Cardinal Tagle Delivers Homily at Closing Mass of US National Eucharistic Congress
The 2024 U.S. National Eucharistic Congress (July 17-21) drew more than 60,000 people to Indianapolis, IN, to learn about and celebrate the Eucharist.
Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Pro-Prefect for the Section of Evangelization of the Dicastery for Evangelization, celebrated the closing Mass for the five-day event. In his homily, the cardinal focused on the relationship between the Church’s mission and the Eucharist as the gift at the heart of that mission.
“In the fullness of time, the Father sent His eternal Word, who became flesh, through the Holy Spirit,” Cardial Tagle said. “He was present among us human beings, as one like us in the flesh, except in sin. The Son sent by the Father came as a life-giving gift, a gift in the human flesh of Jesus, ‘My flesh for the life of the world,’ Jesus Himself declares. We should note that Jesus’ description of His being sent by the Father is always connected to the gift of His flesh for others, being sent and being a gift.”
Cardinal Tagle reminded the faithful that this Eucharistic gift, both fully human and fully divine, has been distorted, ignored, or forgotten in the modern world.
“We do not see gifts in persons and events,” he said. “And those who do not see gifts in themselves
Story continued on page 2
For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy
Adoremus Remembers Helen Hull Hitchcock
By Joseph O’Brien
On September 18, 1951, the final day of a three-day event celebrating the dedication of the Holy Cross Memorial Seminary in La Crosse, WI, the great Catholic apologist Bishop Fulton J. Sheen stood at an outdoor podium before a crowd of 12,000 faithful in the shadow of the newly erected school for future priests. He delivered that day a presentation on the importance of the priesthood, but one which had an unexpected focus: women. Bishop Sheen reminded his audience that women in the gospels had an impeccable record in their service to Christ, and compared favorably to men in the gospel, including Christ’s own Apostles. He noted that “three [Apostles] slept in the garden” and “one of the chosen ones blistered the lips of the Lord with a kiss.” On the other hand, “there is a not a single instance of a woman failing Him.” Bishop Sheen continued by listing positive examples of women who came to Christ’s aid during his greatest trial. “Only one voice was raised in His defense—the voice of a woman; women solaced Him on the way to Calvary and when He came to the great denouement, on the Cross, looking down, he saw three women, Mary of Cleophas, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Nazareth.” Bishop Sheen further focused his address, speaking to the wives and mothers who were to give their sons to Holy Cross Seminary
now and in the future, asking them to see their sons as a gift to Christ and his Church. “Your children are from God but are not for you. God is the target. Blessed are you women who will have as a target of this seminary Christ the King and will give your sons back to God as priests.”
Like the three women beneath the cross and other heroines of sacred scripture (not to mention the female saints and doctors of the Church), Helen Hull Hitchcock had dedicated much of her life to Christ and to being a fearless “voice…raised in His defense”—and that of his Church. Hitchcock is best known to Adoremus readers as one of the co-founders of Adoremus—Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy and one of Adoremus Bulletin’s first editors. Ten years have passed since this powerhouse of words and wisdom passed from this life into eternity. After a brief illness, Hitchcock died on October 20, 2014, leaving behind her husband, Catholic historian James Hitchcock, and her four children, Alexandra Kassing, Consuelo Hitchcock, Hilary Hitchcock, and Louisa Spampinato. As a fitting way to mark the 30th anniversary of the journal Helen Hull Hitchcock had been so instrumental in establishing, Adoremus looks back at her life as a champion of the Catholic faith and an advocate for authentic expression of the liturgy as envisioned by the Church. Hitchcock was not born Catholic, but a liturgical
Please see HHH on page 4
Adoremus Bulletin
SEPTEMBER 2024
Mrs. Hitchcock Joseph O’Brien recalls the momentous works and days of the late great Helen Hull Hitchcock—Catholic wife, mother, writer, thinker— and one of the first editors of Adoremus 1
Seek Ye First the Liturgy… In this second of a series on the evangelical power of the liturgy, James Pauley explains why the unevangelized are best served by a liturgy that stands and waits as the gateway to perfection. 6
A Dozen “Don’ts”
Almost two decades ago, Dom Prosper Guéranger defined 12 heresies that seek to pull the liturgy apart, and Richard Kaleb Hammond shows why they (should) still matter today 3
Square vs. Fair
The model for adults and infants alike receiving the sacraments of initiation, says Jeremy Priest, shouldn’t be calculations of calendar space but a response to the prompts of limitless grace 8 Mind and Body of Work
In reviewing The Mind of Pope Benedict XVI: A Theology of Communion by Richard DeClue, Robert Mixa praises the author for demonstrating a coherent wholeness in Benedict’s work 12
&
Helen Hull Hitchcock, a founder and editor of Adoremus, died 10 years ago this October. Like the three women beneath the cross and other heroines of sacred scripture (not to mention the female saints and doctors of the Church), Helen dedicated much of her life to Christ and to being a fearless “voice raised in his defense”—and that of his Church. She is pictured here with Cardinal Francis Arinze on the occasion of his blessing of the Adoremus offices in St. Louis, MO.
Continued from NEWS & VIEWS
and in others will not give gifts. They will not go on a mission. In fact, I heard that some people prefer to relate with so-called friends or dates generated by artificial intelligence because they do not see gifts in real flesh and blood persons.”
But from the beginning, Cardinal Tagle noted, Christ’s message of the Eucharist as the ultimate gift to humanity was also rejected by many.
“Well, Jesus told his listeners in the Gospel of John, chapter 6, that to receive him, to accept him means first to believe in him, and secondly, to eat his flesh and drink his blood,” the Cardinal said. “The disciples who were initially eager to listen to him started doubting. They said, ‘This saying is hard, it’s difficult. Who can accept it?’”
In rejecting the gift, they also turned away from the promise of conversion through an encounter with and conformity to Jesus Christ, Cardinal Tagle said.
These disciples who rejected Christ’s teaching on the Eucharist “returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him,” he noted. “They returned to a way of life without Jesus. They chose his absence rather than his presence in their lives. Instead of accompanying him, they walked alone. Their rejection of the gift of Jesus’ word, body, and blood meant they would not walk with him.”
Cardinal Tagle asked the faithful present to consider those times when they had been the cause of others deciding not to walk with Christ in their life.
“Is it possible that we, his disciples, contribute also to the departure of others from Jesus?” he asked. “Why do some people leave Jesus when he is giving the most precious gift of eternal life? Why do some of the baptized turn away from the gift of Jesus in the Eucharist? Does our biblical, catechetical, and liturgical formation allow the gift of Jesus’ person to shine forth clearly? Does our Eucharistic celebration manifest Jesus’ presence or does it obscure the presence of Jesus? Do Mass-goers manifest the presence of Christ through their witness of life, charity, and mission? Do our parish communities provide an experience of Jesus’ closeness and caring? Are our families still the primary teachers and transmitters of the faith?”
Yet with the Eucharist and through the liturgy that celebrates it, there is always the opportunity to renew the mission, Cardinal Tagle said, adding that Mass itself is a call to mission—and, at the conclusion of every Mass, the faithful are reminded of this mission.
“Dear friends, when the priest or deacon says, ‘The Mass is ended, go in the peace of Christ,’” we must “Go! Go! Go! And what you have heard, touched, and tasted, you must share with others. We have received the gift of Jesus. Let us go to proclaim Jesus zealously and joyfully for the life of the world.”
Cardinals Approve Canonization of Carlo Acutis
By Hannah Brockhaus
CNA—The College of Cardinals gave a positive vote to the canonization of Blessed Carlo Acutis on July 1 after Pope Francis recognized in May a second miracle attributed to the millennial’s intercession— the final step before his canonization date can be set.
Pope Francis said July 1 that the date for the canonization Mass of the computer-coding teenager will be announced at a later time, the Vatican said. Acutis could be canonized during the Catholic Church’s 2025 Jubilee Year.
NEWS & VIEWS
The College of Cardinals assented to the canonizations of 15 people, including Blessed Carlo Acutis, during a consistory at the Vatican on the morning of July 1.
The pope decreed that the 14 other blesseds, which includes the 11 “Martyrs of Damascus,” will be declared saints on Sunday, October 20.
Acutis, who died in 2006 at the age of 15, was beatified in a ceremony at the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi on October 10, 2020.
In a May 23 decree, Pope Francis approved a second miracle through the Italian boy’s intercession, paving the way for him to become the first millennial saint.
A 21-year-old woman from Costa Rica, Valeria Valverde, was miraculously healed through Acutis’ intercession after she was close to dying from a serious head injury sustained in a bicycle accident while studying in Florence in 2022.
After the woman underwent an emergency craniotomy to reduce intracranial pressure, the family was told that her situation was very critical and that she could die at any moment, according to the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Causes of Saints.
Six days after the accident, Valverde’s mother went on a pilgrimage to Assisi to pray for the healing of her daughter at the tomb of Blessed Carlo Acutis, leaving a written note.
On that same day, Valverde began to breathe on her own and on the following day she recovered the use of her upper limbs and partly recovered her speech.
Valverde was discharged from the intensive care unit 10 days after her mother’s pilgrimage and underwent further tests that showed that the hemorrhagic right temporal cortical contusion in her brain had completely disappeared.
Contrary to medical predictions, Valverde spent only one week in physical therapy and on September 2, 2022, two months after her accident, she went on a pilgrimage to Acutis’ tomb in Assisi with her mother to celebrate her complete healing.
