to use for manipulation and gain: they were holy and sacred pledges and revelations of the kingdom to come and of which the priesthood were a depository and prophetic promise.

The Tent of Meeting was much more than a sign and symbol of Eden or pattern of union between heaven and earth (per Part I of this essay). Its very presence and organized ritual gave hope that all mankind would again be granted entrance into the Holy of Holies. The day of atonement prefigured a son of God—wearing YHWH’s name on his forehead (Exodus 28:36-38)9—coming from heaven (as the matching high priestly garb and the coordinated temple veil symbolized);10 a representative of the people gaining access to the holy of holies by sacrifice and returning to share the blessings with the nation.

“On the first day of creation, I shall make the heavens and stretch them out; so will Israel raise up the Tabernacle as the dwelling-place of My glory. On the second day, I shall put a division between the terrestrial waters and the heavenly waters; so will he hang up a veil in the Tabernacle to divide the Holy Place and the Most Holy. On the third day, I shall make the earth put forth grass and herb; so will he, in obedience to My commands, eat herbs on the first night of the Passover, and prepare showbread for Me. On the fourth day, I shall make the luminaries; so will he make a golden candlestick for Me. On the fifth day, I shall create the birds; so will he fashion the cherubim with outstretched wings. On the sixth day, I shall create man; so will Israel set aside a man of the sons of Aaron as high priest for My service.”11

Writers such as Louis Ginzburg, Margaret Barker, and Jeffrey Morrow have reminded readers that the days of creation—which are also reflected and explained by the construction and set-up of the Tent of Meeting—not only reflect what was visually seen and shown on Mount Sinai, but the early Fathers help us to recall that they also symbolize the promised future in which all descendants of Man and Woman would be granted access to the Holy of Holies.

According to St. Gregory Nanzianzen, Eden’s trees and plants, including the Tree of Knowledge—if approached rightly— were places of being in God’s presence and a means to contemplate his glory. So, too, were the treelike furnishings of the Temple: by them, men came into contact with God.

The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer From The Spirit of the Liturgy

for the form of the liturgy. The Eucharist—so it was said—had to be celebrated versus populum (toward the people). The altar—as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter’s—had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone—so it was said—was compatible with the meaning of the Christian liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper. These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the council (which says nothing about “turning toward the people”) new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact, it is the most conspicuous consequence of a reordering that

By Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The reshaping…of the Jewish synagogue for the purpose of Christian worship clearly shows—as we have already said—how, even in architecture, there is both continuity and newness in the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. As a consequence, expression in space had to be given to the properly Christian act of worship, the celebration of the Eucharist, together with the ministry of the Word, which is ordered toward that celebration. Plainly, further developments became not only possible but necessary. A place set aside for Baptism had to be found. The Sacrament of Penance went through a long process of development, which resulted in changes to the form of the church building. Popular piety in its many different forms inevitably found expression in the place dedicated to divine worship. The question of sacred images had to be resolved. Church music had to be fitted into the spatial structure. We saw that the architectural canon for the liturgy of Word and sacrament is not a rigid one, though with every new development and reordering the question has to be posed: What is in harmony with the essence of the liturgy, and what detracts from it? In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-forall events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression.

Modern man has little understanding of this “orientation.” Judaism and Islam, now as in the past, take it for granted that we should pray toward the central place of revelation, to the God who has revealed himself to us, in the manner and in the place in which he revealed himself. By contrast, in the Western world, an abstract way of thinking, which in a certain way is the fruit of Christian influence, has become dominant. God is spiritual, and God is everywhere: Does that not mean that prayer is not tied to a particular place or direction? Now, we can indeed pray everywhere, and God is accessible to us everywhere. This idea of the universality of God is a consequence of Christian universality, of the Christian’s looking up to God above all gods, the God who embraces the cosmos and is more intimate to us than we are to ourselves. But our knowledge of this universality is the fruit of revelation: God has shown himself to us. Only for this reason do we know him; only for this reason can we confidently pray to him everywhere. And precisely for this reason is it appropriate, now as in the past, that we should express in Christian prayer our turning to the God

who has revealed himself to us. Just as God assumed a body and entered the time and space of this world, so it is appropriate to prayer—at least to communal liturgical prayer—that our speaking to God should be “incarnational,” that it should be christological, turned through the incarnate Word to the triune God. The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of divine revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.

