Adoremus Bulletin
NOVEMBER 2020
News & Views
For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy
Holy Liturgy, Holy Living: Lessons from the Book of Leviticus
Leviticus, is fundamental to holy living, and holy living the necessary counterpart to holy liturgy. These are the means by which God’s people are enabled to fulfill their calling as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” as God’s agents of blessing and salvation to the world (Exodus 19:5-6).
Archbishop Cordileone Urges ‘Devotion and Love’ for Eucharist as Indoor Masses Resume
Non- Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Madelia, MN Permit No. 4
Adoremus PO Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385
AB/WIKIPEDIA
CNA Staff (CNA)—At an outdoor rosary rally and Mass held October 3, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone encouraged Catholics to renew their respect for and devotion to the Eucharist as indoor Masses resume across the city. “Have we accepted this fast from the Eucharist as an opportunity God has given us to renew our devotion and love for the sacrament?” Archbishop Cordileone asked during his homily at the rally outside the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption. The office of San Francisco’s mayor announced September 29 that places of worship will be permitted to hold services indoors at 25% capacity, up to 100 people, beginning September 30. The city had been allowing only one worshiper at a time in places of worship, regardless of the building’s size, while allowing multiple patrons in other indoor establishments. Parishes in San Francisco had been adapting to the restrictions by holding multiple, concurrent outdoor Masses each Sunday. The October 3 annual rosary rally began at St. Anthony of Padua Church in the city’s mission district with a procession to the cathedral. Reflecting on the city’s namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, Archbishop Cordileone held up St. Francis’ devotion to the Eucharist as an example, and noted that in times of scandal, corruption and division within the Church, the temptation can arise to criticize and “do things our own way.” Please see RESUME on next page
XXVI, No.3
Holy liturgy, according to Leviticus, is fundamental to holy living, and holy living, the necessary counterpart to holy liturgy. These are the means by which God’s people are enabled to fulfill their calling as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” as God’s agents of blessing and salvation to the world (Exodus 19:5-6).
By Vern Steiner
T
he Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament and first of the “legal books,” can be a difficult read for modern Christians. In its pages we encounter a myriad of tedious, bewildering, even bizarresounding requirements that God laid on ancient Israel, with little apparent relevance to the Church today. This probably explains why many a pious resolve to read straight through the Bible cover to cover has foundered among the shoals of Leviticus, or why a family physician once advised me to read this book for its sleep-inducing value (“Take two chapters one-half hour before bedtime.”). Among Jewish readers, Leviticus has enjoyed a more favorable reception. Historically, no book has had greater impact on Jews than this, and it remains among the first books
AB
Adoremus Bulletin NOVEMBER 2020
taught to Jewish children even today. When encountering a perplexing passage in the Bible, I teach my students to welcome the difficulty factor as a challenge: We simply have to work harder at getting to the heart of it. Those who accept that challenge discover that Leviticus contains some of the Bible’s richest insights on what it means for God’s people to be a liturgical community. In fact, Leviticus is the one biblical book devoted entirely to the complementary themes of holy liturgy and holy living, and the essential relationship between the two. This is reflected in the book’s structure, where chapters 1-16 focus on the former (holy liturgy)—on formal worship at the Tabernacle, where God resides with his people; and chapters 17-27 on the latter (holy living)—the kind of conduct that flows from and befits a liturgy-centered existence. Holy liturgy, according to
Four Searching Questions In his Psalms commentary, The Vitality of Worship, Robert Davidson confronts us with this bit of penetrating candor: “If worship does not lead us to ask searching questions about ourselves, then it is little more than a harmless hobby.”1 Leviticus helps us to ask searching questions about ourselves with respect to worship, questions which directly impact how we think about liturgy and life. Four of those searching questions come to the fore in that part of the book which focuses on the sacrificial rituals at the heart of Israel’s Tabernacle liturgy (chs. 1-7). Each of these contributes to the larger question of how liturgy can be “a soothing aroma to the Lord.” Most Christians have a sense that our liturgy should please the Lord, but not all agree on what that might
“ Leviticus contains some of the Bible’s richest insights on what it means for God’s people to be a liturgical community.” entail. Relatively few, it seems, consider the opposite possibility, that our liturgy might at times not please the Lord. The following four questions get to the heart of the matter from the perspective of Leviticus. Question 1: Is the object of our liturgy God? The question demands more than a general and over-confident response in the affirmative: “Of course it is. That’s why I go to church.” In The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger queries: “What, then, is special about the liturgy of Israel?” His response might seem unsurprising: “First of all, Please see LEVITICUS on page 4
Living Holy—Wholly Living According to Vern Steiner, the book of Leviticus is more than a catalog of laws—it’s also a nascent instruction manual on the Catholic art of living the liturgical life............1
Take It to the House Father Anthony Stoeppel offers an interior view of why humans have a natural need to make a supernatural space for God—a place we can all truly call his own..............................8
Encore! Encore! Adoremus’s late legendary editor Helen Hull Hitchcock weighs in on the liturgical reform in this month’s editorial, reprinted as a fitting coda for our 25th anniversary..........................3
Who’s the New Priest? If a new priest comes to your parish, says Benedictine Father Kurt Belsole, you can count on him being a man of God—and what’s more, you can count how on one hand......................................................10
Are You a Latin Lover? Perhaps you should be. Father Dylan Schrader makes the case for restoring Latin to its rightful place—on everyone’s tongue—as the mater lingua of Mother Church................6
Newman Revisited In reviewing Peter Kwasniewski’s recent compilation of John Henry Newman’s liturgical writings, Jeremy Priest reveals another side of Newman—one ever ancient, ever new.............................................................12
2
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Continued from RESUME, page 1 “Instead, let us take our lead from the poor man of Assisi, and tend to the inner work: prayer, fasting, love and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, embracing and serving the poor,” he said. “The real work of reform begins within each soul and within the heart of the Church.” Archbishop Cordileone urged Catholics to prepare for receiving Communion by frequently going to confession, praying and attending Eucharistic adoration, CatholicSF reported. Worshipers should be prayerfully silent whenever they are in the presence of the Eucharist and should dress properly for Mass, Archbishop Cordileone said. At the rosary rally, five families were selected to pray each decade in a different language: English, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Latin. At the end of the rosary, Archbishop Cordileone renewed the archdiocese’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was first done in 2017, CatholicSF reported. Archbishop Cordileone also encouraged Catholics to participate in a national virtual rosary, led by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles October 7, on the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Beginning September 30, outdoor worship services in San Francisco may host up to 200 people. Singing or chanting indoors will be prohibited, and “the place of worship must conduct a health check of patrons before they enter the facility.” An estimated 1,500 Catholics in San Francisco had marched in Eucharistic processions across the city September 20 to protest the city’s continued restrictions on public worship. “One person at a time in this great Cathedral to pray? What an insult. This is a mockery. They are mocking you, and even worse, they are mocking God,” Archbishop Cordileone said at the Mass following the processions September 20. The U.S. Department of Justice had on September 25 warned San Francisco officials that its restrictions on public worship in the city may have been unconstitutional. The DOJ on September 25 sent a letter to Mayor London Breed, warning that the city’s rule allowing only “one worshipper” in places of worship at a time regardless of their size—while allowing multiple patrons in other indoor establishments—is “draconian” and “contrary to the Constitution and the nation’s best tradition of religious freedom.” Archbishop Cordileone said that “respect for each other’s rights and compassion for each other’s needs are core San Francisco values. God bless Mayor Breed for responding to her constituents’ call.” He added, however, that “California’s limit of no more than 100 people inside of a house of worship regardless of the size of the building is still unjust. We want and we intend to worship God safely: with masks, social distancing, sanitation, ventilation, and other such safety protocols. But we will not accept believers being treated more severely than other, comparable secular activities.”
Mother Cabrini Honored in Colorado and in Big Apple This past October was a month of celebration for the first U.S. saint— St. Francis Xavier Cabrini—as the state of Colorado announced on October 2 that the first Monday of October would henceforth be known as “Cabrini Day” in the Centennial State. Ten days later, on October 12, New York City unveiled a new statue in her honor, recognizing her contributions to the poor and immigrants who flooded the Big Apple at the turn of the century. In an October 2 article, Aaron Lambert of the Denver Catholic, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver, chose to honor the beloved woman religious and patron saint of immigrants for her great work with the poor around the nation—including Colorado. “Each year in Colorado, the first Monday of October—Oct. 5 this year—will henceforth be known as Cabrini Day, named in honor of St. Frances Cabrini,” Lambert reported. “Mother Cabrini was a simple Italian woman who made an impressionable mark on American Catholic spirituality and was responsible for founding 67 different institutions in the U.S., including schools, hospitals and orphanages.” A week later, New York City also feted the saint with a statue, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported in an October 12 article—although it also noted that controversy surrounded the statue project from the start. “A new statue of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini now overlooks Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty and other New York City landmarks associated with immigrants, con-
NEWS & VIEWS
cluding a long effort by Catholics and others who objected to her exclusion by a city commission,” the report stated. “Bishop [Nicholas] DiMarzio [of Brooklyn] had cochaired the Mother Cabrini Memorial Commission,” CNA reported, “founded after a New York City program drew strong criticism last year for not accepting the most popular nominee, Mother Cabrini, as a subject for a new city-funded statue series intended to raise the profile of women and minorities.” “In response, Bishop DiMarzio organized a fundraiser and advocacy effort to build a statue of the saint,” the CNA article also reported. “In the 2019 New York City Columbus Day Parade, the bishop rode on a parade float with a statue of Mother Cabrini. When the parade finished, Gov. Cuomo said New York State would work with the Brooklyn diocese and the parade sponsor, the Columbus Citizens Foundation, to create a permanent memorial for the saint.” The statue stands not as a reminder of the controversy; rather, according to CNA, it serves as a monument to a great woman and a great Catholic. “We hope that people who visit this memorial will recognize that history should be repeated, that there was a care for the outcast and marginalized which Mother Cabrini understood, and we need that same care today,” said Bishop DiMarzio, quoted in the CNA report. “This is not just history, we want to make history with a new understanding of how we take care of people.” Lambert provided details of Mother Cabrini’s life, noting her humble origins and struggles in her early life. “Frances Xavier Cabrini was born July 15, 1850, in the small village of S’ant Angelo Lodgiano, Italy, just outside of Milan,” Lambert writes. “The youngest of 13 children, she was born two months premature, and would live her life in a fragile and delicate state of health. Despite her condition, it didn’t stop her from joining a religious order when she was of age.” “She was an Italian immigrant, a loving servant of those in need and the very first American saint, who also happened to walk the streets of Colorado,” Lambert continued. “And now, to recognize the inimitable legacy she left behind in the Centennial State, she has a day named in her honor.” According to Lambert, while Mother Cabrini’s first stop was New York City, she was encouraged to continue her work of witnessing to Christ among the poorest of the poor further west as well. “She arrived to New York City in 1889,” Lambert writes. “It was difficult at first, but she founded an orphanage in what is now West Park, New York, known as Saint Cabrini Home. She eventually found her way to Colorado in 1902, where she would visit several times in the remaining years of her life. She ministered to the poor Italian mining workers and their families in the foothills west of Denver, an area she was particularly fond of.” After Mother Cabrini established an orphanage in Denver, Lambert writes, she decided to open a nearby summer camp for girls. She secured some land for the project, purchased from the town of Golden, CO, in 1910, “after taking her oath as a U.S. citizen the year prior.” “The land had no known reliable source of water, but as the story goes, in September 1912, Mother Cabrini told some of the thirsty, complaining sisters to lift a certain rock and start digging,” Lambert noted. “The sisters obliged, and uncovered a spring, which has not stopped running to this day. Many pilgrims to Mother Cabrini Shrine believe the water has brought about healing and peace in their lives.” “Mother Cabrini died on Dec. 22, 1917, in Chicago,” Lambert writes. “The cause for her beatification, and her subsequent canonization into sainthood was opened shortly after her death. She was canonized on July 7, 1946 by Pope Pius XII.”