Lost Caravaggio Masterpiece of Christ Discovered
By Peter Pinedo
CNA—A lost masterpiece by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio was recently rediscovered and is now on display in what experts are calling “one of the greatest discoveries in the history of art.”
Titled “Ecce Homo” (“Behold the Man”), the painting was created between 1605 and 1609 and depicts the moment Pontius Pilate presented the
scourged Jesus Christ to the crowds ahead of his crucifixion.
According to the Museo del Prado, the renowned museum in Madrid, Spain, where the piece is being displayed, “Ecce Homo” is “one of the most valuable old master artworks in the world.”
Long believed by its previous private owners to be the work of a student of baroque artist José de Ribera, the painting resurfaced in 2021 when it was being sold for just $1,600 at an art auction in Madrid.
Shortly before it was set to be sold, art experts raised suspicions that it could be a Caravaggio. The Spanish Ministry of Culture intervened to stop the sale so that experts could investigate further.
According to the Museo del Prado, the painting underwent an in-depth diagnostic investigation led by Claudio Falcucci, a nuclear engineer famous for his scientific techniques in the study and conservation of significant cultural artifacts.
The painting then underwent a process of restoration. The Museo del Prado said that after intense study and restoration, the “four of the most authoritative experts on Caravaggio and Baroque painting” all “share the same passionate certainty: that ‘Ecce Homo’ is a masterpiece by the Italian artist.”
The painting is believed to have previously been a part of the private collection of Spanish and Portuguese King Philip IV and is one of just 60 known works by the famed Italian master. According to the BBC, it is valued at nearly $40 million.
Considered one of the most influential artists of the Baroque period, Caravaggio is known for his dramatic use of light and shadows and for depicting biblical and mythic scenes in emotion-filled, almost theatrical, fashion. Many of his paintings, such as “The Calling of Saint Matthew,” “Supper at Emmaus,” “The Incredulity of Saint Thomas,” and many others are some of the most recognized and beloved works of religious art to this day.
“Ecce Homo” shows a scourged Christ in the center of the painting with Pilate and a soldier on either side of him. Christ is draped in a vivid crimson cloak and holds a scepter with a crown of thorns on his head. Despite bright red blood dripping from his crown, Jesus has a serene countenance while Pilate and the soldier have a look of alarm on their faces. The painting exhibits Caravaggio’s famous use of light and shadow while the clothing, skin, and hair in the painting showcase his mastery of texture.
The particular moment of the passion narrative portrayed by this painting holds a special significance for Catholics because Pilate’s “Ecce Homo” calls to mind John the Baptist’s proclamation in John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John’s proclamation is echoed by the priest when he elevates the holy Eucharist at one of the most crucial moments of the Mass.
EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens
MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien
CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest
GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson
OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher
MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond
TECHNOLOGY: Zach Tudahl
As in Politics, All Holiness Is Local. (Mostly.)
By Christopher Carstens, Editor
All Politics is Local.” While the expression has shades of meaning, at its core the maxim conveys a political truth that a candidate’s local voters, concerns, and constituents spell success at the polls. As November elections approach, both politicians and voters will bear this truth in mind (to greater or lesser extent).
I’m not politically astute, but I wonder if there’s still another dimension to the phrase, “All Politics is Local.” For, not only should this insight keep candidates loyal to local constituents, but it also serves to remind citizens that most day-to-day living takes place locally, not in distant state or federal capitals.
This is not to suggest that government is unimportant—quite the contrary. A quick perusal of international news stories drives home quickly and graphically how bad government leads to human suffering. But this is the very point: government leaders should aim for local prosperity. It’s in our own homes, schools, communities, and workplaces that life is lived, fully or poorly.
As I say, I’m no political wonk. But if my take on the “All Politics is Local” theme is true—that voters need to be aware that success or failure in life depends more on them than on politicians—it seems it conveys a similar truth to the life of faith: “All Holiness is Local.”
Here, too, only ignorance or naivete would claim it’s irrelevant who our pope, bishop, or pastor is. For, similar to our secular leaders, our religious leaders foster a flourishing life in us—by what they say, how they act, and the example of their own sanctity. But like the city of man, the City of God finds its glory locally—in the sanctification of her members, in the domestic church, and in the nitty-gritty occasions that are the “little way” of holiness.
There may be still another trickle-down application to this political principle in the liturgical life. The Church has always called upon her liturgical leaders to look toward the needs of their flocks. The Council of Trent, for example, directed that pastors “frequently expound” upon the elements of the Mass lest the people starve (Session XXII, Chapter VIII). Four centuries later, the Second Vatican Council similarly says that pastors must “zealously” work to realize the laity’s active participation in the liturgy, for from it do the baptized “derive the true Christian spirit” necessary for a life well-lived (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). Clergy, then, have an eye not only on Christ the King and their share in his divine rule, but also—as constitutive of their leading role—an eye on the people they are called to sanctify.
Here, too, the laity are led by those standing in persona Christi capitis in the sanctuary but are themselves called to cooperate with the graces offered by the sacred liturgy. That is, even if priests and
The Voice of Tradition: Prosper Guéranger’s “Anti-Liturgical Heresy”
By Richard Kaleb Hammond
Dom Prosper Guéranger has been called the “grandfather” of the Liturgical Movement,1 a century-long effort within the Catholic Church to inspire deeper understanding and greater appreciation for the liturgy of the Roman rite through liturgical piety, which Dom Alcuin Reid defines as “drawing one’s spiritual nourishment from active and conscious contemplation of the faith of the Church as it is celebrated and expressed in the liturgical rites and prayers throughout the annual round of seasons and feasts of the liturgical year, as distinct from the practice of an unrelated, however worthy, devotional exercise.”2 Alongside his many other efforts which contributed to this project, Guéranger summarized the errors which he and many future proponents of the Liturgical Movement sought to correct in popular approaches to the liturgy through what he called the “antiliturgical heresy.”3
The development of the liturgy can be measured according to Guéranger’s description of this heresy as he
Secular
life, ecclesial life, and the liturgical life thrive not only when their leaders stay in touch with those in their care, but also when denizens of both the earthly and heavenly cities live their citizenship to the full on the local level.
deacons (and their assisting ministers) celebrate the sacred liturgy as perfectly as humanly possible (it is, of course, perfect insofar as the Trinity is the liturgy’s primary actor), unless the people themselves actively and intentionally engage with God’s grace in the liturgy and sacraments, their lives remain unredeemed. Successful liturgy needs both competent leaders and intelligent participants.
In short, secular life, ecclesial life, and the liturgical life thrive not only when their leaders stay in touch with those in their care, but also when denizens of both the earthly and heavenly cities live their citizenship to the full on the local level.
In an oft-quoted passage, Cardinal Ratzinger once joined sanctity to elections—or, at least, to winning over the minds and hearts of others. “The only really effective apologia for Christianity,” he said, “comes down to two arguments, namely the saints the Church
found it in the early Church, the Protestant Revolution, and through the errors of the Jansenists and Gallicans of Guéranger’s own time, as well as the varied threads of this heresy which were woven into the Liturgical Movement in the 20th century. Guéranger divided the anti-liturgical heresy into 12 distinct criteria: (1) hatred of Tradition; (2) substitution of ecclesiastical formulae for readings exclusively from Scripture; (3) fabrication of innovative formulae; (4) antiquarianism; (5) demystification of the liturgy; (6) “pharisaical coldness”4 in liturgical prayer; (7) removal of all intermediaries (Marian devotion, communion of saints, etc.); (8) replacement of sacred languages with the vernacular; (9) simplification of rites and easing of religious duties; (10) rejection of papal authority; (11) laicization, denying the sacramental nature of the ministerial priesthood; and (12) confusion of the roles of priests and laity in liturgical reform.
Hatred of Tradition
Guéranger begins his formulation of the anti-liturgical heresy with its most overriding criterion: hatred of tradition. He explains that the liturgy, “which is Tradition at its strongest and best,” acts as the buttress against all doctrinal error. As such, those in history who wished to introduce innovative doctrines only had to deform the liturgy, to substitute the heritage of Tradition which it maintains for their own hymns, prayers, and lessons, for the faithful to be subjected to and formed in their falsehoods.
has produced and the art which has grown in her womb. Better witness is borne to the Lord by the splendor of holiness and art which have arisen in the community of believers than by clever [apologetics]…. If the Church is to continue to transform and humanize the world, how can she dispense with beauty in her liturgies, that beauty which is so closely linked with love and with the radiance of the Resurrection? No. Christians must not be too easily satisfied. They must make their Church into a place where beauty— and hence truth—is at home. Without this the world will become the first circle of hell” (The Ratzinger Report, 129-130).
Thus, for anyone looking to win elections in (or, better, to) the Heavenly Jerusalem, holiness—most often simple, hidden from the national spotlight, steady, and local—offers the best path to victory.
Through these cunning and often subtle changes, “the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.”
Liturgical innovators who seek to violate tradition and form the faithful in false doctrines have tended to uphold one common criterion: the need for all the formulae of the liturgy to derive exclusively from Scripture, as Guéranger explains: “This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition of which sectarians are always afraid. Then, there is the advantage of propagating and supporting their dogmas by means of affirmation and negation. By way of negation, in passing over in silence, through cunning, the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by way of affirmation, by emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other [from] the eyes of the unlearned.”