But what about the altar? In what direction should we pray during the Eucharistic liturgy? In Byzantine church buildings, the structure just described was by and large retained, but in Rome a somewhat different arrangement developed. The bishop’s chair was shifted to the center of the apse, and so the altar was moved into the nave. This seems to have been the case in the Lateran basilica and in Saint Mary Major’s well into the ninth century. However, in Saint Peter’s, during

“ With every new development and reordering the question has to be posed: What is in harmony with the essence of the liturgy, and what detracts from it?”

the pontificate of Saint Gregory the Great (590–604), the altar was moved nearer to the bishop’s chair, probably for the simple reason that he was supposed to stand as much as possible above the tomb of Saint Peter. This was an outward and visible expression of the truth that we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Lord in the communion of saints, a communion spanning all times and ages. The custom of erecting an altar above the tombs of the martyrs probably goes back a long way and is an outcome of the same motivation. Throughout history the martyrs continue Christ’s selfoblation; they are like the Church’s living altar, made not of stones but of men, who have become members of the Body of Christ and thus express a new kind of cultus: sacrifice is humanity becoming love with Christ.

The ordering of Saint Peter’s was then copied, so it would seem, in many other stational churches in Rome. For the purposes of this discussion, we do not need to go into the disputed details of this process. The controversy in our own century was triggered by another innovation. Because of topographical circumstances, it turned out that Saint Peter’s faced west. Thus, if the celebrating priest wanted—as the Christian tradition of prayer demands—to face east, he had to stand behind the people and look—this is the logical conclusion—toward the people. For whatever reason it was done, one can also see this arrangement in a whole series of church buildings within Saint Peter’s direct sphere of influence. The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea

not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the liturgy—the liturgy as a communal meal.

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a sigma-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to “face the people” to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table.

(Louis Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture, 53-54)

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the “shape” of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term “meal.” True, the Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, that he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with logos. Thus it came to pass that the synagogue liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ’s death and Resurrection to become the “Eucharist,” and precisely thus was fidelity to the command “Do this” fulfilled. This new and allencompassing form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal but had to be defined through the interconnection of Temple and synagogue, Word and sacrament, cosmos and history. It expresses itself in the very form that we discovered in the liturgical structure of the early Churches in the world of Semitic Christianity. It also, of course,

for Rome. Once

remained fundamental

again let me quote Bouyer:

Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression.

AB/WIKIPEDIA

“ The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of divine revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.”

Never, and nowhere, before that [that is, before the sixteenth century] have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest celebrated with the people before him or behind him. As Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently demonstrated it, the only thing ever insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East…. Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation, together with him. (Bouyer, 55-56)

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practice of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people was labeled as “celebrating toward the wall” or “turning your back on the people” and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal—even in

proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the psalm, the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response. On the other hand, a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is a case, not of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is now a question, not of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.

[Benedictine scholar Angelus] Häussling has leveled several objections at these ideas of mine, which I have presented before. The first I have just touched on. These ideas are alleged to be a romanticism for the old ways, a misguided longing for the past. It is said to be odd that I should speak only of Christian antiquity and pass over the succeeding centuries. Coming as it does from a liturgical scholar, this objection is quite remarkable. As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source,

toward the east, toward the crucifix—that, when priest and faithful look at one another, they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing one another is the right direction for prayer. I find it hard to believe that the famous critic thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The “image of God” in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, but only with the new seeing of faith. We can see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humility, love— everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for.

modern pictures—became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality, what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest—the “presider,” as they now prefer to call him—becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make their own contribution.” Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern.” The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” As one of the fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J.A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. But is this not all romanticism and nostalgia for the past? Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our own times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals, this made it possible to recover the tradition of having the altar at the crossing, the meeting point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the properly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between

According to Louis Bouyer, “The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a sigma-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table.”

and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way. On the other hand, it is important and necessary to see that we cannot take as our norm the ancient in itself and as such, nor must we automatically write off later developments as alien to the original form of the liturgy. There can be a thoroughly living

kind of development in which a seed at the origin of something ripens and bears fruit. We shall have to come back to this idea in a moment. But in our case, as we have said, what is at issue is not a romantic escape into antiquity, but a rediscovery of something essential, in which Christian liturgy expresses its permanent orientation. Of course, Häussling thinks that turning to the east, toward the rising sun, is something that nowadays we just cannot bring into the liturgy. Is that really the case? Are we not interested in the cosmos anymore? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to pray with the whole of creation? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognize again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

Another objection is that we do not need to look

A more important objection is of the practical order. Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal. I see a solution in a suggestion that comes from the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing east, as we heard, was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man,” with the Cross, which announces the Lord’s Second Coming. That is why very early on the east was linked with the sign of the Cross. Where a direct common turning toward the east is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior “east” of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community. In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: “Conversi ad Dominum,” Turn toward the Lord! In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple—the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple. Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there could be a cross of the Passion, which represents the suffering Lord who for us let his side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of the Second Coming and guides our eyes toward it. For it is always the one Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).

Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022) served as Pope from 2005 until his resignation in 2013.

“ The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.”

“A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is a case, not of something accidental, but of what is essential.”

“ The Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense.”

Eden and the Plan in Christ

Originally, God wanted all of Israel, and not just the Levites, to be a kingdom of priests (cf. Exodus 19:6) and abide in the covenantal sonship which gave entrance to the Holy of Holies: “My covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:32b). Thus, the Tabernacle abided as a sign and promise: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt [and gave the Tent]” (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-32a). God clarified his intentions [εννοιών]: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33). What was exterior to man (transcendence) must become interior and somehow consolidated within man’s freedom, as Gregory of Nazianzen says, “in order that good might belong to him as the result of his choice.” The very life and partaking in the divine nature was promised to be interiorized from the very beginning and as exercised through sacramental participation in the Tabernacle.

The Levitical High Priest was clothed by God’s representative (cf. Leviticus 8) in garments which were instituted by God’s design for service in the earthly Temple. Man does not give or achieve divine likeness by his own power, but by God’s prior and empowering love. In this prefigurement, man received a divine likeness that was only exterior because the Messiah had not yet come. The priest prefigured the Messiah to come and as promised by Moses (see Deuteronomy 18:18; John 6:14). However, the likeness to God was always destined to be interiorized by a new creation inside of man (grace); adoption had to be made into actual sharing in likeness of nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:4-5).

For this reason, God’s true and natural Son clothed himself in earthly flesh to assume the Priesthood that was lost by man at Adam’s sin (and Mount Sinai). The incarnation made possible restoration of humans into the true Temple for access to the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14): the temple not made with earthly hands. In Jesus, divinity became clothed by visible humanity, the great Sacrament of Christ’s humanity. Man no longer contemplates objects in an earthly Tabernacle to attain divine knowledge; now he contemplates Christ’s visible humanity to be elevated into the heavenly. “And we all, with unveiled face (like Moses in the Tent), beholding the glory of the Lord (through faith in Christ), are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

For this reason, the Book of Revelation is best understood not only as a true vision, but a contemplation of the True Temple which comes down from heaven at every Eucharistic celebration (cf. Revelation 3:12;

Continued from CHANT, page 6

The days of creation—which are also reflected and explained by the construction and set-up of the Tent of Meeting—not only reflect what was visually seen and shown on Mount Sinai, but they also symbolize the promised future in which all descendants of Man and Woman would be granted access to the Holy of Holies—the Heavenly Jerusalem that was to come.

21:14, 23): a contemplation of the mystery of the risen and ascended Jesus Christ. Herein is realized what is witnessed within the fragments of writings attributed to the early bishop Papias who was also close to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna and an Apostolic Father. The early Church understood that Genesis and the Garden of Eden ultimately pointed to the Heavenly Jerusalem that was to come: “Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the

clearly have the wrong connotations or register. Fourth, the 2008 Missale Romanum uses the Latin word “recedit” (not, e.g., “exit”) to describe the action of the priest and ministers as they leave the sanctuary.24 Therefore, “Recessional Chant” seems an appropriate option.

Words Matter

Saying “Entrance Chant” instead of “gathering song” may seem like a small matter. Doesn’t the Church have bigger problems? Indeed, she does. But the smallness of the matter is an advantage. Adopting the official terms for these parts of the Mass is one of the easiest changes regarding liturgical music that most parishes can make. But once that change is made and becomes familiar, a parish is one step closer to the ideal of singing the Mass, not just singing at Mass. Names make a difference. And a small but intentional effort to use the official terminology from the Missal now can help guide parishes to more fruitful reforms in the future.

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. There were slight textual differences between the pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum and the 1908 Graduale Romanum, but nothing like the discrepancies between the post-Vatican II versions of these books.

2. Rev. Carlo Rossini, ‘Proper’ of the Mass for the Entire Ecclesiastical Year (1933).

3. Sacred Congregation of Rites, De musica sacra (September 3, 1958), no. 33, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis [AAS] 50 (1958): 643.

4. Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 117.

5. Notitiae 5 (1969): 406.

6. Roman Missal (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1964), Ritus servandus in celebrratione Missae sections IV, VII, and XI.

7. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Inter Oecumenici (September 26, 1964), no. 57b, in AAS 56 (1964): 891; and Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967), no. 18c, in AAS 59 (1967): 446.

8. Musicam sacram (March 5, 1967), nos. 31, 32, and 36, in AAS 59 (1967): 309–310.

9. Musicam sacram, no. 32, in AAS 59 (1967): 309.

10. See St. Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), in AAS 61 (1969): 221.

11. 1969 IGMR, nos. 25, 50, and 56i.

12. 2008 IGMR, nos. 37, 47, 74, and 86. The Ordo cantus Missae (first published in 1970, with a second edition in 1988) speaks of the antiphons and not of broader cantus (1988 Ordo cantus Missae, nos. 1, 13, and 17), but that is because the focus of this book is precisely to establish how the antiphons from the old Graduale Romanum should be organized for the post-Vatican II Missal.

13. International Committee on English in the Liturgy, The General Instruction and the New Order of Mass (Hales Corner, Wisc.: Priests of the Sacred Heart, 1969), GIRM, nos. 25, 50, and 56i. The 1969 IGMR, no. 56i: “Dum Sacramentum a sacerdote et fidelibus sumitur, fit cantus ad Communionem, cuius est spiritualem unionem communicantium per unitatem vocum exprimere […].” The 1969 GIRM, no. 56i: “The song during the

illustrious… and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.”12

Just as looking at the experiences of Moses at Mount Sinai and at the Tabernacle gives us context to unpack the highly symbolic narratives of Eden, so also accepting the liturgy that Jesus established in the Upper Room helps unpack the highly symbolic narratives in the Book of Revelation and being gathered with the Lamb at Mount Zion. Active participation in the liturgy includes remembering how to translate the symbols in the Book of Revelation to understand and receive the unseen realities in which we participate sacramentally. Like Moses, Christians now commune in the true presence of God with every Holy Communion that brings us into the Holy of Holies. Jesus has become the true Mercy Seat upon which the Father’s presence is communicated to us and makes us sons in the Son.

The east supersedes the Jerusalem Temple as symbol. Christ, represented by the sun, is the place of the Shekinah, the true throne of the living God. In the Incarnation, human nature truly becomes the throne and seat of God, who is thus forever bound to the earth and accessible to our prayers.13

Matthew A. Tsakanikas is an associate professor of theology at Christendom College, Front Royal, VA, and editor of catholic460.com; the website where he makes available free manuscripts, videos, and articles. He also publishes on catholic460.substack.com.

1. Gregory Nazianzen, “The Second Oration on Easter,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 7, eds. Philip Shaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Chapter VIII, 425.

2. Nazianzen, “The Second Oration on Easter.”

3. Nazianzen, “The Second Oration on Easter.” Greek and Latin in brackets from PG 36:850c.

4. As in Hebrews 4:12, Strong’s translates εννοιών as “intentions” G1771: “moral understanding:-intent, mind.”

5. See. Nazianzen’s “Second Theological Oration” and discussion of Israel at Sinai.

6. See Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 2004), 21-22.

7. According to St. Ephrem in his Hymns of Paradise, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil served as a veil to the Tree of Life;. cf. Tsakanikas, “Pharaoh in the Garden of Eden…,” 203.

8. See Barker, Temple Theology, 22-23.

9. See Barker, Temple Theology, 58-60.

10. See Brant Pitre, “Jesus, the New Temple, and the New Priesthood,” in Letter & Spirit 4 (2008): 47-83, at 61.

11. Louis Ginzburg, The Legends of the Jews, translated from the German manuscript of Henrietta Jacob (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Association of America, 1909), 51-52 on Google Books.

12. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm>.

13. Ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy, 68.

One reason to use the Church’s official musical terms is that they are not used in other contexts. You might hear an “opening song” at a Metallica concert, but an “Entrance Chant” signals that you’re in church.

communion of the priest and people expresses the union of the communicants who join their voices in a single song […].”

14. Sacramentary (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1974), GIRM, nos. 25, 50, and 56i.

15. The Sacramentary (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1985), GIRM, nos. 25, 50, and 56i.

16. The Sacramentary, vol. 1.1 (Washington D.C.: International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), GIRM, nos. 25, 50, and 56i.

17. General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2003), nos. 47, 74, and 86.

18. Sing to the Lord (Washington, D.C., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2007), nos. 30, 139, 140, 142, 144, and note 110.

19. 2011 GIRM, nos. 47, 74, and 86.

20. 2011 GIRM, no. 37.

21. 2011 GIRM, no. 41.

22. 2011 GIRM, no. 169.