Adoremus Bulletin
Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy PHONE: 608.521.0385 WEBSITE: www.adoremus.org MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS & CHANGE OF ADDRESS: info@adoremus.org
New Guide for Exorcists: Exorcism is a Ministry of Joy, Light, and Peace By Hannah Brockhaus
ROME, Italy (CNA)—Exorcism is not an obscure practice shrouded in darkness, but a ministry filled with light, peace and joy, according to a new guide for Catholic exorcists. “When implemented in situations of real diabolical possession and according to the norms established by the Church—inspired by genuine faith and necessary prudence—[exorcism] manifests its salvific, positive character, characterized by a living experience of purity, light and peace,” Father Francesco Bamonte wrote in the book’s introduction. “The ‘dominant note,’ we could say, is made up of joy, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus to those who welcome his Word with confidence,” he continued. Father Bamonte is the president of the International Association of Exorcists (AIE), which prepared the new book with the approval of the Congregation for Clergy and with contributions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship. “Guidelines for the Ministry of Exorcism: In Light of the Current Ritual” was published in Italian in May. The AIE told CNA that an English language edition is currently under review by the Congregation for Clergy and the association expects it to be available by the end of 2020 or in early 2021. The book is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject of exorcism, but was written as a tool for exorcist priests or priests in formation to be exorcists. It can also be used by bishops’ conferences and dioceses to help facilitate discernment “in cases of faithful who consider themselves in need of the ministry of exorcists, since this type of request is increasing,” Father Bamonte said. In the book’s preface, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, vicar general of the Diocese of Rome, said that “the exorcist cannot proceed at his own discretion, since he works within the framework of an official mission that makes him in some way representative of Christ and the Church.” “The ministry of the exorcist is particularly delicate,” he says. “Exposed to multiple dangers, it requires special prudence, the result not only of right intention and goodwill, but also of a suitable specific preparation, which the exorcist is obliged to receive to adequately carry out his office.” There is a “notable increase” in fascination with exorcism in the Western world, especially with demonic possession and the role of the Catholic exorcist “in the demanding task of freeing from it,” Father Bamonte pointed out. “In some cultural circles, a peremptory description of Catholic exorcism continues as if it were a rough, violent reality, almost as obscure as the practice of magic, which we want to oppose, but, lastly, ending up putting it on the same level as occult practices,” he said. The priest said it was impossible to understand this ministry without belief in Jesus and his Church. “Pretending to understand Catholic exorcism without having a living faith in Christ and what he, in the revelation given to the Church, teaches us about Satan and the demonic world, is like wanting to deal with second degree equations without knowing the four basic operations of mathematics and their properties,” he stated. This is why it is necessary “to always go back to the sources of our ministry,” he continued, “which does not arise at all from the fear of witches, from the desire to oppose magic or from the will to impose a specific religious vision at the expense of other different conceptions about God and the world, but solely and only from what Jesus said and from what he first did, giving the apostles and their successors the mission to continue his own work.” The International Association of Exorcists includes around 800 exorcist members around the world. It was founded more than 30 years ago by a group of exorcists, led by Father Gabriel Amorth, who died in 2016. The association was formally recognized by the Vatican in 2014.
EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher WEBSITE AND TECHNOLOGY: Matt Korger MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond SOCIAL MEDIA: Jesse Weiler INQUIRIES TO THE EDITOR P.O. Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 editor@adoremus.org
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky = Helen Hull Hitchcock The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ
Contents copyright © 2020 by ADOREMUS. All rights reserved.
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Why the Liturgical Reform? or, “What if we just say no to any liturgical change?” Editor’s note: To conclude Adoremus’s 25th anniversary of publishing, we’re glad to turn over the editorial slot to the late Helen Hull Hitchcock, editor of and energy behind Adoremus for 20 years, as this editorial from the September 2011 issue of Adoremus demonstrates. By Helen Hull Hitchcock
“
W
hy was there a need for the reform of the liturgy? Can you summarize it for me? Some say that the Council intended a radical break with the past to make the liturgy relevant; others claim that the Council’s reform of the liturgy was the nefarious work of a few people determined to destroy the Church!” These questions are representative of many similar questions we’ve encountered recently. It is a different question from “Why do we need a new translation?”— though it is not entirely unrelated to this significant change in the language of worship we encounter. More likely, such questions arise in the context of the 2007 change that permits the old form (vetus ordo) of the Mass to be celebrated side-by-side with the new (novus ordo). People who never experienced the preconciliar liturgy, and who have only known a wholly vernacular Mass that may vary widely from parish to parish, and especially those who are attracted to the solemnity and reverence characteristic of the “extraordinary form” of the Mass are curious about why there ever should have been a liturgical reform. If Pope Benedict, in issuing Summorum Pontificum in 2007, intended to permit wider use of the “extraordinary form” alongside the “ordinary form”, doesn’t this suggest that the liturgical reform was not needed? We, too, have read extreme views of liturgical reform…. Though they reach polar opposite conclusions, both views have in common one basic assumption: that the Council’s liturgical reforms represent a rupture, or “discontinuity” with the entire history of the Catholic Church’s liturgy—and both views are equally and very seriously mistaken, as Pope Benedict has stressed repeatedly. The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council are, truly, in continuity with the Church’s history. And a liturgical reform was needed—and still is. Here’s an attempt to pack an eventful century into a very short space. The Pre-conciliar Liturgical Reform At the beginning of the 20th century, Pope Pius X initiated what would become known as the “liturgical movement” with his 1903 document on sacred music, Tra le sollecitudini. Building on an initiative that had begun in the early 19th century to recover the Church’s nearly lost patrimony of Gregorian Chant, and responding to the dominance of theatrical-style music performed at Mass that left the congregation as a passive audience, the pope called for a restoration of sacredness to music—and for the “active participation” (actuosa participatio) of the entire congregation in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The “liturgical movement” had many variations in Europe and America; but the principles that Pope Pius X first expressed were repeated by subsequent popes. Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on the liturgy and music, Divini Cultus, also underscored the importance of truly sacred music in worship. In the 1950s, Pope Pius XII reformed the celebration of Holy Week—and new vernacular translations of the Bible were undertaken. The pope issued key encyclicals on the liturgy: Mediator Dei (1947) and Musicae Sacrae (1955), in which he reaffirmed the active participation of the people, the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and approved recent historical research, while he also cautioned against errors and innovations advocated by some liturgical reformers that were inconsistent with the Church’s liturgical heritage and tradition. During the decade or so before the Second Vatican Council, the “dialogue Mass” appeared, in which the congregation made the appropriate responses in Latin— formerly made only by the altar boys—although this did not become standard practice. Ordinary Mass-goers were encouraged to follow the Mass in bilingual hand missals in order that they could more fully understand what was taking place in the sanctuary, even though they could not actually hear the priest’s words. But the use of hand missals, too, was the exception rather than the norm. At the time of the Council, the liturgical movement had made some progress in the effort to increase the
understanding of ordinary Catholics and to draw every Catholic believer more closely into the sacred action of the Mass— the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith—and thereby to become more deeply and spiritually connected to the heart of the Church, the Mass. Helen Hull Hitchcock had the However, this goal relong view of liturgical reform mained distant. The usual before her editorial eyes as parish Mass was still alshe guided Adoremus Bulletin most entirely inaudible to from its inception. Her vision, keenly expressed in this 2011 the worshipers (except for feature, will continue to direct the sermon), impossible Adoremus into the future. to follow (except for the bell at the consecration), and the congregation mostly knelt silently and said the Rosary or other prayers during the entire celebration of Mass, except when they actually received Holy Communion. At the same time, some of those who were actively involved in the liturgical movement were veering perilously from the Church’s liturgical tradition, often in pursuit of their own interpretation of the liturgies of the “early Church.” Liturgical mistakes were made, as Pope Pius XII had observed and censured in Mediator Dei. The Second Vatican Council’s Reform Recognizing the fundamental importance of the Mass in every Catholic believer’s life—a goal of the pre-conciliar liturgical movement that had remained elusive —the fathers of the Second Vatican Council made their first work the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963). The Constitution reaffirmed the central and indispensable role of the liturgy in Catholic life, and in this document the Council fathers called for a liturgical reform—stressing again the active participation of the laity, precisely in order that the liturgy would become the center of every faithful Catholic’s life. This was the true objective of the liturgical reform, as it had been for many years. The Constitution’s directives were by no means extreme, and they essentially reaffirmed the earlier papal documents on the liturgy. While it authorized more use of the vernacular in the liturgy, along with Latin, the Council fathers could not and did not foresee the rapid disappearance of all Latin from the Mass; nor could they ever have imagined the radical departure from the Church’s traditional liturgical practice—a departure that would take place with alarming and confusing speed during the 1960s and 1970s. A New Liturgical Movement The Council’s reform was genuinely needed. But the errors resulting from misinterpretation of the Council were very serious, indeed, and these errors led to divisions within the Church. Correction was clearly necessary. Thus Pope John Paul II called for a renewed look at the liturgy's reform in Vicesimus quintus annus, his 1988 letter on the 25th anniversary of the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy. The letter describes both the positive and negative effects of the post-conciliar liturgical renewal, and concludes: “The time has come to renew that spirit which inspired the Church at the moment when the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium was prepared, discussed, voted upon and promulgated, and when the first steps were taken to apply it” (23). Pope John Paul thus set in motion a plan to get the liturgy back on course—a renewed liturgical reform. The phrase “new liturgical movement” was used by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his 1997 memoir, Milestones. Here is the relevant section, in which we can hear echoes of the criticisms by earlier popes of the failures of the liturgical reform to achieve its real purpose: “There is no doubt that this new Missal [after Vatican II] in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something ‘made,’ not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central
3 authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every ‘community’ must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church” [Emphasis added]. “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy,” the Cardinal continues, “which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur [Lit., as if God is not given], in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds—partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council” [Emphasis added] (Milestones–Memoirs 1927-1977 (1997, English edition, 1998, Ignatius Press, p 148-149). Rupture or Reform and Renewal? Pope Benedict XVI, in his now-famous address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, 40 years after the Second Vatican Council ended, reflected on the way the Council had been received and interpreted. “What has been the result of the Council?” the new pope asked, “Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken?… Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?” The answer, he explains, lies in the correct interpretation and application of the Council, “on its proper hermeneutics.” “On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.” “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the postconciliar Church,” Benedict XVI continues. “It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.…” In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. But this shows a basic misunderstanding of the very nature of a Council, the pope says. “The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform,” Benedict writes, also noting, “It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists.” Pope Benedict again recalls the serious problem of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” in interpreting the Council in Sacramentum Caritatis, his apostolic exhortation following the Synod on the Eucharist (February 22, 2007). He also emphasized that the “riches” of the liturgical renewal “are yet to be fully explored”: “The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities” (3. Emphasis added). This authentic liturgical reform—overcoming “discontinuities” and “ruptures” in the Church’s history, and renewing and restoring the “spiritual essence” of the Mass, the heart and font of our faith—is what we are now experiencing, more than 100 years after Pope Pius X’s initial actions, and nearly half a century after the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy.