Ultimately, this second criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy falls prey to the same weaknesses as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura: the choice of readings and even the canon of the Bible, as well as its interpretation, rely entirely upon “the caprice of the reformer, who, in final analysis, decides the meaning of the word itself.” On the other hand, the formulae inherited from Tradition reflect the infallible teaching of the Church and the integral meaning of Scripture; many of them were composed by saints and, like the creeds and definitions of the ecumenical councils, they codify and explicate the truth of God without bias. In place of these traditional formulae, and as his third
sensibility had run like a thread throughout her entire life. It helped define her understanding of the Christian faith in general but also drew her ever closer to Christ through the one true Church he established here on earth, the same Church that she would dedicate her lifetime to defending in words and deeds.
Early Life
Even in her formative years, growing up in a Methodist household, Hitchcock found the symbolism of liturgical actions a matter of fascination and meditation. Hitchcock was born in Phillipsburg, KS, in 1939, the daughter of Downer Hull, a local school superintendent, and Thelma Hull, a homemaker. Hitchcock and her two siblings, Thomas and Connie, were raised working a farm and attending Methodist services on Sundays. In a 2006 interview on EWTN, Hitchcock recalled how even in her youth she recognized the importance of symbols in worship. “I remember as a child—and little children were allowed to go to communion in the churches I belonged to…I had that experience of receiving and the minister would say as you’re kneeling at the altar rail receiving communion…, ‘This is the body of Christ which has been given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ That’s not something you take lightly, even if somehow, it’s thought to be [only] symbolic.”
Later in life, after graduating college and taking up work as an insurance underwriter in New York City, as Hitchcock began to mature in her appreciation of sacramental liturgy, she began to drift toward Anglicanism, drawn to it, she said, by the beauty and prominence of its sacramental system. Around the same time that she had entered the Anglican communion, Helen Hull had met James Hitchcock, a history professor working at a local university— and a Catholic. In the 2006 interview, Hitchcock recalled that she and her future husband—they were married in 1967—“had very interesting discussions because his particular field of interest was the English Reformation, and the reactions to the suppression of the Catholic faith there…. He knew more about my own church’s background than I knew myself, which was fascinating. So, we had a lot in common, we shared almost everything in the Christian faith: sacramental appreciation for the sacraments, most of the doctrine.” In a 2016 interview with this writer, Dr. Hitchcock acknowledged that there was a great sense of cooperation in their marriage, noting that his work had “an enormous influence from my wife.”
“We provided each other moral support and we had profound sympathy with one another; we were on the same track and understood things in the same way,” James Hitchcock noted. “We had the same beliefs and core values. Since my wife had been raised a Protestant, I learned a great deal about her actual Protestantism, instead of a textbook account of Protestantism…. We each had our specialties, too. She didn’t know a whole lot about history, and I didn’t know that much about the details of liturgy. She came to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Catholic liturgy, and even though we both followed the contemporary Church in our own disciplines, she followed it in more detail than I did. She went to bishops’ meetings, conferences in Rome, and she was in correspondence with a lot of different people in the Church.”
Home At Last
The Hitchcocks represented a truly profound marriage of minds which eventually became a marriage of faith as Helen took the next and final step in her spiritual journey by entering the Catholic Church in 1984. It was, she acknowledged, a “negative nudge” which brought her to the steps of the Catholic Church, but one that was both heartbreaking and eye-opening. At the 1976 General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, held in Minneapolis, MN, the Episcopalian Church voted to admit women into the priesthood. This dismantling of the Anglican sacramental system became a leading cause for Hitchcock becoming Catholic. “The Episcopal Church…by the vote of the general convention [of 1976] eliminated the 450-year-old prayer book, the classic language of The Book of Common Prayer,” she explained in her 2006 interview. It was, she added, “the same convention that accepted the ordination of women—and one of the women they accepted for ordination was a lesbian. At the same convention they
A final impetus for Helen to join the Catholic Church came with the election in 1978 of Pope John Paul II. As she recounted, the Catholic Church “elected this incredible scholar whose field precisely put his finger on the most sensitive point in our entire culture…the relationship of human beings with one another and with God, and I thought, that is amazing. It is amazing—an amazing sign that the Holy Spirit really is with the Catholic Church.” Suddenly, it became clear to Hitchcock where the truth could be found.
“Hitchcock was not born Catholic, but a liturgical sensibility had run like a thread throughout her entire life.”
accepted abortion.” Traditional means of worship, the exclusive male priesthood, and longstanding moral teachings were all rejected in an instant. Hitchcock’s enthusiasm for the Anglican way did not survive the scandal. “It was all over,” she realized. “If that can happen, then there is no magisterial truth in the Anglican Church.” Hitchcock may have considered the Catholic Church as an alternative, but her first impressions of the Catholic liturgy caused her to hesitate: what she knew of the Catholic liturgy was only what she witnessed at her husband’s parish in the early days of their marriage—“the terrible liturgies that were singing goofy songs and drumrolls and ‘nutso’ stuff going on in Catholic liturgies,” she said in the 2006 interview.
“ This dismantling of the Anglican sacramental system became a leading cause for Hitchcock becoming Catholic.”
Three years after the integrity of the Episcopal Church collapsed, however, as Hitchcock tended to her spiritual wounds, the Church had elected a new pope. The news was full of the new pope, a Polish cardinal, Karol Wojtyla, who had taken the name of John Paul II. Hitchcock noted in the 2006 interview that “they elected this incredible scholar whose field precisely put his finger on the most sensitive point in our entire culture…the relationship of human beings with one another and with God, and I thought, that is amazing. It is amazing—an amazing sign that the Holy Spirit really is with the Catholic Church.” Suddenly, it became clear to Hitchcock where the truth could be found. In 1984, she had entered the Catholic Church and found herself home at last.
The year 1984 proved to be Hitchcock’s annus mirabilis—a year remarkable not only for seeing her enter the Catholic Church but also for beginning her work as an activist for that same Church. She and a group of like-minded Catholic women gathered at the Hitchcock’s residence in St. Louis (James Hitchcock was teaching at St. Louis University by this time) to formulate a plan. They had all become concerned about reports that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (known at the time as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB)) was contemplating a pastoral letter addressing “women’s concerns.” These same reports were indicating that
the bishops advocating for the letter were immersed in feminist ideology. From that meeting at the Hitchcock’s residence, Women for Faith and Family (WFF) was born. What began with a mimeographed newsletter and a letter-writing campaign, asking Catholic women around the country to sign the WFF’s Affirmation for Catholic Women, a document which declared fidelity to Church teaching, eventually became a nationwide organization, hosting annual conferences and transforming the organization’s newsletter into Voices, a respectable and respected journal of Catholic thought. Thanks in large part to WFF’s efforts, and Hitchcock’s leadership in the organization, the fourth and final draft of the disastrous pastoral letter was voted down by the U.S. Bishops in 1992.
Liturgical Battleground
Voices covered a broad range of topics, always with the focus on how it could best serve the Church, and especially Catholic women. Most, if not all, the writers published in Voices defended Church teaching against feminism within the Church, especially in its attempts to render as normative Catholic teaching the acceptance of abortion, contraception, and female ordinations to the priesthood. But one topic which early on drew Hitchcock and her fellow “WFFers” (as they affectionally referred to themselves) to the battleline was the sacred liturgy.
Hitchcock’s early interest in writing about the Catholic liturgy in Voices eventually led to her helping found Adoremus Bulletin. According to Susan Benofy, a contributor and former research editor for Adoremus, and a founding member of WFF, Hitchcock was already “very aware of the dangers of the feminist influence on the Church and concerned with the intrusion of this ideology into liturgy and Scripture through so-called ‘inclusive’ language. So WFF was already covering developments in liturgy in its publication, Voices, which Helen edited.”
Hitchcock co-founded Adoremus in 1995 with Father Jerry Pokorsky, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, VA, and founder of Credo, an organization dedicated to ensuring accurate English translations of liturgical texts, and Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, founder of Ignatius Press. All three individuals were already concerned with what would become a founding principle of Adoremus: “to rediscover and restore the beauty, the holiness, and the power of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition while remaining faithful to an organic, living process of renewal.” For Hitchcock, the desire for an authentic expression of the liturgy led her to attend NCCB meetings, taperecorder in hand. “Helen had attended meetings of the NCCB for a few years, and some important liturgy discussions were taped, and transcriptions published in Voices,” Benofy told Adoremus. Any attempt to achieve authenticity in the liturgy, for Hitchcock, was decidedly not a matter to leave to identity politics, Father Pokorksy told Adoremus. “Helen was a fierce opponent of feminism,” he said, “and saw the ideological threat posed by so-called ‘inclusive language.’ Incidentally, Helen always insisted on ‘socalled’ and placing ‘inclusive language’ in quotes.”
Father Pokorsky and Father Fessio knew Hitchcock well before they formed Adoremus. As Benofy notes, their relationship was only “formalized in the founding of Adoremus.” Father Fessio and Hitchcock had already collaborated in an important endeavor three years before Adoremus came into existence. In 1992, Hitchcock had edited for Ignatius Press a book on the liturgy, The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language in the Worship of God. “The Church is in danger of being seduced by ideological dialectic of feminism based on power,” she writes in the introduction to The Politics of Prayer. “In the matter of liturgical language, it is of central importance to feminists that they control every utterance in the Church. In the Catholic Church, this can be accomplished only with the collaboration of the hierarchy, who alone can mandate liturgical language.” According to Father Pokorsky, this compendium of essays (penned by Catholic and non-Catholic scholars alike) “remains an essential historical record of the terms of the debate” regarding liturgical translations.