23. Sing to the Lord speaks variously of a “closing song,” “recessional,” “recessional hymn,” and “a hymn or song after the dismissal” (nos. 30, 44, 115, and 199). However, I believe “Recessional Chant” offers greater consistency with the 2011 GIRM.

24. See 2008 Ordo Missae, no. 145; 2008 IGMR, nos. 169 and 186. Cf. 2008 Caeremoniale Episcoporum, no. 185.

AB/WIKIPEDIA. ST JOHN ALTARPIECE BY HANS MEMLING (C. 1479), RIGHT WING.

Q: Why does the priest choose different Eucharistic Prayers at Mass? Are there any norms regarding the choice of which Eucharistic Prayer to use?

A: This is a common question posed by the laity to priests: why do priests use different Eucharistic Prayers at Mass? What determines which one is used? The question is important since the Eucharistic Prayer is the center and high point of the entire Mass.

There are four principal Eucharistic Prayers, numbered in Roman numerals, I through IV. Eucharistic Prayer I is also known as the Roman Canon. It is an ancient text, having existed since the the mid-fourth century, and since the beginning of the seventh century it has remained practically unaltered. It was the only Eucharistic Prayer used at Mass in the West between 1570 and 1970. This Eucharistic Prayer may always be used at any Mass. It is especially suited to certain feast days that have special formulae assigned within it (Holy Thursday, Christmas, Easter, etc.). In fact, in a 1968 letter to presidents of conferences of bishops and of national liturgical commissions, Cardinal Benno Gut, President of the Consilium, noted that Eucharistic Prayer I “must take precedence” on those feast days; the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) only notes that it is “especially suited for use” on such days. It is also especially suited (“should also be used” according to Cardinal Gut) for the feast days of the apostles and saints mentioned in the prayer itself. Along with Eucharistic Prayer III, it is particularly suited for use on Sundays.

Eucharistic Prayer II is inspired from an ancient Eucharistic Prayer called the Anaphora of Hippolytus from the third or fourth centuries. Because of its conciseness and comparative simplicity, it is suited for use on weekdays or in special circumstances. These special circumstances were elaborated by Cardinal Gut as Masses with children, young people, and small groups. It is also suited for use at Masses for the Dead as it has a special formulary for such Masses. Cardinal Gut also noted that because of its simplicity, it makes a good starting point for catechesis on the different elements of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Eucharist Prayer III is new, having been composed after the Second Vatican Council. The GIRM states that its use should be preferred on Sundays and festive days. It may also be used in Masses for the Dead as it also has a special formulary for such Masses. The letter from Cardinal Gut suggests alternating Eucharistic Prayer I and III on Sundays.

Eucharistic Prayer IV was also composed after Vatican II and includes a rather detailed summary of the history of salvation. It is based on Eastern Eucharistic Prayers (Anaphorae), especially that of St. Basil the Great. The current GIRM states that since it has an invariable preface, it may be used when a Mass has no preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time. Cardinal Gut’s letter observes that it presupposes a somewhat superior knowledge of scripture and so recommends its use with groups having a better foundation in Scripture. This “somewhat condescending note about a more educated congregation” (as Benedictine Father Cassian Folsom notes) is not present in the GIRM.

There are nine other Eucharistic Prayers that are not as commonly used. These include three Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children (approved experimentally and later indefinitely), two Eucharistic Prayers for Masses of Reconciliation (originally approved for the 1975 Holy Year and then extended indefinitely), and finally four Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions. As Father Cassian notes, these latter prayers are really “one Eucharistic Prayer with four thematic variations (as a result it actually seems like four different prayers),” and they come from Switzerland and its synod in 1974. The Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs and those for Reconciliation may be

used when a Mass is said from the section “Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions” of the Roman Missal. Each variation of the Eucharistic Prayer offers suggestions as to which Mass formulary and Eucharistic Prayer are appropriately used together.

The three Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children use a simpler style of language and are strictly limited to Masses celebrated with children under age eight or Masses at which the majority of the participants are children. Three prayers are proposed in view of the cultural differences and the character of various peoples. The Introduction to these prayers encourage the priest to choose based on the needs of the children: “either the first for its greater simplicity, the second for its greater participation, or the third for the variation it affords” (n. 15).