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
AB/WIKIMEDIA
4
Worship is a pleasing aroma when this One, and no lesser god—not the golden calf of Exodus 32, for example, or the gods of Israel’s neighbors, or the modern-day gods of power, possessions, popularity, and prestige—is truly the object of our worship, the love of our hearts, and the focus of our devotion. Leviticus invites us to ask: Is he, really? Or has something else taken his place?
Continued from LEVITICUS, page 1 without doubt, the One to whom it is directed.”2 But putting the matter this way invites us to review just who God is at the center of the liturgy in Leviticus. In Leviticus, the worshiped God is not a vague “higher power” or a shadowy, nameless “concept.” Above all, YHWH, the Lord, the named God of Israel, is removed (the meaning of ‘holy’)—separate and distinct from all that is sinful. That makes the wonder the more wonderful, for in marvelous mercy and amazing grace this removed God has redeemed a people as his own, has revealed himself and his will to them, and now resides within and among them in familial covenant relationship. There’s enough in that string of R’s for God’s people to center their liturgy, now and forever! Worship is a pleasing aroma when this One, and no lesser god—not the golden calf of Exodus 32, for example, or the gods of Israel’s neighbors, or the modern-day gods of power, possessions, popularity, and prestige—is truly the object of our worship, the love of our hearts, and the focus of our devotion. Leviticus invites us to ask: Is he, really? Or has something else—perhaps an idol of our own making or choosing—subtly usurped God’s place of singular and supreme devotion at the center of our affections and aspirations, enticing us to worship at other alluring altars? Question #1 summons us to a long, reflective pause: Is the God of which Leviticus speaks truly the object of our liturgy? Question 2: Is the objective of our liturgy God-pleasing? In Leviticus the actual aim or goal of worship is to bring pleasure to the heart of God. No fewer than 17 times, liturgical sacrifices are described as a “soothing aroma” or “sweet-smelling oblation” to the Lord.3 The vivid imagery of this phrase conjures up the idea of God’s delighting in it, being soothed by it, finding pleasure in it. Perhaps the fragrance of liturgy, including the use of incense in some of the sacrificial rituals,4 affects the divine disposition in much the same way that the aroma from a backyard grill on a summer evening affects many of ours! Here’s the point: Whatever enjoyment or entertainment value worship offers, it begins with worshipers submitting and adjusting their tastes and preferences to God’s, not the other way around. In this connection, when the objective in our liturgy is God-pleasing, our usual questions and standard criteria (How was Mass this morning? Did you enjoy it? Get anything out of it? Did you like the music?) miss the mark—badly. These concerns are apropos our recreational or leisure activities, but they are quite beside the point when it comes to the liturgy of the Mass. Liturgy is first and foremost a matter of what satisfies God’s tastes, not ours. This is why we call it the sacrifice of the Mass: it’s not about what we get, but what we give. Accordingly, liturgy invites us to adjust our likes and dislikes to God’s; or to put this differently, God-pleasing liturgical tastes can be trained and acquired. By now it will be clear that liturgy in Leviticus is countercultural to a world obsessed with a what’s-in-it-for-me mentality. Strikingly, Leviticus never presents comfort or familiarity or cultural relevance as the decisive criterion. Imagine the Israelites responding to the liturgical instructions in Leviticus 1-7: “Hey, Moses, can you please tell YHWH that I’m not very comfortable worshiping like that.” Or, “You sure could save your breath on all the details if we just did something, you know, familiar to us.” Or, “Don’t you think attendance at the Tabernacle might
“ Liturgical sacrifices become defective, and an otherwise pleasing aroma turns into a disgusting odor when we rob God of our best—when we offer liturgical leftovers.” increase next Sabbath if we simply adjusted our liturgical style to something our Canaanite neighbors can relate to and appreciate?” Related, liturgy in Leviticus is never viewed as “whatever feels good” or “whatever fits your preferred style.” There is no hint of “marketing” worship to please the target audience, turning liturgy into a form that suits their untrained or poorly acquired tastes. According to Leviticus, God rather than the worshiper defines and prescribes appropriate and pleasing liturgy. At least in the Protestant world, my previous home for 65 years, worship wars were not uncommon. I hear rumblings and rumors of similar wars in the post-Vatican II Church, as well. Most battles of this nature reflect the confusion that results from a church that fails to ask the searching questions posed by Leviticus. And when that happens, we are but one short step from turning what should be a soothing aroma into a disgusting odor, as the Prophets later warn in an impressive string of scathing indictments that stretch from Isaiah to Malachi.5 Question 3: Are the offerings of our liturgy God-befitting? Leviticus consistently stresses that the offerings brought to the Lord are judged by a standard that is calibrated to the worthiness of the One worshiped—not to the whims of the worshiper. In most cases, suitable offerings are defined as those “without blemish,”6 or those that are choice or costly.7 Later passages in the Bible rebuke would-be worshipers for tossing God the scraps in the name of worship, thereby depriving God of his due and forcing him to vie for whatever does receive our first and our finest. According to Leviticus, there is a direct correlation between the quality of a worshiper’s offering and the worth that a worshiper ascribes to the Lord. Or to put it sharply, worship that costs nothing is worth nothing, as David would confess in a later day: “I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing” (2 Samuel 24:24). When God has to compete for our first and finest, we force him to contend with other gods in our lives. This is the point of the First Commandment in the Decalogue, or its positive version in the famous Shema‘ of Deuteronomy 6:4-5: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” We must face the implications squarely. Liturgical sacrifices become defective, and an otherwise pleasing aroma turns into a disgusting odor when we rob God of our best—when we offer liturgical leftovers, religious remains, from a life otherwise expended and exhausted on lesser interests and occupations and commitments. This happens, for example, whenever we present to God our tired bodies and unrested minds on Sunday morning, depleted from unwise decisions and unnecessary
activities Saturday night (After all, tomorrow is only Sunday; if I’m not alert at least it won’t affect my job or school performance. God will understand.), or token offerings from a paycheck expended on the “necessities” of life (excluding God, of course), or limited availability to serve our parish ministries, because of all the prior commitments in our lives (like recreation, TV, sports, socializing, the tyranny of overwork). In short, the vitality of our liturgy suffers whenever we reduce worship to convenience. Once again, worship that costs nothing is worth nothing.8 Question 4: Are we, the offerers of liturgy, God-reflecting? Whether by explicit statement or otherwise, Leviticus repeatedly emphasizes that the worshipers God desires are those who worship in every aspect of life, not those who merely engage in an official formality one time per week in a public place. True worshipers are those for whom there is no dichotomy or disconnect between life and liturgy. Specifically, what God desires and deserves, according to Leviticus, is everyday life lived in growing personal and practical holiness as a reflection of God’s own holiness—like a mirror reflecting the character of God whose image we bear. This emphasis dominates the second part of Leviticus (chs. 17-27), with its thematic focus encapsulated in the motto: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (19:2); again, “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (20:26). Significantly, holy living in the latter part of Leviticus is both the goal and consequence of holy liturgy in the earlier part as well as its ground or condition. The relationship between how we pray and how we live is reciprocal and essential. One does not exist without the other. Among the disquieting passages that speak to the issue of turning pleasing aromas into disgusting odors,9 clearly the largest number focus on liturgical detachment. This happens whenever God’s people compartmentalize life into worship (what we do on Sunday morning) and other (how we live the rest of the week), when we disconnect the conduct of our life from the confession of our lips, when we sever the essential connection between holy living and holy liturgy. This is how pleasing aromas become stinky odors. And so, for example—reader, be warned—when we genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament on Sunday, and then we forget to live Monday through Saturday in light of that profound reverence; or we trace the sign of the Cross over our minds, hearts, and shoulders (or at the Gospel reading, over our minds, lips, and hearts) without considering the implications of that Cross or that Gospel and its power to transform our thoughts, intentions, words, and actions throughout the week; or we ingest the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ without being transfigured into the likeness of the One we have consumed so that others might see less of us and more of him the other six days. When this happens, the antidote, of course, is not to forsake the sacramental form, as some have thoughtlessly proposed, but to (re)connect our liturgy to our life, our practice to our profession, our worship to our walk. Or to appeal once again to Leviticus, to understand that chapters 1-16 (holy liturgy) and chapters 1727 (holy living) are bound inseparably together—the
5
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020 former sustaining the latter, the latter incarnating the former. Or in the words of St. Paul: “I appeal to you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:1-2, italics mine). Postscript: Liturgy, Life, and Leviticus “If worship does not lead us to ask searching questions about ourselves, then it is little more than a harmless hobby,” notes Davidson. Informed by Leviticus, worshipers are led to ask searching questions that get to the heart of biblical liturgy: Is its object God and its objective God-pleasing? Are its offerings God-befitting and its offerers God-reflecting? These questions are not unlike those which the psalmists raise, echoing the message of Leviticus: “Lord, who may sojourn in your tent, who may dwell on your holy hill?” (Psalm 15:1). Again, “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place?” (24:3). The response to such searching questions, as stated, for example, in Psalms 15:2-5 and 24:4, could not be clearer: Those whom the Lord welcomes to his holy precincts are worshipers whose liturgy and life share the common quality of holiness as delineated in Leviticus.
Readers’ Quiz On the Order of Mass Throughout 2020, Adoremus has been looking deeply into the contents of the Roman Missal, seeking to refamiliarize ourselves with its contents. Pope Benedict XVI encouraged this very practice following the Church’s observance of a year devoted to the Eucharist: “The eucharistic celebration is enhanced when priests and liturgical leaders are committed to making known the current liturgical texts and norms, making available the great riches found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the Order of Readings for Mass…. These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history…. Attentiveness and fidelity to the specific structure of the rite express both a recognition of the nature of Eucharist as a gift and, on the part of the minister, a docile openness to receiving this ineffable gift” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 40). As Adoremus concludes this year of the Missal’s anniversary, we offer you one final Roman Missal quiz: on the order of Mass. May it help you and those in your care appreciate more clearly its “great riches.” 1. True or False: If the priest celebrant must introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day, he ought to do so before making the Sign of the Cross. 2. During the Penitential Act, the Kyrie Eleison (“Lord, have mercy”) must follow: a. Option one, the Confiteor (“I confess”). b. Option two, V/. “Have mercy on us, O Lord.” R/. “For we have sinned against you.” c. Option three, the invocations (e.g., “You were sent to heal the contrite of heart: Lord have mercy”).
“Leviticus repeatedly emphasizes,” writes Vern Steiner, “that the worshipers God desires are those who worship in every aspect of life, not those who merely engage in an official formality one time per week in a public place. True worshipers are those for whom there is no dichotomy or disconnect between life and liturgy.” Here, Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement with Dorothy Day in 1933, stands before a Worker house in New York City. Maurin and Day, both ardent in their love for the Mass and for the poor, are a perfect example of Catholics who have harmonized the liturgy into their daily lives.
3. The Gloria is sung or said: a. On all solemnities and feasts. b. On all Sundays outside of Advent and Lent. c. During any ritual Mass (e.g., wedding, confirmation). d. On other celebrations of a more solemn character. e. All of the above. f. Options a and b. 4. At the proclamation of the Gospel, the Book of the Gospels is incensed: a. Before the priest or deacon greets the people with “The Lord be with you.” b. Before the priest or deacon announces, “A reading from the holy gospel according to N.” c. Before the priest or deacon proclaims the actual reading. d. After the priest or deacon proclaims the reading, but before the homily. 5. True or False: the Roman Missal directs that the final petition of the Universal Prayer (General Intercessions) should be for the dead. 6. The homily, “which is to be preached by a Priest or Deacon on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation,” ought to be founded on which texts from the Mass? 7. True or False: Instead of the Nicaean Creed, the Apostles’ Creed may be used at any Mass in which the Creed is prescribed. 8. Which of the following Eucharistic Prayers is not recommended by the Roman Missal for Sundays? a. Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon). b. Eucharistic Prayer II (which includes the epiclesis, “like the dewfall”).