Turn
of Tide
If anything characterized Helen Hull Hitchcock’s 20year tenure as Adoremus’s editor, it was her ability to get information out—not only to her readers but also to the Vatican. Recalling how and why Hitchcock first
became invited to serve as Adoremus’s editor, Father Fessio said that he and Father Pokorsky immediately recognized her genius. “She was a woman who could get things done, and worked tirelessly and very efficiently,” he told Adoremus. “She had tremendous intelligence and ability to write. It wasn’t like we had a search committee to find an editor for Adoremus, but the three of us were very interested in the liturgy. When Helen got excited, she did things, and when I get excited, I delegate.”
Adoremus was born in the early days of the Internet, Father Pokorsky said, but even at that time, Hitchcock had the insight to use the information superhighway to the Church’s advantage. “Behind the scenes, Helen and others of our group kept the Vatican informed,” Father Pokorsky said. “With the Internet in its infancy, the fax machine was the most dependable method to send information to Vatican dicasteries. CompuServe was among the first reliable commercial email services. Vatican officials were usually starved for accurate and timely information from the United States. So, Helen arranged to install a CompuServe email service for an assistant to Cardinal Ratzinger.”
In serving the Church, Hitchcock was always gracious to American bishops, both those that she saw as allies and those who were hostile or indifferent to Adoremus’s efforts to foster love and understanding for the liturgy. Sherry Tyree, one of the founding members of WFF and its vice president, regularly attended U.S. bishops’ meetings with Hitchcock. She told this writer that as the outlook on the liturgy improved, so did the bishops’ appreciation of Hitchcock’s work. “When I started going with Helen at the very beginning to the bishops’ meetings,” Tyree said, “it was very different from the end. We were personae non gratae, at the beginning, but by the end of it, there were lines of bishops waiting to talk to Helen.”
Father Pokorsky recalls an incident only a few years after Adoremus began publishing which showed that the U.S. bishops were beginning to acknowledge the value of Hitchcock’s work. “Over the years, Adoremus introduced into the mainstream of the hierarchy a significant point of view” regarding the liturgy, Father Pokorsky told Adoremus. “We promoted accurate translations free from ideological bias. In the late 1990s, even a member of the U.S. bishop’s liturgy committee met with us. But the meetings were in secret, like Nicodemus.”
“During a meeting of the bishops in Portland,” he
“One topic which early on drew Hitchcock and her fellow ‘WFFers’
to the battleline was the sacred liturgy.”
continued, “this USCCB official met with Helen at a restaurant some distance from the meeting so that he would not be seen. Helen, as usual, wasn’t the least bit humiliated. She laughed at the insult.”
Art for God’s Sake
Hitchcock devoted herself to the work given to her as both one of WFF’s leaders and as editor of Adoremus. Yet, as those who knew her best attest, her decision to take on the work of liturgical activist came at a personal price. Hitchcock’s parents, Downer and Thelma Hull, taught their children a love for art. Hitchcock’s mother was a locally renowned painter and her father had regularly exhibited his photographs in local galleries. Her parents’ love for art was likely one of the reasons Hitchcock graduated from the University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS, with an art degree. In the 30th-anniversary issue of Voices, which Hitchcock would not live to see published, her daughter Hilary Hitchcock remembered her mother’s artistic side. “She was tremendously creative and multitalented,” Hitchcock’s daughter writes. “She could paint and sculpt and draw (a family friend recently told us he still has a little sketch she made of him, using a burnt matchstick on a napkin…). She could sing and make jewelry and play just about any musical instrument she got her hands on (when we were little kids, she would sometimes play her mountain dulcimer for events at 19th-century museum houses).”
According to Father Pokorsky, Hitchcock’s dedication to advancing the cause for liturgical
renewal took precedent over even her love for art. “Helen was so dedicated to liturgical renewal that she often worked well into the evening, sometimes past midnight,” he said. “She occasionally suffered from severe eye strain, making her work all the more difficult. But perhaps her greatest sacrifice came with her trading off one of the loves of her life…. Helen was an artist, literally, and like her mother, probably had the gifts to become widely acclaimed for her artwork.”
“But her skill was largely neglected in favor of her work for the Church,” Father Pokorsky added. “In a happier time, Helen’s artistic gifts could have been devoted to beautifying liturgical worship.”
“ When Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, the Church, in some recognizable shape or form that is both Catholic and Apostolic, will be there to meet him.”
—Francis Cardinal George
Dedicated Warrior
For 20 years, Helen Hull Hitchcock, scourge of wayward liturgists and headache to not a few bishops in her time, served first as a faithful woman of the Church, dedicated to the mission she embraced from the moment she entered the Church. As Hilary Hitchcock notes in her 2015 remembrance of her mother in Voices, this dedication carried through to the very end. “When an ordinary issue of Voices would go out, she would work on her column last, to give context to all of the articles appearing in that edition,” Hilary Hitchcock writes. “She had not yet written her column for this issue when she became ill. She asked me to bring her computer to the hospital, but I told her that her only job was to rest; the column could wait.” She would not have the opportunity to write her final editorial for Voices, but she did write a final editorial for Adoremus, in September 2014. Her own words in the editorial ended with a pair of questions: “How will the Church navigate the intense political and cultural challenges to the Catholic faith and religious freedom, both at home and abroad? How can she overcome the enormity of the persecution of Christians in today’s world?” Perhaps fittingly, by way of answer, she allowed a bishop—renowned for his own work in advancing liturgical renewal—to have the final word: Cardinal Francis George, who among his other contributions to improving the celebration of the liturgy in the US, founded in 2000 the
Liturgical Institute at the University of St. Mary of the Lake (many of whose alums are current staff and authors for the Adoremus Bulletin today).
“How does the tale end?” Hitchcock quotes Cardinal George from one of his own final columns as Archbishop of Chicago. “We don’t know…. But Catholics do know, with the certainty of faith, that, when Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, the Church, in some recognizable shape or form that is both Catholic and Apostolic, will be there to meet him. There is no such divine guarantee for any country, culture or society of this or any age.” For Helen Hull Hitchcock, this “divine guarantee” served as the foundation for all she did as a wife, mother, artist, writer, and thinker. Father Fessio, in his 2015 remembrance of Hitchcock for Adoremus points to Helen Hull Hitchcock’s greatest achievements as a matter between herself and her maker. “Only God,” Father Fessio writes, “will be able to give the final accounting of how many priests were helped by Helen’s work to celebrate Mass more reverently and faithfully; how many bishops were affected by what she wrote and passed that on to their seminary rectors and seminarians; how many seminarians were helped in their liturgical and spiritual formation; how many lay faithful had their questions answered, their problems solved, their spirits uplifted.”
“Without Helen, nothing would have happened,” Father Fessio continues, adding with tongue in cheek, “Arch-clericalists like Father Pokorsky and myself expect the laity to do all the work. Thank God that the generous and talented Helen Hull Hitchcock was also humble enough to take on the task.”
Joseph O’Brien is managing editor of Adoremus.
any musical instrument she got her hands on (when we were little kids, she would sometimes play her mountain dulcimer for events at 19thcentury museum houses).”
This sketch by Helen Hull Hitchcock depicts the prodigal son returning to his father. Hilary Hitchcock remembered her mother’s artistic side. “She was tremendously creative and multitalented,” Hitchcock’s daughter writes. “She could paint and sculpt and draw (a family friend recently told us he still has a little sketch she made of him, using a burnt matchstick on a napkin…). She could sing and make jewelry and play just about
By James Pauley
The Evangelistic Power of the Liturgy: For the Seeker or for the Faithful? (Part Two)
Editor’s note: Part One of James Pauley’s entry appeared in the July issue of Adoremus Bulletin.
In the last installment, we considered the evangelistic power of the liturgy and its importance to our sanctification. We also highlighted the current crisis of liturgical boredom experienced by many Catholics today, in particular the young. While many faithful from past generations may also have been uninterested in the Mass at times, by and large Catholics before 1960 remained practicing Catholics, so strong were the cultural supports in those years. Today, of course, those supports are significantly diminished.
So, what can we do about this important issue in our parishes today?
There is a certain line of thinking in some contemporary proposals for parish renewal that I wish to constructively engage. It goes like this: if our parishes are to become mission-oriented, then the Mass, which is central to parish life, must be celebrated in an evangelizing way. What is commonly meant here is that the Mass ought to be directed primarily to the unevangelized person, the “seeker.” Usually, this approach suggests focusing the homily, music, and hospitality towards the seeker, but also can extend beyond these to other ritual elements.
Some of the assumptions typically made here regarding evangelization and the liturgy are correct, beginning with the fact that evangelization is the Church’s first priority. It’s also a given for us that the liturgy is fundamental to parish life and, if the parish is to be a center for evangelization, then the liturgy should play a principal role in parish life. But then, another claim is sometimes made: that the liturgy ought to be celebrated in such a way that it reaches those who are “lost,” “de-churched,” or “unchurched” and not primarily those who have already been catechized and sacramentally initiated.
Unfortunately, many parishes have no regular events or encounters outside of the liturgy to which a person might be invited who is showing interest in Catholicism, but not yet ready for the catechumenal process. Therefore, the proposal sometimes made today is that the Mass should be such a place of first encounter, a first point of contact with Catholicism for the unevangelized.