The Roman Missal explains that the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses of Reconciliation may be used in Masses in which the mystery of reconciliation is conveyed to the faithful in a special way (such as at ‘Masses for Reconciliation’ or ‘For the Forgiveness of Sins,’ among others) as well as in Masses during Lent. These Eucharistic Prayers have a proper preface but may also be used with other prefaces that refer to penance and conversion. The 1974 decree Postquam de Precibus approving these Eucharistic Prayers noted that these prayers are also suitable “when there are special celebrations on the themes of reconciliation and penance, especially during Lent, and on the occasion of a pilgrimage or spiritual meeting.”

—Answered by Father Alan Guanella Diocese of La Crosse, WI

Q:

A: In short, probably While the current liturgical law does not precisely speak to this question, the overarching idea with blessings is that things that are blessed retain their blessing so long as they are remain whole, unbroken, integral, and are recognizable as what they were when they were blessed. For example, as is traditionally understood, an altar loses its blessing when its mensa is cracked.

The Rite of Baptism in force immediately prior to the liturgical reforms of the 1970s indicates that if “the baptismal water has so diminished that it is foreseen it will not suffice, unblessed water may be added even repeatedly, but in lesser quantity [minore tamen copia] than the blessed each time this is done.”1 So, with whatever quantity of water that is added to the holy water, the majority of the water that remains must be that which received the blessing. St. Thomas affirms the general principle: “just as water added to holy-water becomes holy” (STh., III q.77 a.8 obj. 3; cf. q.66 a4 resp.). In his 1909 book, Holy Water and Its Significance for Catholics, Father Henry Theiler follows this line of reasoning. In answer to the question, “If the holy water at hand might not be sufficient for the occasion, may water that is not blessed be added?” He answers in the affirmative. Father Theiler notes in his reply that “care must be taken not to add as great a quantity as there is of holy water.”2

This tracks with the same logic that St. Thomas articulates with regard to a liquid being added to the Precious Blood: “if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer.” Conversely, “if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout,” the Precious Blood remains (STh., III q.77 a.8 resp). So it is with holy water, that if a small amount of holy water is added to a

large container of unblessed water, the contents of the container do not thereby become holy water.

In practice, the adding of unblessed water to holy water seems to have been a practice related especially to baptismal water. In terms of how this is written in the law (which appears only to be in the case of baptismal water), it seems to be for an instance—and that for giving the gift of salvation in the conferral of Holy Baptism—but not for general application. Moreover, it is important to note that blessing baptismal water (outside of Easter and Pentecost), a more extensive process when compared to the current practice, included the praying of the Seven Penitential Psalms and the Litany of the Saints, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles Creed, an exorcism over the water, breathing upon the water, and the pouring of the Oil of Catechumens and the Sacred Chrism in the water in the form of a Cross, both individually and then simultaneously. Baptismal water blessed in this way was the only licit matter for solemn baptism. So, with all these requirements for the baptismal water, according to the rubric cited above, if “the baptismal water has so diminished that it is foreseen it will not suffice, unblessed water may be added even repeatedly, but in lesser quantity than the blessed each time this is done.”

Can the process of adding water to the font be repeated continually if the water has not entirely evaporated (cf. 1917 CIC 757§3)? In theory, yes, but this seems an unlikely scenario with regard to what the law envisioned because of the practicalities of keeping the font clean—there are innumerable stories about a film building up on the top of the water. With the new blessing of baptismal water in place, one canonist noted that the omission of “the practice of mixing the baptismal oil with the water” solved the “perennial problem of preserving the cleanliness of baptismal fonts.”3

Though most of us do not experience a lack of water in our daily life, sufficient water is and has been a problem in some parts of the world. For our North American reality, having a priest or deacon available to bless water is likely a greater problem than a lack of water. Regardless of the circumstance, while it is possible to foresee that some unblessed water might be added to holy water and it maintain its reality as holy water, it seems more apt to simply return to the parish church to obtain more water that is newly blessed.

—Answered by the Editors

1. “De Sacramento Baptismi Rite Administrando,” in The Roman Ritual, Volume One: The Sacraments and Processions, trans. by Rev. Philip T. Weller (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1950), 20–21, no. 6. Cf. Edward N. Peters, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 280: Canon 757§2. Cf.

2. Rev. Henry Theiler, Holy Water and Its Significance for Catholics (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2016), 89.

3. R. Kevin Seasoltz, New Liturgy, New Laws (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1980), 41.

MEMORIAL FOR

Joyce Bialkowski from husband Walter

Rev. Richard J. Feller from Mr. John Simon

Helen Hull Hitchcock from Anonymous

John Tuttle from Fr. Joseph Klee

Can unblessed water be added to holy water to increase the amount of holy water?