AB/LAWRENCE OP ON FLICKR
1. Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 57-58. 2. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 36. 3. Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 16; 4:31; 6:15, 21; et al. 4. Leviticus 2:1, 2, 15, 16; 5:11; 6:15; 24:7. 5. Especially Isaiah 1:10-20; Jeremiah 7:22-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:68; and Malachi 1:6–2:9. Also, 1 Samuel 15:22-23; Psalms 40:6-8, 50:16-23, and 51:16-17; Proverbs 21:3; and Matthew 9:13; 12:7. 6. About 20 times in Leviticus (e.g., 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; et al.). 7. Cf. Leviticus 22:17-22, 31-33. 8. See especially Malachi 1:6-14. 9. See note 5 above.
AB/JIM FOREST ON FLICKR
Vern Steiner is the founding president of the Emmaus Institute for Biblical Studies, based in the Diocese of Lincoln, NE. Prior to entering the Catholic Church in 2015, he enjoyed a long career as an evangelical Protestant pastor, seminary professor, and founder and president of a Bible institute. His teaching specializations include biblical introduction and interpretation, languages and exegesis, exposition and theology. His academic degrees are in Bible, History, and Philosophy (B.A.), Pastoral Ministry (M.Div.), Biblical Literature (Th.M.), and Exegetical Theology (Ph.D., Trinity Divinity School, Chicago). Steiner has authored published and unpublished materials at both general and technical levels. When he is not in his study, he enjoys watching sports, woodworking, and especially spending time with his wife Carol, their two married children, and their ten grandchildren.
“Let my prayer be accepted as incense before you, the raising of my hands like an evening oblation” (Psalm 141:2). The rites of the Mass contained in the Roman Missal facilitate man’s offering to God and God’s bestowal of blessings and graces upon us.
c. E ucharistic Prayer III (which prays that “from the rising of the sun to its setting, a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name”). d. E ucharistic Prayer IV (which has a preface text proper to itself that must be used).
9. How does the Roman Missal suggest that the exchange of peace be made? 10. The Communion Chant ought to begin: a. When the priest receives communion. b. W hen the deacon or other ministers receive communion. c. When the people receive communion. d. Whenever is convenient for the schola. 11. BONUS: The Roman Missal provides four dismissal formulas, each beginning with which word? ANSWERS on page 9
6
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Sapere Aude…Latinam—And Dare to Try the Johannine Option
Father Dylan Schrader
None of this happened. Despite the mandate of the pope who called the Second Vatican Council, despite the stated intention of that same Council,2 despite the statements of subsequent popes and Church documents,3 it is not uncommon today for priests never even to have studied Latin at all—never mind the standing canonical requirement of good proficiency (“bene calleant”).4 The situation among the lay faithful is even worse. And yet, by the firm and gentle hand of providence, Latin has not yet been lost forever. In fact, there is clear growth in the use of Latin in the Mass and interest in Latin both in Catholic schools, especially those exploring the use of classical curricula, and in the thriving Catholic homeschooling movement. We are far from a revival of Latin on the scale of what was achieved in modern times with Hebrew through the efforts of scholars such as Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (1858-1922) in Israel, but there is interest. I suggest that it is time to accelerate that progress. Nearly 60 years since Veterum sapientia, we must get serious about reviving Latin in the Latin Church. Despite the near total abandonment of the language, we now have tools that Pope John would have marveled at—the Internet, smart phones, and serious advances in language pedagogy. Actually, the Church has now fallen behind the world of secular Latin. This is a pity because Pope John was right. The Church needs Latin. We are, after all, a global community, an ancient community, and an everlasting community. A Global Community In recent years, it has become a common occurrence for disputes to erupt over the exact meaning of a single word or phrase in Church documents. Amoris laetitia, for instance, was scrutizined and debated down to its footnotes for months before the official Latin text was even published.5 The Church is a global community, and texts are released online, often in as many as eight languages, evoking instant worldwide commentary. Unfortunately, when that commentary centers on a fine point of interpretation, we have a problem, which is that the standard text of a Church document is not the online version but instead usually that published in the official record of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis AAS)—which is, however, often about two years
Pope John XXIII, in his 1962 Apostolic Constitution, Veterum sapientia, asserted that the Latin language, being universal, immutable, and non-vernacular, is uniquely suited for the Catholic Church. He directs that seminaries and other academies are to teach in Latin, use textbooks written in Latin, and ensure that their students become proficient in Latin.
behind current debates and conversations on a given text. Further, when a Church document is released in eight languages at once, which version is the authoritative document? The English, Italian, and Spanish versions, for instance, may differ in how they express a certain point. No one can debate the meaning of a single word or phrase without first establishing what that word or phrase is. No matter what went into the drafting and editing process, at the end of the day, there has to be a standard version. Latin used to be and remains the obvious choice. As a standard language for global use, Latin not only avoids favoritism toward any given modern language, it also places current Church documents in line with the great majority of its historical documents. Words and phrases are then contextualized within the rich and refined ecclesiastical vocabulary extant in the Latin language. The Church thought and wrote in Latin for centuries. We are the same Church today, not a different one, so it makes sense that we, too—certainly in our official documents—should think and write in Latin. An Ancient Community We are not only a global community of contemporaries but also an ancient community. A sudden rupture in our technical vocabulary would be bad enough, but the abandonment of the very language in which the Church has thought for centuries cuts us off from a conversation spanning generations. When even our official documents, the acts of our synods, and so forth, are frag-
“ What a pity when Latin in the Mass strikes Roman Catholics as utterly foreign and incomprehensible when it should evoke instead a sense of belonging and ancestral pride!” An Everlasting Community If it is foolish to judge the past without knowing it, we might say something analogous about the future. You and I will most likely not be on this earth till Christ comes again, but the Church will. English is widespread today, but for that very reason it is always changing. Where will it be in a century? A millennium? Will Catholics of the 31st century look back at our present era as a lost age, an age with unreadable records in an otherwise consistent stream? If destroying knowledge of
AB/WIKIMEDIA. ST. JEROME WRITING, BY CARAVAGGIO (1571-1610)
“ Pope John was right. The Church needs Latin. We are, after all, a global community, an ancient community, and an everlasting community.”
SOURCE: AB/WIKIPEDIA
O
n February 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in 1962, the year that the Second Vatican Council began, Pope St. John XXIII put pen to vellum. Before a solemn convocation of cardinals, bishops, and members of the faithful, he signed his new Apostolic Constitution after placing it on the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica. It was Veterum sapientia, on promoting the study of Latin. Echoing his predecessors, Pope John asserted that the Latin language, being universal, immutable, and nonvernacular, is uniquely suited for the Catholic Church. In fact, he claimed, it was no accident that the Word became flesh when he did, precisely when the Greek and Latin languages were ready to carry the truth of the Gospel to the nations. This was the design of the same providence that would root the Church’s visible headship not in Jerusalem but in the imperial city of Rome. Veterum sapientia is not only about the Mass but about the whole life of the Latin Church and, indeed, the Church universal. Pope John directs that seminaries and other academies are to teach in Latin, use textbooks written in Latin, and ensure that their students become proficient in Latin. It is an unambiguous, rigorous document, one that Pope John meant to be taken seriously. Even those familiar with Veterum sapientia may not know the companion document issued by the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities to assist in the implementation of Pope John’s mandate.1 This document delineates requirements for teachers, exercises, examinations, and a full curriculum for Latin studies extending all the way to nine years! It specifies how seminaries and universities around the world should have Latin as their lingua franca for study.
mented into so many distinct tongues, we risk confusion in the present and rupture from the past. The same is true, of course, in that “foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice”—Sunday Mass.6 Language binds culture. It transmits identity. It shapes community. And, the reverse is also true: our sense of culture, identity, and community influence our language. Crucial, then, to the meaning of the Mass is the understanding that it, too, is a global and ancient sacrifice, not just the expression of this particular group of people in this particular town on this particular Sunday morning. The Mass is the pure sacrifice of Christ represented “among the nations, from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Malachi 1:11). Through the Mass, the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, participates in the single self-offering of her Head. This means, in turn, that the community that forms through the Eucharistic sacrifice is the whole Church, in heaven, in purgatory, and on earth. So, while there are benefits to using vernacular languages in the liturgy, particularly when these vernacular languages are themselves keyed to a hieratic register, it is also important to maintain a sense of continuity. In the Latin Church, this means the Latin language. A global and ancient community grows in solidarity through a global and ancient language. What a pity when Latin in the Mass strikes Roman Catholics as utterly foreign and incomprehensible when it should evoke instead a sense of belonging and ancestral pride! Imagine an immense library containing the only records of western Catholic thought and experience. Now imagine that library engulfed in flames and burning to the ground. Just a few volumes here and there survive. This is what losing Latin means for Catholics. And what’s worse, keeping Catholics in ignorance of Latin means that they will not even know what has been lost! It is a damnatio memoriae of the worst kind. Ironically, only those who know Latin can know what is at risk of being lost. Those who can’t read Latin and claim that it isn’t worth preserving quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about. How could they?
“The abandonment of the very language in which the Church has thought for centuries,” says Father Dylan Schrader “cuts us off from a conversation spanning generations. When even our official documents, the acts of our synods, and so forth, are fragmented into so many distinct tongues, we risk confusion in the present and rupture from the past.” St. Jerome, who translated the Sacred Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin—and whom Pope Francis celebrated with an Apostolic Letter on the 1,600th anniversary of the translator’s death—would surely agree.
7
SOURCE: AB/WIKIPEDIA
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Matthias Grunewald’s Isenheim Altarpiece (c.1512) places John the Baptist’s mission before us: Illum oportet crescere me autem minui—“He must increase, I must decrease” (John 3:30)—a maxim that may also apply to the use of Latin in the Church and her liturgy.
the past is a damnatio memoriae, we damn ourselves to obscurity—and thereby sell future generations short— by divorcing our most important thoughts from the grand record of the Western Church. It is much more likely that Catholics a millennium from now will be able to read Latin rather than 21st-century English, Italian, Spanish, or any of the other languages in which Church documents are being published. What injury are we prepared to inflict on the poor theologian a thousand years hence who opens his catena of Church documents to find that the Magisterium of our own day has fractured, at least linguistically, into a thousand pieces? What should we do? Now is the time for the Church to recover Latin, but how might this be done? I suggest that the first step is nothing other than fidelity to Church law and the Second Vatican Council’s stated intentions. This includes the following: • Seminaries should require serious study of Latin to the point that when a man is ordained a priest he can at least read and write Latin competently.7 • Seminaries should ensure that newly ordained priests are able to celebrate Mass in Latin and sing Gregorian chant.8 • Pastors should teach their parishes the basic prayers (e.g., the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, etc.) in Latin and the basic Gregorian chants, particularly those contained in the booklet Iubilate Deo, which Pope St. Paul VI issued as a minimum repertoire for Roman Catholics.9 There is a reason this book bears the subtitle: Easier Gregorian Chants That the Faithful Are Supposed to Learn in Conformity with the Intention of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Practically speaking, these initial tasks might be accomplished by: • Ensuring that seminarians start their study of Latin when they begin their course of studies and continue with it throughout.10 • Using modern language pedagogy with proven effectiveness for a greater number of students than formal grammar and translation alone. •R equiring proof of an appropriate level of Latin proficiency before seminarians are admitted to the study of theology.11 • Having Catholic grade schools and high schools teach Latin whenever possible, or at least basic prayers and chants. The same goes for religious education and homeschooling curricula. • Having children sing at Sunday Masses the chants that they have learned. The chants should be coordinated with the liturgical calendar (e.g., the Rorate caeli during Advent, the Attende, Domine during Lent, the Ave maris stella on Marian feasts). This will integrate the next generation of Catholics into the Eucharistic celebration and create an experience of using Latin in worship. •R egularly using Latin in the Mass in every parish. For example, a parish might rotate through parts of the Order of Mass in Latin throughout the year and use seasonal antiphons. This could also bring multilingual parish communities together, allowing them to sing and respond in unison.12 • Encouraging priests to take part in ongoing Latin
education. The annual Veterum Sapientia Latin workshop (www.veterumsapientia.com) exemplifies an unintimidating, modern, and effective approach. There are also steps that the Church could take on higher levels, such as: • I ncreasing the staff of the Holy See dedicated to working with the Latin language. •P ublishing Church documents in Latin first, with the goal of returning to the point where they are composed in Latin. •H olding synods and other international gatherings in Latin. •P roviding scholarships for Latin teachers in Catholic schools to learn methods with the greatest proven effectiveness. •F ostering religious orders and associations of the faithful especially dedicated to Latin. •P roviding scholarships for Catholic students from around the world to study Latin intensively. Ideally, this would mean having students come to Vatican City in Rome to live for a significant period of time in a spoken-Latin environment.