The “Sunday Experience”
This idea to use the Mass as a tool for the unevangelized is featured prominently in the book Rebuilt: Awakening the Faithful, Reaching the Lost, Making Church Matter, by Father Michael White and Tom Corcoran. In this book, the authors suggest that the Sunday Mass or, as they call it, “the Sunday experience,” ought to be oriented in its celebration to the average unchurched person who lives within one’s parish boundaries, who may or may not be Catholic or Christian. In White and Corcoran’s case, they’ve given this person a name, “Timonium Tim,” since he lives within the boundaries of their community, the Parish of the Nativity in Timonium, MD.1
It is important to first acknowledge the evangelistic zeal of the authors. They have inspired many parish leaders to prioritize evangelizing the unchurched within their parish boundaries. Our Catholic parishes in the future must become skilled in the evangelization ad gentes, and many of their ideas are helpful to this end. I do have some serious concerns about their approaches to the liturgy and specifically how they describe the liturgy’s relation to parish evangelization. Their parish mission statement is inspiring: “The purpose of Nativity is to reach lost people to help them become disciples, and then to help disciples become growing disciples.”2 When it comes to the celebration of the liturgy itself, they then make strategic decisions to specifically target the unevangelized and uncatechized person, with the hopes that “Tim” would feel at home, would receive the Gospel, and might be interested in coming back for a deeper experience. The authors explain: “We actually refer to Tim in our planning meetings and prepare homilies with him in mind. We make programming decisions
For those already initiated into the Church (versus those who are first coming to a relationship with Christ), evangelization primarily takes the form of liturgy and sacraments. This is why the Mass shouldn’t be strategically planned as a first point of contact with those who might be curious about Catholicism, since the liturgy itself is intended for those who have been well prepared through liturgical catechesis and sacramental initiation.
and even select music based on what he likes, what he’ll understand, what works for him. To make Tim a disciple we not only have to know him, we have to speak to him, engage him, and then get him involved.”3
There seems to be a presumption here, however, that what is good for Tim (again, the unchurched, unevangelized, uncatechized person who, in many cases, has not been sacramentally initiated) is also good for the rest of the liturgical assembly. I believe we have to be very careful here, because the spiritual needs of these two groups are actually quite distinct. Are liturgies focused towards “Tim” and other unevangelized a tenable way forward? It’s a critically important question, especially as we move increasingly into a missionary orientation to a broader society that is more and more rejecting a Christian view of reality. Steps to the Liturgy
I would offer two responses to this question. First, after the General Directory for Catechesis describes the sacraments as “means” of evangelization (explained in the previous article), the Directory describes the process of evangelization.4 The fifth (and final) part of this process is titled “the ongoing formation of
When it comes to the liturgy’s place in evangelization, theologian Father Cyprian Vagaggini, author of Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, explains, liturgy is primarily directed to those already initiated into the Catholic faith, those who are meant to be growing in perfection and holiness, and not those outside of the Church in need of hearing and responding to the Gospel for the first time. As he says: “It cannot be denied that the liturgy…is concerned directly and in the first place with its initiates, those Catholics who are already participating in the life of the Church.”
“By and large Catholics before 1960 remained practicing Catholics, so strong were the cultural supports in those years. Today, of course, those supports are significantly diminished.”
the Christian communities through and by means of the sacraments and their ministers.”5 Note that this ongoing, lifelong formation through sacramental living takes place after a person has received a substantive catechetical preparation through the catechumenal process and been sacramentally initiated, which is also after the reception of the kerygma and call to conversion, which is again after that important experience of being in dialog and presence in charity with a Christian witness. Liturgical evangelization is specifically identified as the final and lifelong movement in evangelization, prepared for in significant ways through these earlier experiences of evangelization. Yes, this is an idealized process which most parishes are not effectively carrying out for either cradle Catholic children or adult converts, but the logic of what ought to precede an evangelistic living of the sacramental life is important to notice. It’s also important to see that living a liturgical life is meant to continue to evangelize the sacramentally initiated for a lifetime
By placing sacramental evangelization in this final position, it’s clear that the liturgy, in its complex structure and in its way of dispensing grace, is specifically intended for those who have already been catechetically prepared and sacramentally initiated. It seems to me there is immense pastoral wisdom underpinning this principle. Ordinarily, we need grace and we need catechesis in order to understand the meaning of the sacramental language of the Eucharistic liturgy so that we can join ourselves through the richness of this language to Christ as he lifts his Paschal Sacrifice to the Father in the Holy Spirit. The sacramental life, then, as lifelong evangelization, does not come first but rather brings us as Christians deeper into the mysteries over the course of life.6 The sacramental signs, beautiful and full of mystery, flood the senses with a language that cannot be easily defined and explained. And the better our liturgical catechesis, the more this world of transformative encounter with God opens up to us. This is perhaps why the Second Vatican Council tells us that “before men can come to the liturgy, they must be called to
faith and conversion” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 9).
Evangelization: Missionary or Perfective?
As a second response to turning the liturgy into first evangelization, let’s consider the insights of Benedictine Father Cyprian Vagaggini, author of Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy7 and peritus to the Second Vatican Council on liturgical matters. Vagaggini made a distinction five decades ago when writing about pastoral-liturgical matters that is helpful to our considerations of how the liturgy evangelizes.8 He writes: “Pastoral [activity] necessarily has at one and the same time two different aspects, one…which is its missionary aspect, and one of preservation or of perfecting.”9 He then goes on to explain how (to use our term) evangelization is accomplished in the liturgy in a perfective rather than missionary sense.10
When it comes to the liturgy’s place in evangelization, Vagaggini means here that the liturgy is primarily directed to those already initiated into the Catholic faith, those who are meant to be growing in perfection and holiness, and not those outside of the Church in need of hearing and responding to the Gospel for the first time. He explains: “It cannot be denied that the liturgy…is concerned directly and in the first place with its initiates, those Catholics who are already participating in the life of the Church.”11
These are compelling words. For those already living the sacramental life, evangelization is meant to take place primarily (though not exclusively) through their regular immersion into the Mystery of Christ, sacramentally made present.
Vagaggini goes on to explain: “The liturgy cannot be regarded essentially and directly as [a missionary instrument]; rather, it is the end and the gate of arrival toward which the [evangelized] individuals are to be directed.”12 Following the trajectory of his thought, the Mass shouldn’t be strategically planned as a first point of contact with those who might be curious about Catholicism, since the liturgy itself is intended for those who have been well prepared through liturgical catechesis and sacramental initiation.
Of course, God can bring people to himself any way he likes—and perhaps many of us who have walked at some point into a Sunday Mass with very little (or low quality) liturgical formation may have become faithful, believing Catholics. Unquestionably, a beautiful Mass can stir up curiosity and desire in the seeker. Some years ago, I had the privilege of teaching a gentleman who had been a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before
“ This question of who the liturgy is intended to evangelize is important because it impacts how we envision the purpose of the homily, the music, the use of signs, symbols, and gestures, and what our churches ought to look like.”
converting to Catholicism. In his younger years before his conversion, serving as a missionary, he found himself sitting one day at an outdoor café across the street from a cathedral. He noticed people streaming through the cathedral doors to go to noon Mass. Since he had never seen a Catholic Mass before, he left his table, entered the cathedral, and sat in the very back row, full of curiosity. By the time the Mass had ended, he had concluded he must become Catholic. The catalyst for such a conviction was the beauty and power of God, experienced deeply through what unfolded inside the cathedral doors.
So, God can do anything at anytime to bring people to faith. And a beautifully celebrated liturgy has an attractive power. Nevertheless, as a parish strategy, envisioning the Mass as initial evangelization is theologically and pastorally problematic. Vagaggini explains why this is so: “[A] misunderstanding in this area might easily lead to a perversion of the liturgy itself, leading to its being made a direct and necessarily very changeable instrument of propagandizing…. But all this is contrary to the genuine nature of the liturgy, which is primarily prayer and sacred actuation, by the community of the initiates, of the mystery of Christ under the veil of sensible and efficacious signs.”13 In
The sacramental signs, beautiful and full of mystery, flood the senses with a language that cannot be easily defined and explained. And the better our liturgical catechesis, the more this world of transformative encounter with God opens up to us. This is perhaps why the Second Vatican Council tells us that “before men can come to the liturgy, they must be called to faith and conversion.”
other words, if we approach the celebration of the Mass as a planned means of initial evangelization, then the lavish ambiguity of its sacramental language becomes something that, for pastoral reasons, might be simplified or manipulated. Liturgists might then see justification in changing or directing various aspects of the liturgy itself to the seeker so that it better speaks to those who come in off the street without much liturgical understanding.
Many liturgical abuses over the past five decades have sought justification in admirable pastoral motivations. I believe this distinction from Vagaggini between missionary evangelization and perfective evangelization is critically important if we are to correctly understand the Church’s vision of the sacraments as a means of evangelization.
Liturgy at Full Charge
This question of who the liturgy is intended to evangelize is important because it impacts how we envision the purpose of the homily, the music, the use of signs, symbols, and gestures, and what our churches ought to look like. There is much that liturgists and presiders might like to do to make the Mass more immediately accessible to the uncatechized seeker, if this is our parish strategy. The question, though, is this: do such strategic choices alter the liturgy in its original and perennial objective, which is the lifelong evangelization of the Catholic faithful who need deep lifelong immersion in the Sacred Mysteries, so that they might live in a missionary way? The liturgy is meant to accompany us throughout adulthood, not only converting us but also divinizing us, so that by the grace of Christ we might become, little by little, partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Without a liturgy that is capable in its sacramental language of progressively opening the divine mysteries to our own people, a superficial encounter becomes the norm, short-circuiting the lifelong movement of grace.