New Book on Marriage Shows How Death to Self Brings Love to Life

The Obedience Paradox: Finding True Freedom in Marriage by Mary Stanford. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2022. 128 pp. ISBN: 978-1681926957. $12.95 Paperback.

By Peter Martin

Mary Stanford in The Obedience Paradox: Finding True Freedom In Marriage takes on what is tasked to married couples in St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians: “be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The Obedience Paradox brings clarity to a concept that has been misunderstood since Adam met Eve, it would seem! Anyone who has ever attended a wedding that included the reading from chapter five of St. Paul’s letter can attest to the many elbow-nudges and head shaking that take place during that reading. Perhaps nowhere is the general ignorance of what St. Paul means by obedience on better display than in this very moment.

Stanford’s book, however, is not simply an exegesis on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians; instead, it takes a very thorough and scholarly path through many erroneous understandings that are flippantly thrown about these days concerning what the Catholic Church means by obedience. As a diocesan Marriage and Family Life Director, I was very pleased with this book, but I must say that I was initially deceived by its size. Typically, in my role in the diocese I serve, I receive books of this size that highlight such things as “ten ways to improve your marriage” or “things your parents never told you to expect in marriage.” This book, however, does not read as your average self-help guide for a married or engaged couple who want to know tips for a successful marriage. No, Stanford’s book is for the spiritually and emotionally mature couple who recognize that their life is not about them. This book will draw all its readers into the mystery of a deeper union that can only be drawn from the Gospel paradox of the grain of wheat that truly lives when it has died. This book is written for spouses who recognize that their life is a gift and that what they have been given as a gift is meant to be given away.

Expert Testimony

Mary Stanford admits that this small work is the fruit of decades of study, prayer, conversation, but, perhaps most importantly, it is the fruit of her lived experience as wife of her husband, Trey. We all know very well Pope St. Paul VI’s observation that “modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses” (Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi). In this work, Stanford makes a compelling display of the witness she has made, and her sincerity and her love becomes obvious to the reader.

Stanford begins the task of uncovering the paradox of obedience by starting out with the biblical ideal of obedience. Utilizing the Blessed Virgin’s fiat as exemplary, Stanford places her reflection on obedience closely within the Gospel narrative. Mary’s perfect submission to God’s will was not an act of weakness or fear, but one of trust and faith. Juxtaposed with Zechariah’s act of disbelief recorded in Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s fiat required no further explanation for the Annunciation. To obey required only a perfect act of trust. At the heart of this act of obedience was trust in a loving God. What is trust? It is a risk that makes us vulnerable to the initiatives of another person. It is this exemplary act of trust that Stanford holds up as “obedience par excellence” and a fitting way to launch into a deeper examination.

Stanford points out that difficulties with obedience began with the temptation of the serpent casting doubts on God’s goodness—thus giving Adam and Eve reason to lose trust in him. This temptation initiates the struggle that remains even today with obedience: “Am I in a relationship of love, or am I instead being manipulated?” Stanford calls upon St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to point out the fact that God does not deal in manipulation, but that he is a generous giver of gifts who freely created Adam and Eve and who gifted them with all they needed to live in perfect union with him. Starting with the Fall, mankind has struggled to grasp the economy of the gift. Fear, suspicion, and selfishness follow.

Suspended License Obedience and submission are such difficult concepts to the modern ear because of the general understanding that freedom means license. Stanford wisely begins her work with an explanation of what true freedom is. To obey requires an act of the will, an act that chooses to believe in a good to be acted upon. Without the understanding of being as gift, the concept of obedience as a free act of love will never be grasped. Running parallel to this dilemma and equally troublesome in the modern mind is the problematic understanding of knowledge. In Genesis, the serpent suggests that the knowledge of good and evil is an object that God withholds from them. This deception becomes a perceived direct threat to the freedom of Adam and Eve. Knowledge becomes something to acquire instead of the gift one receives from an intimate, trusting relationship. This is a critical moment. With this break of trust, Adam and Eve become takers rather than receivers of a gift. In marriage, the temptation remains. Jesus Christ, however, reminds the Pharisees that “from the beginning it was not so.” Elevating once again the dignity of the human person, calling us back to our equality of being made “very good,” Christ restores the unity of being one in him. With this “Gospel Innovation” Paul’s letter to the Ephesians restores the meaning of headship and obedience to its proper order. Christ loved the Church, his bride, by “giving himself up for her.” Submission and obedience, then, become a response to a gift given; the only adequate response is to receive the gift. The married couple is called to Christ’s own spousal and redemptive self-gift.