Some of these suggestions would require significant funding. Others would be free and could even save money (e.g., on licensing fees for music). All of them would take effort, a commitment not to give up on Latin, and patience. Rome wasn’t built in a day—and neither was its language. It will take time to revive Latin, but it can be done, and any steps we take are better than none.
“ Those who can’t read Latin and claim that it isn’t worth preserving quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about. How could they?” Answering Objections Given the situation of the world and the Church herself these days, the revival of an ancient language may seem like the last thing we should be worried about. There are bound to be objections to my proposal. Allow me to reply briefly to some of them. Doesn’t the Church have more pressing needs? Undoubtedly. It is my hope that those needs will also be served by the revival of Latin. To take a timely example, the present crisis with the novel coronavirus has led to a variety of responses and opinions about the rights and responsibilities of bishops, priests, and the lay faithful. When must a priest administer the Eucharist? Can a bishop forbid public Masses? What about confession or the last rites? Given that the Church has encountered epidemics in the past, there exists significant literature—in Latin—with carefully considered replies to questions such as these.13 Unfortunately, these sources are rarely consulted. In any case, it is hard to imagine how keeping Catholics ignorant of Latin will help the Church address her other problems. Couldn’t we be helping the poor instead? It is a crime when we Catholics fail in our duty to the poor. Still, such failures are not because of Latin but because of indifference and selfishness. There is no reason we can’t dedicate resources both to the Latin language and to outreach to those in need. In fact, education itself is a service to the poor. Why should Latin be the privilege of the wealthy? Okay, fine, so let’s revive Latin—but why stop there? Why not go back to Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic while we’re at it? These languages are also important and worth recovering! After all, they are the original languages of Scripture. However, in terms of liturgical language, the Roman Rite was only solidified in conjunction with Latin. While Greek was once used for the Eucharistic sacrifice even in the West, the Roman Rite had not yet concretized and matured. For as long as the Roman Rite has truly existed, certainly since the time of the Gregorian Sacramentary, Latin has been its language. In terms of non-liturgical usage, the vast majority of Catholic thought and experience in the West has come down to us in Latin. It is simply a fact that Latin has remained in continuous usage in Western Catholicism in a way that other languages have not.
Are you saying that you want to eliminate vernacular languages in Mass or other prayers?
Not at all. There is a difference between preserving Latin and eliminating other languages. By analogy, just as the Church says that Gregorian chant is especially suited to the Roman Liturgy and should hold the “first place” in liturgical celebrations while not excluding other musical forms, so also giving greater attention to Latin does not mean eliminating the vernacular.14 Why do you want the Church to use a language no one understands? I don’t. I want Latin, the historic language of the Latin Church, to be understood. This is not about the imposition of some arbitrary foreign language but about empowering Catholics so that Latin will no longer be foreign to them. If children grow up with general use of Latin in their parishes, it will be familiar to them, not alien. Isn’t this just a form of clericalism? No. While I suggest prioritizing the education of seminarians and priests in Latin, I also encourage all Catholics to become familiar with and even to learn Latin. Prioritizing the formation of clergy is meant to have a trickle-down effect, but there is also need of a concurrent grassroots movement among the laity, especially in the education of children. Those children will be our future bishops, abbots, and parents. They will be our future Catholics, period. Reviving Latin is about empowering clergy and laity alike. Better educated clergy will be better equipped to serve the laity, and better educated laity will be more empowered to engage Catholic thought directly. Shirking the responsibility to give people access to their own tradition and instead deliberately fostering ignorance in the laity is the real clericalism. Good Doesn’t Mean Perfect As Dr. Nancy Llewellyn, accomplished teacher of Latin and champion of its revival, has observed, we can have dead perfection or living imperfection. Christians will not become Ciceronians overnight—or maybe ever. Refamiliarizing Latin Catholics with their language will be messy, but life is messy. We need the courage and decisiveness of Pope John XXIII’s vision. The Church should not lock her treasures up like old china, to be looked at on occasion but never touched. Instead, let us open the cabinet and set out our very best—even if we break a few dishes in the process. Let us give the faithful their inheritance to use. Father Dylan Schrader is a priest of the Diocese of Jefferson City, MO. He holds a PhD in systematic theology from the Catholic University of America and has authored various books and articles on liturgy, theology, and the Latin language. He is also the translator of several Scholastic works, including On the Motive of the Incarnation, the first volume in CUA’s Early Modern Catholic Sources series, and Book 2 of Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the Sentences, edited by the Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine. 1. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 54 (1962): 339–68. 2. Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 36. 3. E.g., Musicam sacram, no. 47; Notitiae 9 (1973): 153–154; Voluntanti obsequens (1974); Dominicae coenae, no. 10; Code of Canon Law, can. 249; Sacramentum caritatis, nos. 42 and 62. For a much fuller catalogue of papal statements on Latin since Vatican II, see Yorick Gomez Gane, Pretiosus thesaurus: La lingua latina nella Chiesa oggi (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012). 4. Code of Canon Law, can. 249. 5. S ee, for example, Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD, “What’s wrong with an Amazonian Rite?”, at The Catholic World Report, May 20, 2020. URL: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/05/20/what-wrong-with-anamazonian-rite/#sdfootnote12anc [accessed October 20, 2020]. 6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2181. 7. Optatam totius, no. 13; and Code of Canon Law, can. 249. 8. Sacramentum caritatis, no. 62. 9. S acrosanctum Concilium, no. 36; Musicam sacram, no. 47; and Sacramentum caritatis, no. 62. As for the obligation to teach the faithful Latin prayers and chants as repeated by Pope Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum caritatis, no. 62, it is important to note that the English translation available from the Holy See does not accurately render the authoritative Latin text. The Latin says neque neglegatur copia ipsis fidelibus facienda ut notiores in lingua Latina preces ac pariter quarundam liturgiae partium in cantu Gregoriano cantus cognoscant, which is better rendered “and there should be no failure to empower the faithful themselves to know the more common prayers in Latin as well as the chants of certain parts of the liturgy in Gregorian chant.” The English translation provided by the Holy See says only that “the faithful can be taught.” 10. C f. the Congregation for the Clergy’s 2016 document on priestly formation, The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, no. 183. 11. C f. the Congregation for Catholic Education’s 1985 Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, no. 66. 12. Cf. Sacramentum caritatis, no. 62; and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Guida per le grandi celebrazioni (2014), no. 12. 13. O ne example is the Tractatus de sacramentis administrandis tempore pestis by Francesco Maria Villa (published in 1657), a work is specifically dedicated to the question. But more recent sacramental manuals, such as Felice Cappello’s Tractatus canonicomoralis de sacramentis, include sections on ways to administer sacraments in time of epidemic as well as detailed analyses of the rights and obligations surrounding the sacraments in those circumstances. 14. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116.
8
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
“Make Room for the Holy Spirit!” The Human Need for Sacred Space in a COVID Kind of World By Father Anthony J. Stoeppel
AB/WIKIMEDIA
I
n order to adhere to COVID-19 guidelines regulating the number and spacing of people at gatherings, some bishops have chosen to hold this year’s ordinations outside. This author attended one such ordination in a nearby parish’s picturesque prayer garden. The organizers did an excellent job preparing a makeshift sanctuary and nave, and on the day of the event the weather fully cooperated. Everything came together so nicely that one could not help wondering, “Is this the new normal?” The question seemed plausible at first. Yet as charming as the scene initially appeared, it was difficult to suppress a further question: “Yes, but should this be the new normal?” These ordination experiences, along with an untold number of Holy Masses celebrated outdoors this year, force us to ask why the Catholic Church ordinarily celebrates her liturgies in the enclosed sacred space of a church. In what follows, we will not approach this question by appealing to rubrics or laws concerning the liturgy. Rather, we will first establish the human need for dedicating space to the sacred before going on to suggest why this human need further requires that it be indoor space that is so dedicated.
Families imitate God by subduing the earth and using the resources it provides in order to establish permanent, necessary, and dedicated spaces. We set aside such spaces first for ourselves with the construction of homes, garages, barns, shops, fields, pastures, and water storage systems. Put simply, human nature tends to say, “A place for everything and everything in its place.”
A Natural Fit The human desire to dedicate space to the sacred fits with nature’s tendency to pursue ends. This pursuit furnishes what we humans need for our various purposes. The sun provides light for us from above in the sky. Depressions in the earth—rivers, lakes, and ponds—hold the water we need to drink. Rooted in the soil, plants produce the oxygen we breathe, and many of these same plants grow to be edible by us and other animals. The examples could be multiplied, but these suffice to make the point: Nature pursues ends, each of which requires a certain “dedicated space.” Human beings, made in the image and likeness of God, reflect this natural tendency: In man, we see a microcosm of creation as a system of things fulfilling divine purposes in particular spaces. We imitate God by subduing the earth and using the resources it provides in order to establish permanent, necessary, and dedicated spaces. We set aside such spaces first for ourselves and our families with the construction of homes, garages, barns, shops, fields, pastures, and water storage systems. These buildings are further divided into smaller dedicated spaces that are even more permanent, necessary, and purpose-oriented. For example, it is difficult to do much else with closet space than to use it as a closet. We do not serve supper in bathrooms. Finally, we leave our automobiles parked in the garage, not the living room. Put simply, nature—and human nature—tends to say, “A place for everything and everything in its place.”