So, what is the answer to Catholics today being bored at Mass? I believe the solutions are to be primarily found in beautiful, awe-inspiring liturgies with Catholics participating in the mysteries who are being perfectively evangelized. And, approaches to liturgical catechesis must be developed that not only
form but also stir up a desire for God in the Eucharistic liturgy. In the coming years, it is going to become more and more important that we Catholics become committed to engaging non-Christians with the Gospel outside of the liturgy. Many creative initiatives for such forms of evangelization are thankfully gaining traction today. Yet, it is from the liturgy itself, celebrated in its beauty and transcendent power, that members of Christ’s Mystical Body will be converted and transformed, so that they might become the light and leaven that our world so desperately needs.
Dr. James Pauley is Professor of Theology and Catechetics at Franciscan University of Steubenville and Editor of the Catechetical Review. He was appointed to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ executive team for the Eucharistic Revival and is the author of several books, including Liturgical Catechesis in the 21st Century, which focuses on the renewal of liturgical and sacramental catechesis. He enjoys offering days of reflection and formation for catechists as well as parish missions.
1. Michael White and Tom Corcoran, Rebuilt: Awakening the Faithful, Reaching the Lost, Making Church Matter (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2013), see especially 72-74.
2. White and Corcoran, Rebuilt, 47.
3. White and Corcoran, Rebuilt, 73-74.
4. The directory relies here upon Ad Gentes, no. 15-18 for this description.
5. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis (1997), no. 47.
6. Of course, for many Catholics, we are baptized as infants and so, in this instance, Baptism comes first. But the directory is indicating here the sacraments that come after sacramental initiation, to include our regular, lifelong participation in the Eucharistic liturgy.
7. Cyprian Vagaggini, OSB, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976).
8. It’s important to note here that while Paul VI broadened the magisterial understanding of evangelization in 1975 to be the Church’s primary mission (as explained in my previous article), Vagaggini hadn’t employed Paul VI’s understanding of evangelization into his own writing. I take the step here of substituting Vagaggini’s generalized concept of pastoral activity for the more contemporary way of understanding evangelization first unfolded by Paul VI.
9. Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 824. The primary terms Vagaggini uses for these categories – “conquest” and “preservation”—are not as useful in our contemporary environs. The first, with its militaristic undertones, could be easily misunderstood as being offensive to human dignity and religious freedom (“conquest”) whereas the second (“preservation”) implies too static and undynamic a view of the Christian life. For these reasons, I prefer Vagaggini’s secondary terms “missionary” and “perfective” as more clearly descriptive of the realities to which he refers in our contemporary context.
10. Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 825.
11. Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 825.
12. Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 825.
13. Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 825-826.
The Calendar and Contemporary Departure from the Catechumenal Way
By Jeremy Priest
As we approach the reception of a new translation of the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults, it is striking that this text is the least frequently used for Christian initiation. In terms of numbers, the Order of the Baptism of Children, combined with the Order of Confirmation, comes out on top. This numerical division illustrates well that there are two basic models for Christian initiation in the Roman Rite of the Latin Church: adult initiation and infant baptism—neat and clean! But imagine the pastoral conundrum when (for example) a six-year-old and seven-year-old brother are ready for initiation: the seven-year old is baptized, confirmed, and receives first Holy Communion at the Easter Vigil, while his brother—just a year younger—is baptized as an “infant” and has to wait a year before Penance and first Holy Communion…and ten years before receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation!
In his now classic work, The Shape of Baptism, Father Aidan Kavanagh sketches the basic scope of these two models of initiation: “The Roman Rite thus finds itself affirming in practice two initiatory theories and polities that have successively held sway in its history: the first is antique and paschal, meant to consecrate and initiate a Christian wholly; the second is medieval and socio-personal in emphasis, stressing ‘growth’ on all fronts (ad robur). The first presupposes the presence of catechumens in local churches together with the evangelical and catechetical structures necessary to prepare them for baptism. The second presupposes a sustained Catholic birthrate and functioning forms of religious education such as the parochial school. The two project rather different models of the Church as well, the second being a ‘Christendom model’ currently wracked with enervating problems that arise not from the hostility of the modern state so much as from its massive indifference. The first projected model, on the contrary, does not presuppose the state at all: it was, in fact, developed historically not only without recourse to state benevolence but often in opposition to its pretensions.”1
Yet, in both of these initiation models, the Church insists that preparation needs to be driven by conversion to Christ so that the person is prepared with the proper desire and disposition to receive fruitfully all the graces that God gives in the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. The Introduction to Christian Initiation says it this way: “Baptism is therefore, above all, the sacrament of that faith by which, enlightened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we respond to the Gospel of Christ. That is why the Church believes that it is its most basic and necessary duty to inspire all, catechumens, parents of children still to be baptized, and godparents, to that true and living faith by which they hold fast to Christ and enter into or confirm their commitment to the New Covenant. In order to enliven such faith, the Church prescribes the pastoral instruction of catechumens, the preparation of the children’s parents, the celebration of God’s word, and the profession of faith at the celebration of baptism.” (Christian Initiation, General Introduction, 3).
Regardless of which path one “enters into or confirm[s] the New Covenant,” the catechumenate—a patristic model restored after the Second Vatican Council—lays down the pathway by which either model is to proceed. As the General Directory for Catechesis (GDC) puts it, the “model for all catechesis is the baptismal catechumenate when, by specific formation, an adult converted to belief is brought to explicit profession of baptismal faith during the Paschal Vigil” (GDC, 59). This primacy of the model of the adult catechumenate is founded on the fact that in the early Church “the catechumenate and preparation for the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were the same thing.”2
The Pathway Model
The General Directory for Catechesis sets forth the adult catechumenate as the model for all catechesis. The dynamism of the restored catechumenate arises from its emphasis on conversion as the primary driver in the pathway to Christian initiation. The catechumenate is comprised of four periods of formation and three major liturgical rites that lead into those periods: the Period of the Precatechumenate leads into the Period of the Catechumenate by means of the Rite of Acceptance into the Catechumenate, while the Period of the
Oftentimes—and incorrectly—a child of catechetical age (seven or older) is only baptized, with the reception of holy Communion and Confirmation being delayed until the time when his peers will receive them. But this practice violates liturgical and canon law, and disregards the very nature of what is happening in baptism. Because the child of catechetical age has the self-possession “capable of receiving and nurturing personal faith” (RCIA, 252) in an encounter with the Living God, he is capable of giving himself entirely to the Lord and receiving all that the Lord has to give.
Catechumenate leads into the Period of Purification and Enlightenment by means of the Rite of Election. Finally, the period of Purification and Enlightenment leads into the Period of Mystagogy by means of the reception of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. The catechetical preparation for each period is articulated well by the General Directory for Catechesis:
“—the pre-catechumenate, characterized as the locus of first evangelization leading to conversion and where the kerygma of the primary proclamation is explained;
the catechumenate, properly speaking, the context of integral catechesis beginning with ‘the handing on of the Gospels’;
—a time of purification and illumination which affords a more intense preparation for the sacraments of initiation and in which the ‘the handing on of the Creed’ and ‘the handing on of the Lord’s Prayer’ take place;
—a time of mystagogy, characterized by the experience of the sacraments and entry into the community” (GDC, 88).”
In each of these periods, “the definitive aim of [the] catechesis is to put people not only in touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ: only He can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity” (John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae, 5; cf. GDC, 80–81).
Christ, King of the Pathway Fundamental to this pathway of the catechumenal
“The adult catechumenate is the model for all catechesis. The dynamism of the restored catechumenate arises from its emphasis on conversion as the primary driver in the pathway to Christian initiation.”
model is the gradual movement by means of conversion to Christ whereby faith opens out to hope, and hope to love. Indeed, as adult catechumens “become familiar with the Christian way of life…[they] learn to turn more readily to God in prayer, to bear witness to the faith, in all things to keep their hopes set on Christ, to follow supernatural inspiration in their deeds, and to practice love of neighbor” (RCIA, 75.2). In this dynamic, the act
AB/ THANK YOU (25 MILLIONS ) VIEWS ON FLICKR
“There are two basic models for Christian initiation in the Roman Rite of the Latin Church: adult initiation and infant baptism.”
of faith in the Gospel, in Christ himself, leads to hope in the truth of the life he promises, and then to acts of living the love that Christ holds out to us, which leads in turn to deeper faith in him and his Gospel. This dynamic movement of conversion is gradual through the whole pathway of the catechumenate as it leads from hearing the kerygma (first proclamation of salvation in Christ) to living the life of faith, hope, and charity in the catechumenate, to receiving the purging power of the scrutinies during the Period of Purification and Enlightenment in preparation for the Sacraments of Initiation. In this gradual process, they do not pass through the Rite for Entrance into the Catechumenate without being “freely converted to the Lord and commit[ting] themselves sincerely to him” (RCIA, 36, emphasis mine).