Complementary Roles

What role does the complementarity of masculinity and femininity play in the concept of obedience? Does it allow for a black and white definition of who makes all the decisions? Stanford spends chapter four examining the dynamic of the two sexes in order to appreciate the complementarity and to further explore the challenges. The unique differences of man and woman, obvious in both physical and emotional ways, allow for the beauty of our unity.

The mystery of the unity of the two distinct individuals is made toxic after the Fall because of the tendency to view the other as an object instead of as the gift that they are. Unpacking the psychosomatic dimensions of both man and woman, Stanford uses the Theology of the Body to recollect the many pitfalls between the sexes. These pitfalls are overcome by a correct understanding of the paradox of obedience where man exercises his headship by sacrificial giving and woman exercises her submission through grateful reception.

Stanford rounds out her examination of Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians, specifically what he calls a “great mystery,” by examining first Christ as Head and then the Church as an example of the reception of that headship—also known as submission. Profiting from the truths uncovered in the previous chapters of who man is and what his characteristics are, Stanford beautifully displays man’s aptness for headship. This headship, in union with Christ’s own, encourages the man to sacrifice his talents and his life in order to bring life to his bride and his family. St. Joseph, in his quiet example, becomes an icon for this headship as he silently dedicates his life to the protection and love of his wife and foster son.

Women, Stanford shows, are designed biologically and emotionally to receive. The reception of a gift from her husband is no mere act of weakness nor does it signify some unhealthy hierarchy between the two individuals. Instead, the reception of the gift allows the woman to feel loved. This giving of oneself and receiving of the other allows the married couple the distinct privilege of being an image of the divine communion of persons. Even more amazing, they also

participate in this communion through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

As Vatican II stated about marriage in Gaudium et Spes, 48: “Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love, welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. For as God of old made Himself present to His people through a covenant of love and fidelity, so now the Savior of men and the Spouse of the Church comes into the lives of married Christians through the sacrament of matrimony. He abides with them thereafter so that just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf, the spouses may love each other with perpetual fidelity through mutual self-bestowal.”

One can see very clearly that the Church does not reduce the Sacrament of Matrimony to a simple arrangement of man and wife living together in union with one another. Instead, marriage has the responsibility of becoming an image of Christ’s love in the world.

Modern Love

In chapter eight, Stanford takes time to look at a modern application of this understanding of obedience in marriage. As one might imagine, there are a variety of ways the modern couple lives their life. Stay-athome-dad? Both husband and wife work out of the home? As many varieties as there are, the one constant is the definition of love as a gift of self. The giving of the gift and the reception of that gift, based on a mutual love of Christ, will draw a couple into a greater union. Stanford advises couples to invite God into the decisions that all spouses have to make to provide for the material needs of the family.

In the final chapter, Stanford underscores the power that an accurate exercise of obedience brings to a marriage. Being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ does not invite one to a life of weakness, but instead invites us to be transformed by the power of Christ’s love. The culture we live in tells us that obedience and submission could only result in a lack of human freedom; but, on the contrary, the act of love we give can only be offered as a free act. The free and total gift of self that is required in marriage truly deepens our human freedom! As members of Christ’s Body, we are all called to obedience, regardless of our vocation. As we strive to live out our vocation, may we all experience the power of obedience as we freely give of ourselves, the way Christ loved the Church.

Inherent in this short book is an answer to the question: “What difference does a sacramental lifestyle make?” Stanford takes a thorough look at what it means to be a son or daughter of God and then, in light of that, what it means to be obedient in marriage. In a sacramental lifestyle, we enter into a relationship with our Creator, and this relationship changes everything. In this relationship, and, consequently, in a married relationship, we can hope to emulate the Virgin Mary who declared herself a handmaid and who placed the will of the Other above her own.

As I mentioned above, I was very pleased with this book and, even though I would not give it to the average engaged couple as a wedding gift, I would give it to the couple who has the aptitude to consider the depth of meaning that their marriage has. It would make a great book for couples who recognize that marriage is not simply something that one survives, but a sacrament that, when fully lived, invites them to a unity of love that brings life not only to them, but to the world. In The Obedience Paradox, Mary Stanford is to be praised for having brought clarity to a topic that has befuddled many sceptics both inside and outside of the Church.

Peter Martin is the Director of the Office of Life, Marriage & Family and Communication for the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, MN. Mr. Martin received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, his Baccalaureate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome, and his Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C. Mr. Martin has been active in marriage ministry for many years by offering marriage preparation and by speaking on the beauty and sanctity of marriage. He and his wife Theresa have seven sons and one daughter.