Outside and inside are qualifying differences with respect to both purpose and place. For various reasons, we human beings do not do everything outside and in the open. Whether it be on account of weather, the desire for privacy, the need for quiet, or any of a host of other reasons, we often find ourselves drawn indoors. On a more practical level, the outdoors fluctuate and change too often. Grass grows, temperatures rise and fall, wind varies, and clouds come and go with and without rain. An indoor space may lack the beauty of nature, but it offers a more predictable and stable environment to conduct our business and live our lives. In this sense, going inside adds a deeper dimension of permanence that allows us to dedicate space for particular activities. We sleep in bedrooms, perform personal hygiene in bathrooms, prepare meals in kitchens, and eat food in dining rooms. These spaces give us the assurance of having the necessary space to carry out our daily activities. Once these spaces have received their permanent, necessary, and dedicated purpose, human beings attach some level of intimacy to them. An unidentified stranger may not be invited onto our property, for we have not yet allowed him into our hearts as a friend. Meanwhile,
“I t is partly to orient attention to the presence of God everywhere that we establish permanent, necessary, and dedicated spaces for divine worship in the here and now. ”
AB/WIKIMEDIA
“ Why does the Catholic Church ordinarily celebrate her liturgies in the enclosed sacred space of a church?”
dedicated spaces for divine worship in the here and now. We human beings need some particular space to worship God so that we may learn to understand that all space—the whole cosmos—is a temple. We could not hope for a clearer biblical explanation of this truth than Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy. In the second chapter of that book, Ratzinger shows how the Book of Genesis presents the six-day work of creation as the divine construction of a cosmic temple. For the sacred author, the world is a single vast place of worship. By the same logic, the Jewish Temple represents the God-given purpose of the world, which is to be a temple of cosmic praise. Ratzinger takes up the same theme in the first chapters of The Spirit of the Liturgy; however, there he connects the Exodus, worship of God, and the Promised Land. It was not sufficient for God that the Hebrew people take a few days off from their slave labor to worship him in Egypt. God insisted that his people leave Egypt and go to a special place set aside for divine worship. As Moses leads the people in passing over from Egypt to the Promised Land, the Hebrews stop at the permanent, necessary, and dedicated place of Mount Sinai to receive the Decalogue. Once the people had arrived in the permanent, necessary, and dedicated place that is the Promised Land, God intended to be housed in the enclosed but transitory Tent of Meeting. In God’s Providence, the Tent of Meeting prefigured the coming of a Messiah who would lead the people to true worship. True, God initially resists King David’s desire to give him the permanent, necessary, and dedicated space of the Temple. Nevertheless, the eventual construction of the Temple could be said to complete a trajectory begun with creation itself. Significantly, even this space underwent further degrees of dedication, as strict limits were placed on which people could enter the various areas and on the frequency with which they could do so.
The “Tent of Meeting” (and its successor, the Temple in Jerusalem) stands as the God-given purpose of the world, to be a temple of cosmic praise.
a family friend may be permitted to walk freely onto the property without any special invitation. Nonetheless, for some families the home would still be off-limits to all outsiders. Even within the family, interior spaces acquire levels of intimacy from which certain people are excluded. For example, the bathroom attached to the master bedroom would be typically off limits to anyone except the husband and wife. In other houses, a home office would be off limits to anyone—and especially children—without either prior approval or an invitation, most especially during work hours. Finally, a chest of drawers may be left unlocked, but the family members understand these to be deeply interior spaces holding personal belongings not meant for just anyone’s eyes. Supernatural Dedication The activity of establishing ever-deeper levels of permanent, necessary, and dedicated space reaches its culmination when we reserve such space for the worship of God. Some might initially counter that this is unnecessary. After all, God is everywhere, so why would we need to devote any space to him? Such an argument forgets that we cannot appreciate God’s presence everywhere unless we can appreciate it in the here and now. It is partly to orient attention to the presence of God everywhere that we establish permanent, necessary, and
God Lives Here The Temple represents a shift in the Hebrew people’s worship of God from a dedicated but transitory space to a permanently dedicated space. Today, the primary way in which we continue the tradition of permanently enclosed and dedicated spaces for the communal and personal worship of God is by building churches. While many Catholic families set up home altars or prayer corners in their houses as an aid to prayer, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2691) mentions these options only after discussing the primary and proper location of prayer: the church. Home altars and prayer corners should be in every Catholic household, for they encourage families to join together in prayer and to worship as a domestic church. Nonetheless, the church building retains its primacy: It alone allows the entire people of God to assemble as a parish community representing the whole Mystical Body of Christ. In our churches, as in our homes, we further establish permanent, necessary, and dedicated spaces for particular uses, such as fonts for Baptism, confessionals for Reconciliation, and altars for Holy Mass. Also, in the same way that a home is divided into inner spaces with varying degrees of intimacy—from the entryway to the dining room, and from the bedroom to the bathroom— we see analogous distinctions in a church. Talking may take place in the narthex, but not the nave. While all may pray in the nave, only the priest and his ministers are allowed to enter the sanctuary during the celebration of Mass. Traditionally, only the ordained had access as well to the most intimate space of the tabernacle. Creation’s Four Walls It might seem that going inside such an enclosed space of prayer hampers one’s vision of the surrounding world. However, as St. Maximus the Confessor teaches in his work The Church’s Mystagogy, the parts of a church represent all the parts of the cosmos, seen and unseen at any particular moment. Therefore, going inside a church gives man an experience of the whole
9
creation in the microcosmos of the nave and sanctuary. From that one location in the church, man sees the entire universe represented with different signs and symbols that perfect, elevate, and divinize the natural. As we enter a church, we become part of the divine drama of man, made in the image and likeness of God and saved from eternal death by the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The difference between the nave and sanctuary, for example, symbolizes the division between earth and heaven, while the sacred images draw us closer to the Church Triumphant of Heaven, whose victorious saints intercede for us. These and many other examples, too many to list here, underscore the following capital point: Precisely because the church building is a permanently enclosed and dedicated space, every surface and area of it can have a permanent and necessary symbolic meaning that, as St. Maximus shows, corresponds to some aspect of the divine economy that begins with creation and culminates with supernatural redemption. Such an arrangement would never be possible if our places of worship were merely dedicated spaces and not enclosed and dedicated places. The variation that the outdoors indisputably imposes also limits the outdoor space’s ability to represent, symbolize, and communicate so many mysteries. It is true, of course, that outside spaces can also be structured for symbolic purposes. Think of formal gardens, which may have a quasi-sacred function, as in Zen Buddhism, or even shrines and grottoes in the Catholic tradition. Nevertheless, only a permanently enclosed space can represent the cosmos in its creation and salvation as a single, Christologically shaped whole. Only a permanently enclosed space can prefigure the new heavens and the new earth as God’s eschatological temple. Indeed, there is a real sense in which a permanently enclosed church is a better manifestation of the cosmos than the natural cosmos itself: The church building incorporates and elevates the natural to its supernatural destiny. This is one central reason why Catholic worship most fittingly takes place in churches—rather than in rock gardens or labyrinths. Insider Information This qualifying difference between outside and inside takes on a richer and deeper meaning when applied to human beings. In addition to living outdoors and indoors, human beings have and an exterior and an interior life. The interior life corresponds more to one’s actual self than the presentation our outside or exterior life sometimes portrays. Even more importantly for our argument, the interior life finds expression in the intimacy associated with the inner spaces of our homes and other buildings. The fact that the interior life is sacred is evident, even if we cannot immediately explain why it is so. The soul’s existence “inside” man seems to require that the soul, too, have a kind of sacred center. Not surprisingly, a man accesses the interior of his soul as he goes inside himself, but this interiority is itself dedicated to a sacred purpose and is tied to the manifestation of the divine presence. Teresa of Ávila, along with many other saints, speaks of the interior life using the analogy of moving from room to room: As one proceeds, one comes ever closer to the intimate center where the waiting Beloved resides. The more we enter into the
Readers’ Quiz Answers: From Quiz on page 5
1. False. Following the Sign of the Cross and greeting, “The Priest, or a Deacon or another minister, may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day” (Order of Mass, 3). 2. a and b. “The Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy) invocations follow, unless they have just occurred in a formula of the Penitential Act” (Order of Mass, 7). Since only option c, the invocations (or tropes), contains the Kyrie eleison, these invocations must follow the first two options. 3. e. All of the above. “It is sung or said on Sundays outside Advent and Lent, and also on Solemnities and Feasts, and at particular celebrations of a more solemn character” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), 53). Furthermore, each ritual Mass directs that “The Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is said.” 4. c. Before the priest or deacon proclaims the actual reading. After the priest or deacon greets the people (“The Lord be with you”) and introduces the reading (“A
AB/WIKIMEDIA
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Going inside a church, especially like the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City, UT, gives man an experience of the whole creation in the microcosmos of the nave and sanctuary. From that one location in the church, man sees the entire universe represented with different signs and symbols that perfect, elevate, and divinize the natural. As we enter a church, we become part of the divine drama of man, made in the image and likeness of God and saved from eternal death by the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
permanent, necessary, dedicated, and enclosed sacred space of our souls, the more we know and experience the presence of God in us. Of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary stands above us all as the unique exemplar who “treasured all these things and pondered on them in her heart.” More than anyone else, Mary entered the deepest tabernacle of her soul, where the Word first took flesh in her and dwelt among us. It was there that she offered her spiritual sacrifice on the altar of the heart—the altar mirrored symbolically in the altar around which our churches are constructed.
“ Only a permanently enclosed space can prefigure the new heavens and the new earth as God’s eschatological temple.” To help us follow the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, churches give us an enclosed space leading us mystagogically into the sacred space of our souls. Entering a still church directs our minds and hearts away from the noise of the exterior to the
reading from the holy Gospel according to N.”), he “incenses the book, if incense is used, and proclaims the Gospel” (Order of Mass, 15). 5. False. “The series of intentions is usually to be: a) for the needs of the Church; b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world; c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty; d) for the local community. Nevertheless, in any particular celebration, such as a Confirmation, a Marriage, or at a Funeral, the series of intentions may be concerned more closely with the particular occasion” (GIRM, 70). 6. Scriptures and Mass texts. “The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners” (GIRM, 65). 7. True. The former Sacramentary allowed the Apostles’ Creed as a substitution for the Nicaean Creed at Masses with Children, but according to the current Roman Missal, “Instead of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, especially during Lent and Easter Time,
silence of the interior. At the same time, the church connects the interior temple of our souls with the temple of the universe that the church itself represents in microcosmic analogy. Even the briefest of glances in a well-ornamented church gives the soul a full picture of the human drama. It reminds us that whatever problems, difficulties, or trials we face (coronavirus or otherwise), the Lord Jesus has won victory over them, for he is King and Lord of the universe. Come on In… Inspired by this confidence, we turn the eye of our soul inward and seek the Beloved in his throne room of our souls. Indeed, this experience should be and is the only normal encounter with our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ until the day he comes again to call us to the House of the Father, to the Temple he himself is, where we will live a new eternal normal with him, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints, forever and ever. Father Anthony J. Stoeppel, a priest of the Diocese of Tyler, TX, serves as Vice-Rector of St. Patrick’s Seminary & University in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
the baptismal Symbol of the Roman Church, known as the Apostles’ Creed, may be used” (Order of Mass, 19). 8. b. Eucharistic Prayer II. “Eucharistic Prayer II, on account of its particular features, is more appropriately used on weekdays or in special circumstances” (GIRM, 365). The remaining three Eucharistic Prayers, on the other hand, are all recommended by the Missal for Sunday Masses. 9. With dignity and restraint. “According to what is decided by the Conference of Bishops, all express to one another peace, communion, and charity. While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, The peace of the Lord be with you always, to which the reply is Amen” (GIRM, 154). 10. a. When the priest receives communion. “While the Priest is receiving the Body of Christ, the Communion Chant begins” (Order of Mass, 136; also GIRM, 86). 11. Go. “Go forth, the Mass is ended,” “Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord,” “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life,” “Go in peace” (Order of Mass, 144). In each instance, the translation renders the Latin imperative, Ite, and commands the faithful to reenter the world and sanctify it.