Catechesis and conversion go apace so that encounters with the Lord fuel desire to know him more deeply, which in turn is fueled by doctrine about who Jesus is and what it means to follow him, which then disposes one to receive more of the Lord in encounters with him. Theologian Lawrence Feingold speaks of this dynamic of conversion in relation to the person’s disposition toward a more fruitful reception of the sacraments: “The dispositions of faith and repentance are necessary not only as minimum conditions for the fruitfulness of the sacraments. The intensity of repentance, faith, hope, and especially charity in the recipient determines the degree of grace given by the sacraments. This is an important consequence of the principle that everything is received according to the mode of the receiver. Thus we should think that no two adults receiving the same sacrament receive the same graces, for each will have a different disposition of desire, contrition, faith, hope, and charity.”3
The gradual process of the catechumenate is meant to deepen one’s capacity to receive all that the Lord gives and to give oneself more and more fully to him. This structured movement toward conversion and thus the disposition to receive the Lord’s gifts of grace in the Sacraments of Initiation is at the heart of the General Directory for Catechesis’ insistence that the catechumenate be the model for all catechesis.
Christ vs. the Calendar
The movement toward sacramental reception through the process of conversion to Christ stands in stark contrast to our more common practice of sacramental reception, which relies not so much on conversion, but on the calendar for its movement. Since the day my son was born on April 15, 2015—Tax Day (Poor kid!)—I could tell you that he would be baptized in the first few weeks of his life; his first Confession and first holy Communion would be in the Spring of 2023; he would receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Spring of 2027. Rather than conversion, desire, and disposition, it was the calendar that set the timeline: he will receive “sacrament x” at “time y.”
The model of infant baptism grew up with the Church, both East and West: as the populations of these areas became increasingly Christian, adult baptism became fairly rare and infant baptism became almost universal. As Father Aidan Kavanagh noted above, this way of initiation came to its ascendancy in the medieval period and relied on something of a “Christendom model” where the patristic delaying of baptism until adulthood gave way to the laudable desire of parents who baptized infants with an eye toward the salvation of their souls, lest they died before they passed through the saving waters. Ideally, infants are brought to the font by “Christian parents whose faith is vigorous and whose way of life gives clear promise that their child will develop in the faith of the Church.”4
The practice of adult initiation usually runs according to the calendar as well. A person seeking reception will come in September and most parishes will find a way to run them through the stages of the catechumenate so that they receive the Sacraments of Initiation at the Easter Vigil. This is despite the 1986 National Statutes for the Catechumenate (NSC) and the recently approved statutes coming into force that insist that time in the catechumenate should be at least one year (NSC, 6; NSCI, 4). Moreover, while there are some pastoral exceptions to adult baptism outside the Easter Vigil, the current legislation for the catechumenate necessitates that adult readiness coincide with the Easter Vigil. The calendar, rather than conversion to Christ, becomes the primary driving force of the initiation process.
In all this, an essential question is how to prepare for the reception of the sacraments fruitfully. Having identified the catechumenal model as the best pathway to use in trying to accomplish this (see GDC, 59), it is no wonder that the Church has seen fit to prescribe a post-baptismal catechumenate in places where infant baptism is the numerically dominant practice: “Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. [Catechesis] has its proper place here” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1231, emphasis added).5
Not only is this the case for those baptized as infants, but the catechumenal model is also prescribed in the preparation for the Sacrament of Matrimony. Indeed, in response to the 2022 document on Catechumenal Pathways for Married Life from the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, many dioceses have been drafting and implementing catechumenal frameworks in their marriage preparation programs. Among such frameworks, the Marriage Catechumenate norms for the Diocese of Lansing, MI (2018), stand out both in their markedly early adoption of the catechumenal framework for marriage preparation, but also in its timeframe for marriage preparation: it changed its requirement from nine months to between six and 12 months! Among most approaches to sacramental readiness, the philosophy is generally to increase timelines rather than make them more flexible. The Diocese of Lansing’s Director of Marriage and Family Life, Richard Budd, explains that “the time-frame required for preparation should reflect the individual couple and the preparation they need” to receive the sacrament fruitfully. Again, what is most essential is not the length of the time frame, but conversion to Christ that opens the way to fruitful reception of the sacraments.
For the most part, once someone comes to the parish to sign up for the reception of a sacrament, the
The Church teaches that the “duration of the catechumenate will depend on the grace of God [and]… the cooperation of the individual catechumens…. Nothing, therefore, can be settled a priori…. The time spent in the catechumenate should be long enough—several years if necessary—for the conversion and faith of the catechumenate to become strong” (RCIA, 76).
timeline is already set. Most of the time this timeline is arranged so as to grow desire and disposition. Nevertheless, the endpoint of the timeline is already set. This stands in contradiction to the catechumenal model which insists that the “duration of the catechumenate will depend on the grace of God [and]… the cooperation of the individual catechumens…. Nothing, therefore, can be settled a priori…. The time spent in the catechumenate should be long enough—several years if necessary—for the conversion and faith of the catechumens to become strong” (RCIA, 76, emphasis added).
Since the day my son was born on April 15, 2015, I could tell you that he would be baptized in the first few weeks of his life; his first Confession and first holy Communion would be in the Spring of 2023; he would receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Spring of 2027. Rather than conversion, desire, and disposition, it was the calendar that set the timeline: he will receive “sacrament x” at “time y.”
Calendar vs. Conversion
Adult initiation and the initiation of infants run on two different models, but in our current practice both suffer from the same reliance on the calendar as the primary driving force in their respective pathways of Christian initiation. Most of the time this arrangement works: each group proceeds down the road according to its own lights. But traffic flow grinds to a halt when an unbaptized child of catechetical age (i.e., about the age of seven) tries to merge into the children’s lane. Where does he fit?
According to the norms of the Church’s law, the “prescripts of the canons on adult baptism are to be applied to all those who, no longer infants, have attained the use of reason” (CIC 852, §1). So, the child of catechetical age fits squarely into the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, Chapter 1 of Part II: “Christian Initiation of Children Who Have Reached Catechetical Age.” Having the use of reason, these “children are capable of receiving and nurturing a personal faith and of recognizing an obligation in conscience” (RCIA, 252)—a reality recognized at least since Lateran IV (1215) when the famous Canon XXI (Omnis utriusque sexus) prescribed the confession of sins and the reception of holy Communion for “all the faithful of both sexes…after they have reached the age of discretion.”6 While the child is not an adult, it is on the basis of possessing the use of reason that the child
is capable of “personal faith” and the self-possession necessary to act on the basis of conscience. However, what often happens is that the child of catechetical age is only baptized, with the reception of holy Communion and Confirmation being delayed until the time when his peers will receive them. Perhaps this delay is because we have idealized a certain adult type of preparation for Confirmation since we mistakenly view Confirmation as a kind of “rite of passage” into adulthood (see Roman Catechism 2.3.20).7 Whatever the reason for the delay, this postponement violates the Church’s law on sacramental practice: “Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion” (CIC, 866). Secondly, not only is this a violation of liturgical and canon law, but it also disrespects the very nature of what is happening in baptism—they do not “receive the Sacrament merely passively; they willingly enter a covenant with Christ by renouncing errors so as to adhere to the true God” (RCIA, 211). Because the child of catechetical age has the self-possession “capable of receiving and nurturing personal faith” (RCIA, 252) in an encounter with the Living God, he is capable of giving himself entirely to the Lord and receiving all that the Lord has to give (according to the child’s capacity to receive).
Two Models, One Way
While these two models of Christian initiation, adult and infant, may appear very different pathways, the fundamental aspect uniting them both is the free act of faith that the catechumenal model is aiming to elicit. The force that the calendar applies to both the adult catechumenate and the post-baptismal catechumenate works contrary to the good that each is aimed at bringing about: the free and complete gift of the person to God through the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. Working through the baptismal catechumenate as the model, both modes of initiation walk the same pathway of conversion to Christ wherein he brings us into communion with God the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. Only if we are able to keep the calendar under the Kingship of Christ and make conversion to Christ the driving force of all sacramental preparation can we curtail departure from the catechumenal way.
Jeremy Priest is content manager for Adoremus.
1. Aidan Kavanagh, The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation (New York: Pueblo, 1978), 196–7.
2. John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979), no. 23.
3. Lawrence Feingold, Touched by Christ: The Sacramental Economy (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2021), 386.
4. Aidan Kavanagh, The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation (New York: Pueblo, 1978), 196–7.
5. See also Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis (Washington, DC: USCCB Publishing, 2020), no. 242.
6. H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation, and Commentary (St. Louis, MO; London: B. Herder Book Co., 1937), 259.
7 The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852), 206.
AB/SHUTTERSTOCK
criterion, Guéranger explains that the heretics “fabricate and introduce various formulas, filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error.” These innovations prove to be the true motive for the application of sola scriptura to liturgical tradition.
Antiquarianism
Alongside sola scriptura, liturgical deformers will also frequently commit themselves to Guéranger’s fourth criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: antiquarianism. Proponents of this heresy claim that only what is most ancient is truly pure, whereas later developments are those which “the errors and passions of man have mixed in.” As a result, antiquarianism seeks to purge the liturgy “from whatever is ‘false’ and ‘unworthy of God.’” Accordingly, “they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.”
This “pruning” can include the deletion of practices which are considered to be mere late “accretions”5 yet are later proven not to be so, such as ad orientem prayer which “the early Church…regarded as an apostolic tradition” since “it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and, indeed, of private prayer).”6 It would also involve the exclusion of cherished customs, such as the elevatio at the Consecration or the reading of the Last Gospel, which developed from centuries of pious devotion. In rejecting later developments in tradition, antiquarianism, in Guéranger’s words, “cut[s] them [the Christian faithful] off from the entire past.”