10
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
Hope for the Liturgy: What to Expect from Today’s Newly-Ordained Priest lic Tradition, including the devotional traditions of the Church: Eucharistic Exposition and Benediction, Stations of the Cross, and the rosary will not be foreign to him. At the same time, he will hold to the moral tradition of the Church, being decidedly pro-life, and always fostering holy matrimony. He will love the Church. In the liturgical tradition, he will take sacramental life seriously, not altering the baptismal formula, recognizing that the sacraments do effect what they signify. For this reason, he will make himself available for the sacrament of confession, and he will take proper care of the Blessed Sacrament. At the same time, he will believe that the Second Vatican Council was an action of the Holy Spirit and that it undoubtedly passes down the Tradition of the Church. He recognizes that the Mass of Vatican II sanctified such great saints as St. John Paul II and St. Teresa of Calcutta, and he will see the Mass as a product and instrument of Tradition.
Father Kurt Belsole, O.S.B.
W
A Man of Prayer The new priest will be a man of prayer. Often a seminarian has mentioned to me that in his private prayer he is praying for his future parishioners. He is praying for people whom he has not met and does not know. But already those people are objects of his love and prayer. This seminarian’s prayer, furthermore, is not superficial or perfunctory. Fidelity to daily Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours, in addition to praying the rosary, time spent in private prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, spiritual reading, and other devotions, form the normal course of the seminarian’s day. His relationship with God is profound and essential to his preparation for the priesthood. Nonetheless, upon ordination, this man is a priest dedicated to his people, and if the pastoral needs of his flock require it, e.g., being called to the hospital to anoint someone, he will have no problem interrupting his prayer or sleep in order to care for the people he has been called to serve.
When the newly-ordained priest makes his appearance at his first assignment, those who might ask how the new priest is coming along will see upon meeting him that he has come along very well indeed as one of God’s servants ordained to lead his people, particularly from the sanctuary.
More recently, a newly-ordained priest, after he had celebrated Mass at a monastery of cloistered Carmelite nuns, wrote to tell me that one of the nuns said that it is such a blessing to see how well-prepared our new priests are and how reverently they celebrate the Eucharist. Just this past year, one of the newly-ordained deacons wrote me to say one of his guests came up to him after the ceremony and commented: “If that is what heaven is like, I can’t wait.” Only a few weeks ago, one of the seminarians sent me an e-mail saying: “I am in a parish now for my summer assignment and I can confidently say that I have been trained
AB/JESSE WEILER
A Man of the Liturgy A significant part of seminary life involves being exposed to and initiated into liturgical celebration that is both faithful to the tradition and beautiful. The new priest’s training involves not just the role of the priest himself, but it also includes the full, active, and fruitful participation of all the faithful. The
AB/DANIEL IBANEZ/CNA
hen a new priest is assigned to a parish, one of the questions that the parishioners wonder about, or which they ask their friends or neighbors, is: “What is the new priest like?” That is a fair question and is quite rightly asked by a lifelong member or relative newcomer to the parish. The parish priest is important in the lives of those who have been entrusted to his care, so it is natural they should want to know what to expect from him. For over 30 years of my life, I have been working in the priestly formation of seminarians—particularly their liturgical formation—who are in their last four years of preparation for the priesthood. So, what do I imagine that a new priest will be like these days? What follows is a description and explanation of five marks by which every priest should be recognized—and newly ordained priests especially—so that, when he makes his first appearance at his new assignment, those who might ask how the new priest is coming along will see upon meeting him that he has come along very well indeed as one of God’s servants ordained to lead his people, particularly from the sanctuary.
The new priest will be a man of prayer. Often a seminarian has mentioned to me that in his private prayer he is praying for his future parishioners. He is praying for people whom he has not met and does not know. But already those people are objects of his love and prayer.
new priest will celebrate according to the liturgical books, not in a slavish fashion, but in a ritual manner that permits the people to feel that the liturgy is their own, not “Father’s.” This mentality means that the liturgy is not something that the priest can, or will, adapt—as if the liturgy centers around him and not on Christ. Only if people are exposed to liturgy as a ritual, with continuously recurring words and actions that they have come to expect, will they be able to relax into the liturgy rather than being concerned about what novelty or surprise they are going to encounter and be expected to respond to. Moreover, it must be recognized that the new priest is often a bit formal—and that is a good thing, because in the liturgy, there is no form without formality. Consistent and cultivated informality will not be one of the new priest’s liturgical trademarks. A few years ago, one of our new deacons, after having been ordained in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, wrote me and said that one of his guests remarked on how the ordination liturgy had lifted the veil between heaven and earth, and how his faith was renewed.
well! Just today the parish liturgy coordinator was on the verge of tears as she told me how reverent, smooth, and beautiful it looked as I set the altar! It was not anything special or something that I thought twice about, but her reaction got me to thinking about how spoiled I have been in seminary when it comes to beautiful and reverent liturgy.” I have shared these stories as examples of the type of priest who will be coming to parishes in the future and what his liturgies could well be like—reverent, smooth, and beautiful, that the veil between heaven and earth may be lifted and that one’s faith, if need be, may be renewed. Part of the seminarian’s liturgical training is to help him to be able to celebrate the liturgy as a priest in a way that is formal yet natural, and sacred yet human—or as I tell them in perhaps more vivid language, in a manner that is neither that of the tin soldier nor the grizzly bear. A Man of Tradition The new priest will embrace the whole of the Catho-
A Man of Mystery The new priest will be trained to preach well. Our own seminarians at the North American College give over 20 practice homilies before they are ordained to the diaconate, and they deliver them before both a faculty moderator and a group of their peers. The sacred scriptures serve as the basis of their homilies, and they practice applying them to the concrete lives of the people who will hear them. The seminarians are challenged to preach not just morality, but the mystery of Jesus Christ. Liturgy is prayed reality, nothing less. In a sense, the question underlying their homilies will not be simply how to act, but what does it mean to be an authentic Christian and what moral behavior flows from that since action follows being. Finally, the new priest’s homilies will not be composed hastily and without reflection, even if he has little time for proximate preparation. His devotion to regular lectio divina, prayerful reading of the Mass readings, will provide him with prayer and meditation over the years that will serve as the foundation for his homilies—even on short notice. In other words, a priest will not have just a day or a half a day to prepare his homily—he will have had ten, 20, or 30 years to prepare that homily. A Man of Priestly Fraternity The new priest will generally want to live in priestly fraternity, pray with other priests, have opportunities to enjoy their company, and share with them the challenges and joys of parish life. The new priest will love his life as a priest and his work as a priest, and he will not see things such as celibacy as a burden thrust upon him. I find those preparing for the priesthood to be happy men, joyful in their vocation, and zealous in their response. In the seminary, they have experienced the support of life in a community, and they are looking for a way that this community carries over to diocesan priesthood, particularly by fraternal support groups of other priests. The new priest has also grown in his vocation individually and fraternally with a certain toughness that is often not recognized. Today, to become a priest is countercultural in a way that it was not 60 or so years ago. In those days, a certain cultural honor was attached to the priesthood in a way that is not true today. In other words, in those days, the priesthood often supported the priest. In these days, the priest has to support the priesthood. The new priest, therefore, will find his prayer time to be essential, his celebration of the liturgy needing to be true prayer—for himself and for those whom he serves, and what he does has to be done for Christ and the Church. He cannot be satisfied with lesser motives, and his priest friends who support him in his life and ministry will remind him of this. Typically Extraordinary There are always exceptions to the rule, but, by and large, I believe that these five marks are typical of the priest who will be serving the People of God in the coming years. Such a man of God is a blessing to the Church and a credit to the priesthood. He is a sign that God loves his Church very much. Father Kurt Belsole, OSB, is a monk of St. Vincent Archabbey and Director of Liturgical Formation at the Pontifical North American College, Vatican City State, Rome. He earned a license from the Patristic Institute “Augustinianum” in Rome while also pursuing studies at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute. Subsequently, he earned a doctorate in theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm in Rome. His liturgical interests focus principally on the theological foundation for Sacrosanctum Concilium and the authors whose contributions have laid the groundwork for the liturgical reform of Vatican II.
11
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020
THE RITE QUESTIONS Editor’s note: During our Silver Anniversary, we’ve been looking back from time to time on the readers, contributors, and mission that has made Adoremus a contributing voice to the English-speaking liturgical apostolate. Perhaps the strongest voice has been that of Adoremus’s 20-year editor, Helen Hull Hitchcock. Over the course of her leadership, Helen had many occasions to propose, address, and clarify liturgical matters. In this Question and Answer, a reprint of a 1996 response to a reader, Helen explains Adoremus’s position on liturgical authority and authenticity.
Q:
I fully concur with Adoremus’s stated purpose “to promote authentic reform....” The quibble of many people would be over the meaning of the word authentic. Who decides what is “authentic liturgy”?
A
: In the confusion following the Council, some decisions to make changes at the local level were made more on the “authority” of a journalist’s report than from actual, documented decrees of legitimate Church authorities. All too frequently, the “authenticity” of a change was not checked with those authorities. Sometimes pastors were genuinely confused and did not intend to introduce innovations from “personal penchant.” And most Catholics relied on their pastor’s interpretation. Regrettably, however, some influential liturgists evidently believed that changes from the “bottom-up” were more “authentic” than those properly authorized and did nothing whatever to discourage the liturgical mistakes which began to occur in the “grassroots.” In fact, the op-
Q:
posite was most often the case. In some circles, this view that “the people,” and not the hierarchy, are the Church, has persisted to the present (as in the “Call to Action” crowd). This view accounts for much of the pervasive liturgical and doctrinal confusion today. It should be emphasized that no parish priest or liturgist has the right to decide on his own authority to initiate liturgical innovations. The decision about whether a proposed liturgical change does or does not “compromise the faith” is also outside his competence. When people are in doubt about the authenticity of a proposed liturgical innovation, it is surely best that customary practices be continued until the authority for such a change can be definitively determined. Many errors would have been avoided if this had been done. —Answered by Helen Hull Hitchcock
Q:
At times, in situations where the validity of a sacrament is questioned—such as in the recent cases of the invalid baptisms of certain priests—some claim that ecclesia supplet takes care of the validity of the sacrament that would otherwise be invalid. What is ecclesia supplet, and does it make a sacrament valid when the necessary elements are not there?
A
: The notion of ecclesia supplet (literally “the Church supplies”) is a canonical notion where, in certain situations, the Church herself supplies for a required grant of the power of jurisdiction or executive power of governance to a capable person to place an act (such as a sacramental act) validly where such a neces-
sary grant is either missing or was granted defectively. Canon 144 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) lists several situations where the “Church would supply” for a missing or defective necessary executive power of governance. With regards to the Sacraments, recall that canonically a “faculty” is a grant of a power of governance (a.k.a. “jurisdiction,” CIC, can. 129). A “faculty” is granted by a competent canonical authority for an ordained cleric to be able to exercise certain powers of his holy orders validly. Though ordination confers the ability for a cleric to be able to celebrate certain sacraments, some sacraments require the additional grant of a “faculty” in order for the sacrament to be celebrated validly by the ordained person. In the Latin Church, sacraments that require a “faculty” for their valid celebrations are the sacraments of Confirmation, Reconciliation, and Marriage (See e.g., CIC, cann. 882-883; 966-976; and 1111). It is important always to keep in mind that the notion of ecclesia supplet only applies to the very limited situations outlined in canon 144 and that, for the sacraments, it only supplies a missing grant of faculty where one was lacking. In no way does it nor can it supply for any of the other essential elements of a sacrament. In other words, ecclesia supplet does not and cannot supply for the lack of a required proper person, proper matter, proper form, or proper intent necessary for the valid celebration of a sacrament. Thus, since the June 2020 Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt only with clarifying the proper form of the baptismal formula, ecclesia supplet does not apply. Situations where an incorrect formula of baptism is used—regardless of error, doubt, or ignorance—are always considered invalid conferrals of the sacrament. This is why the required, sacramental formula (proper form) for a valid baptism is referred to as the forma absoluta. —Answered by Benedict Nguyen Chancellor, Diocese of Corpus Christi
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church share communion with non-Catholics?
A
: Whereas many Protestant denominations allow Christians who are not members of their denominations to receive communion in their services, the Catholic Church does not. Because many do not understand the reasoning behind this prohibition, some people feel offended by the Church’s insistence that only Catholics (and, in some instances, Orthodox Christians) receive the Eucharist. The Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is called by several different names, as considered in paragraphs 1328–1332 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). One of these names is Holy Communion because “by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body” (1331). After all, the word communion itself means “union with.” The Catholic Church only allows those who are her members—those either baptized into the Catholic Church or those who have been received into her through the profession of faith—to receive the Eucharist; if she allowed those who are not united with or in the Church to receive Eucharist, she would seem to be acknowledging something that is not true: that those not in communion with the Church may take part in that which definitively marks such communion. As Catholics, we know that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We know that the Real Presence of Christ effected in this Sacrament does not cease once the celebration of the Mass is finished. This is why we worship the Eucharist, “genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord” (CCC, 1378). When a Catholic says, “Amen” to “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ,” he or she acknowledges the Eucharist to be the very Body and Blood of Christ, and not a mere symbol. At the same time, a Catholic acknowledges and accepts the teachings of the Church and maintains communion—unity—with the Church. This is a claim that a non-Catholic cannot honestly make. Most Protestants do not believe that Holy Communion is the very Body and Blood of the Savior. If one said, “Amen” to “The Body of Christ,” he or she would be speaking falsely. Even if a Protestant does believe that Holy Communion is the very Body and Blood of Christ, that individual could still not honestly say, “Amen,” to
“The Body of Christ,” because he or she has no real intention of maintaining unity with the Catholic Church; if this individual did intend to maintain unity with the Church, he or she would or should either be taking part in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults or would already be Catholic. Because the Catholic Church respects the beliefs of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, we do not share communion with them. We want them to remain men and women of integrity. (There is one exception: the Directory for the Application and Norms on Ecumenism states, “The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance, and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized [non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian] are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed” (131)). These cases are exceptional, however—often characterized by extreme or dire circumstances. The same prohibition applies when a Catholic attends a non-Catholic service at which a communion ritual is celebrated. Just as non-Catholics cannot receive communion in the Catholic Church, Catholics cannot receive communion in non-Catholic services (regardless of what the Protestant denomination teaches); the only exception to this is in the Orthodox Churches, which have maintained a valid priesthood, something no Protestant community has done. If a Catholic received communion in a Protestant service, the Catholic would be professing unity with that religious body, something that is not true. It is because the Catholic Church loves and respects all people that we do not share communion with those who are not in union with us. This discipline derives, in part, from the clear teaching of St. Paul, who says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord…. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself ” (I Corinthians 11:27-29). If a non-Catholic does believe what the Church believes about the Eucharist, the Church would gladly share Holy Communion with him or her; however, before re-
MEMORIAL FOR Jeanna Daniel Elston
Myron and Mary Ellen Daniel
Father Leonard Klein Christa R. Klein
Barbara Nield
Barbara Konrad
D’Ann Rittie Bob Rittie
IN THANKSGIVING Birth of Theodore Patrick Brenz Anne and Rich Brenz
ceiving, such a person needs to enter into the full communion of the Church established by Christ the Lord through formal instruction such as the RCIA or other means of catechesis. —Answered by Father Daren J. Zehnle Diocese of Springfield, IL
12 The Heart of John Henry Newman: Beating with the Spirit of the Liturgy
Adoremus Bulletin, November 2020 God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect to the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself. In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that the one cannot be extirpated without the other. Their faith will not bear transplanting” (78). Accordingly, “Christ and His Apostles did not even suffer [the rites of Judaism] to be irreverently treated or suddenly discarded” (80).
By Jeremy Priest
John Henry Newman on Worship, Reverence, & Ritual, ed. Peter Kwasniewski. Os Justi Press (https://www. peterkwasniewski.com/osjusti), 2019. 524 pp. ISBN: 978-0359969951. $23.96, Paperback.
C
ardinal John Henry Newman is known best for his conversion to the Catholic faith (see his Apologia Pro Vita Sua), his description of the development of doctrine (see his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine), and for his account of how a person comes to the act of faith (see his An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)—and now he is also known as one the Church’s newest canonized saints. But one thing St. John Henry Newman is not as well known for is his ardent love for the liturgy. Indeed, as Cardinal Avery Dulles has noted, “in Newman’s writings one looks in vain for anything resembling the statement of Vatican II that the liturgy is ‘the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed [and] the fountain from which all her power flows’” (SC 10).1 While this characterization of the English Oratorian alludes to a certain aliturgical orientation in the monographs Newman published, it stands in stark contrast to Frank O’Malley’s assertion that “the spirit of Newman moved within the spirit of the liturgy.” O’Malley’s point can be understood in the light of the fact that “Newman’s life and thought were permeated with the ceremonies and hallowed texts of the Christian liturgy, which he performed daily for over six decades, starting as an Anglican deacon in 1824 and ending as a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church” (Kwasniewski, vii). Peter Kwasniewski has assembled a testimony to Newman’s regular attention to matters of liturgical worship in a stirring volume that fills over five-hundred pages: John Henry Newman On Worship, Reverence, and Ritual: A Selection of Texts. While Newman’s works of academic pursuits and theological controversy did not focus on producing liturgical scholarship, he was nevertheless a curate at heart and his voluminous correspondence attests that he was sought out for his pastoral wisdom, not only in matters of practical action but in spiritual direction as well. Though Newman’s impact on the Second Vatican Council has often been noted, much of what Newman wrote concerning worship, reverence, ritual, and prayer deserves to be brought back into the discussion of post-Conciliar pastoral practice. Indeed, the project Newman set for himself as a young clergyman was to imbue the Anglican Communion with “a ceremonial, a ritual, and a fulness of doctrine and devotion” (Apologia Pro Vita Sua). While much of what Kwasniewski has assembled are texts from Newman’s Anglican years, and of these most are drawn from his Parochial and Plain Sermons, it bears a deeply Catholic spirit throughout. Elements of Liturgical Style Newman is known for his great literary quality, his gaudium de stilo—delight in style. Justly, he has been called one of the greatest English stylists to have ever taken up a pen. Newman’s episcopal motto—cor ad cor loquitur (“Heart speaks to heart”)—evokes the deep feeling, affection, and the profound nature of his prose. Nonetheless, Newman emphasized the objective and indeed succinct nature of public prayers. For example, Newman preached these inspiring words of exhortation regarding the objectivity of liturgical prayer: “Let us compose ourselves, and kneel down quietly as to a work far above us, preparing our minds for our own imperfection in prayer, meekly repeating the wonder-
ful words of the Church our Teacher, and desiring with the Angels to look into them” (23). It was the words of the liturgy itself that deeply shaped and captivated Newman. Nevertheless, it was the action of the liturgy beneath the words that especially enthralled him: “I declare…, to me nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming as the Mass, said as it is among us,” Newman writes in his novel Loss and Gain. “I could attend Mass forever and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words—it is a great action, the greatest action that can be on earth. It is, not the invocation merely, but, if I dare use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present on the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble. This is that awful event which is the scope, and is the interpretation, of every part of the solemnity” (386). As in Newman’s day, so in our own, “instead of using the words of the Church, and [so] speaking to God, men are led to use their own words” (24). While certainly not looking askance on personal prayer from the heart, Newman urges the faithful to allow Holy Mother Church to “speak for us,” to robe “us from head to foot in the garments of righteousness” and so to “form within us the glorious mind of Christ” (25). Newman preached regularly and therefore commented upon much of the Biblical text having to do with ritual and liturgy. The sermon entitled, “Reverence in Worship,” takes up the “forms of worship—such as bowing the knee, taking off shoes, keeping silence, a prescribed dress.” These and the like are “considered as necessary for a due approach to God,” even from the standpoint of natural religion (310). While reverence is “one of the marks or notes of the Church,” the world teaches man to be “familiar and free with sacred things” (310), entering the Church “carelessly and familiarly” (311). While Newman opposes the approach of the world, rather than simply adopting rote ritual postures “for their own sake,” he challenges the faithful to keep in mind the fact of being in the very presence of God and so to “allow the forms of piety to come into God’s service naturally” (311). In his sermon on the “Ceremonies of the Church,” Newman comments upon the “great importance of retaining those religious forms to which we are accustomed” (76). Indeed, there is “no such thing as abstract religion” (78). The following passage calls to mind various remarks of Pope Benedict XVI, a great devotee of Newman’s, in his plea not to fiddle with the outward forms of piety: “Granting that the forms are not immediately from
High Art of Celebration Finally, in the current discussion of the ars celebrandi and the form that should take, Newman considers how the task of the preacher “differs from the minister of the sacraments” (424). In distinguishing the two, Newman encourages the priest as “minister of the sacraments” to take on the form of Christ the High Priest: “Clad in his sacerdotal vestments, he sinks what is individual in himself altogether, and is but the representative of Him from whom he derives his commission. His words, his tones, his actions, his presence, lose their personality; one bishop, one priest, is like another; they all chant the same notes, and observe the same genuflexions, as they give one peace and one blessing, as they offer one and the same sacrifice” (424–425). On the other hand, in the context of preaching, the celebrant “resumes himself, and comes to us in the gifts and associations which attach to his person” (425). The prophetic office of the priest comes through and is based upon his deep connection with his flock: “He knows his sheep, and they know him; and it is this direct bearing of the teacher on the taught, of his mind upon their minds, and the mutual sympathy which exists between them, which is his strength and influence when he addresses them. They hang upon his lips as they cannot hang upon the pages of his book. Definiteness is the life of preaching. A definite hearer, not the whole world; a definite topic, not the whole evangelical tradition; and, in like manner, a definite speaker. Nothing that is anonymous will preach; nothing that is dead and gone; nothing even which is of yesterday, however religious in itself and useful” (425). As Newman’s writings witness, what he passed along to the faithful were the definite things he received from the Lord in prayer and the deep practice of the liturgical life of the Church. Indeed, the continued publication of Newman’s writings attest to this pithy precept: “necessary is it to have something to say, if we desire anyone to listen” (424). Even huddled in the silence of his study, Newman never lacked “something to say.” Undeniably, every page of this collection, drawn together by Dr. Kwasniewski, crackles with verve, style, and relevance for the spiritual life and indeed, the liturgical life. Perhaps the one thing lacking in this alreadylarge volume would be the collection of sermons that Newman preached between 1824 and 1843, Sermons on the Liturgy and Sacraments and on Christ the Mediator (unpublished during Newman’s lifetime, and only recently published for the first time). Newman in Christ The “life’s work” of John Henry Newman is described by Pope Benedict XVI “as a struggle against the growing tendency to view religion as a purely private and subjective matter.” This volume draws one into the spirit Newman found in the liturgy: an “experience of the truth of God’s word, of the objective reality of Christian revelation as handed down in the Church” and especially through her liturgy (Pope Benedict XVI, Address at the Prayer Vigil on the Eve of the Beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman). What is on offer in this selection of texts moves the reader to assent to the proposition that the heart of Newman did indeed beat with the spirit of the liturgy—not simply in a cursory way, but rather in ways that became, in Newman’s own words, “deep, and broad, and full.” 1. Avery Cardinal Dulles, Newman (Outstanding Christian Thinkers) (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2003), 155.
SIGN UP AT ADOREMUS.ORG FOR AB INSIGHT, THE MONTHLY E-NEWSLETTER OF ADOREMUS