Pope Pius XII clearly condemned antiquarianism only a few years before the Second Vatican Council: “[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device…; one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See…. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise” (Mediator Dei, §62, 64).7
Anthropocentrism and Demystification
A fundamental aim of the anti-liturgical heresy, in all its historical and modern forms, is the subjection of the liturgy, and the tradition which it monumentalizes, to human interests; this has sometimes been called anthropocentrism, in which “we want to find God on our terms, not on His terms; we want to worship Him in our way, not His way.”8 According to Guéranger’s fifth and sixth criteria (demystification of the liturgy and “pharisaical coldness” in liturgical prayer), all teachings, formulae, prayers, and devotions which seem mysterious or arresting must be removed while any perceived obstacles to easy comprehension and external participation must also be “reformed.” This dry rationalism often involves the elimination, simplification, or deemphasis of sensible signs in order to demystify and didacticize the liturgy, the effect of which is “the total extinction of that spirit of prayer, which in Catholicism, we call unction,” since “[a] heart in revolt can no longer love.” Following from this is the seventh criterion, in which man, “[p]retending to treat nobly with God…has no need of intermediaries.” Thus, the intercession of the saints is made superfluous in a liturgy that has been demystified and brought down to man’s level. The ultimate result of this anthropocentrism, warns Guéranger, is “no more Sacraments, except Baptism, preparing the way for Socialism, which freed its followers even from Baptism. No more sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages, etc. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice as in every religion, but only a meal…. No more religious architecture, since there is no more mystery. No more Christian paintings and sculpture, since there is no more sensible religion.” In the end, Guéranger concludes, when the faith centers on man rather than God, it is gutted of all meaning. But those seeking to destroy the liturgy also set their sights on the language of the liturgy itself. One of the most ubiquitous and effective methods of demystifying the liturgy is the imposition of vernacularism, the eighth criterion of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy. By exchanging a sacred language with a mundane vernacular,
the reverence and sacrality of the liturgy are essentially destroyed as it is reduced to the level of the commonplace. As a result, the liturgy loses its universality, becoming particular to each culture according to language, and hindering the ability to participate in a universal prayer no matter the locale. A dull vernacular liturgy easily falls prey to the arbitrary customizations of the people, as well as confusions of doctrine between languages, whereas a sacred language maintains continuity with tradition and unity within each of the six liturgical traditions (rites) which trace back to the apostles and together make up the Catholic Church (“the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (sometimes called Byzantine)”).9 As Pope St. John XXIII taught (quoting Pope Pius XI), “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time…, of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular” (Veterum Sapientia).
From a desire for expediency, vernacularism leads to Guéranger’s ninth criterion, the easing of other sacrifices in the life of the faithful: “no more fasting, no more abstinence, no more genuflections in prayer” and the lessening of “the sum of public and private prayers.” Once a sacred language has been abandoned, “from that moment on the liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks in the marketplace.” While Guéranger focuses on Latin (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §36), which he describes as “the bond among Catholics throughout the universe [and] the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit,” this same virtue of a single language can also be applied to the Eastern rites, which often use ancient or specialized forms of vernacular languages to inspire reverence and preserve Tradition,10 or to the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship which employs archaic English for similar purposes.
Throughout history, anti-liturgical heretics have consistently rejected the unique office of the papacy as the guarantor of orthodoxy, the sign of universality, and the final arbiter of conflict, substituting themselves as the sole authority to customize the liturgy and interpret Scripture. Guéranger lists this usurpation as his tenth criterion. From it follows the eleventh criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: the laicization of the priesthood as a whole. When the liturgy is rationalized and brought down to the merely human level, a sacramental priesthood, acting in persona Christi, is impossible.
One consequence of this anti-clerical “presbyterianism” is Guéranger’s twelfth and final criterion, wherein he warns against “secular or lay persons assuming authority in liturgical reform.” He recognized that this inevitably leads, like vernacularism, to “the liturgy, and consequently dogma, [becoming] an entity limited by the boundaries of a nation or region.”11 As liturgy scholar Peter Kwasniewski has noted, the laicizing of the priesthood, in doctrine or in practice, is also not infrequently responsible for the confusion of roles in the liturgy, by which tasks proper to the ordained are appropriated by laypeople.12 Both of these final criteria blur the distinctions between the universal baptismal priesthood and the special ministerial priesthood, thus subjecting liturgical tradition to the local and individual preferences of the laity. In so doing, much of the mystery and universality of the sacraments is destroyed through a false democratization, as extraordinary ministers fill the sanctuary while the priest and deacon return to their seats.
Tradition as Living Organism
From Guéranger’s negative criteria of the anti-liturgical heresy, Dom Alcuin Reid deduced positive principles which clarify and affirm liturgical tradition: “[corresponding to criteria 1 and 2] [to] protect the place of non-scriptural texts in the organic whole of the Liturgy; [3] innovate rarely and only where necessary; [4] reject antiquarianism out of respect for the living, developed Liturgy; [5] protect all that speaks of the supernatural and of mystery in the Liturgy; [6] similarly, protect the nature of Liturgy as prayer and worship lest it be reduced to a didactic exercise; [7] treasure the role of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints in the Liturgy; [8] reject vernacularism; [9] resist the temptation to sacrifice the Liturgy for the sake of speed; [10] rejoice in liturgical unity with the Church of Rome; and, [11 and 12] to respect the particular liturgical roles and authority of the ordained.”13
Answering these various components of the antiliturgical heresy requires a thorough understanding of liturgical tradition in light of these positive principles. The liturgy must develop organically, as Vatican II taught: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the
Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23). Guéranger also summarized this rule: “Progress in Liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.” 14 Likewise, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “the Liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and…innovation must be for good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition,”15 reflecting the truth that “Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of centuries.”16
Recovery and Restoration
As the Liturgical Movement progressed, it broke into two distinct strains: one faithful to Guéranger’s clear understanding of liturgical Tradition, and another which embraced both antiquarianism, following the “corruption theory” proposed by Jungmann according to which only what is most primitive constitutes authentic Tradition, and anthropocentrism, insisting on the need for a “pastoral Liturgy” which should be “fashioned to meet the needs of contemporary man.”17 In response, Cardinal Ratzinger observed, “Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism—which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism—are both equally wrong. These two might be described as unholy twins.”18
Tradition, then, is not merely a remnant of the early Church or the wholesale adaptation of the faith to suit the times but the accumulated devotion of the saints across the centuries handed on to future generations. Accordingly, the goal of Pope St. Pius V’s institution of the Tridentine reforms was not to introduce any radical innovations but only to “[restore] the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers” while still permitting the continuation of any rite “which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years” (Quo primum), thus recognizing medieval contributions as legitimate organic developments of Tradition.19 The same purpose also guided the fathers of the Second Vatican Council: “Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).
A rediscovery of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy criteria, and their application to contemporary liturgical theology and practice, can help to fulfill the original goals of the Liturgical Movement and restore liturgical tradition, including those venerable elements, such as ad orientem worship and the use of a sacred language, as well as the received forms of liturgical prayers and rites which have fallen into disuse.
Kaleb Hammond holds a B.A. in English and Theology from Holy Apostles College & Seminary, Cromwell, CT, where he is now pursuing an M.A. in Theology. He is a writer for Missio Dei and has been published at Homiletic & Pastoral Review, with forthcoming articles accepted by St. Austin Review and Catholic Insight. A convert to the faith, he grew up in Georgia and now lives in Indiana with his family
1. Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 381. Kindle.
2. Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 58-59.
3. See Prosper Guéranger, “The Anti-Liturgical Heresy,” at Catholic Apologetics, at catholicapologetics.info.
4. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 55.
5. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 46.
6. Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2018), loc 816. Kindle.
7. The propositions of the illegal 1786 Synod of Pistoia, eighty-five of which were condemned in the 1794 papal bull of Pope Pius VI Auctorem fidei, were Jansenist attempts to make the Liturgy rationalized and anthropocentric according to the aims of the Enlightenment. They included having only one altar in each church, no recitation by the priest of anything chanted by the choir, “[f]orbidding relics and flowers on the altar,” reciting the Offertory and Canon aloud, “forbidding numerous devotional and pious practices, including the rosary,” simplifying the Liturgy and translating it into the vernacular. “The people rose up and rejected the imposed reforms.” See Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 49-50.
8. Peter Kwasniewski, The Once and Future Roman Rite (Gastonia, NC: TAN, 2022), 117. Kindle.
9. Edward McNamara, “Why So Many Rites in the Church,” at EWTN (25 October 2016), at www.ewtn.com.
10. E.g. “[L]iturgical Greek… Church Slavonic… old literary Georgian… literary Coptic… Ge’ez… classical Syrian and Arabic [and] classical literary Armenian.” See Peter Kwasniewski, “The Byzantine Liturgy, the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo—Two Brothers and a Stranger” at New Liturgical Movement (4 June 2018), at www.newliturgicalmovement.org.
11. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 55.
12. See Peter Kwasniewski, Ministers of Christ: Recovering the Roles of Clergy and Laity in an Age of Confusion (Manchester, NH: Crisis, 2021).
13. Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 55-56.
14. Quoted in Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 56.
15. Joseph Ratzinger, introduction to Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 20. Kindle
16. Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, vol. 3 of The Penguin History of the Church (London: Penguin, 1990), 119; cf. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, loc 1952.
17. Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 151.
18. Ratzinger, introduction to Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed.10.
19. Reid, Organic Development 2nd ed., 39-41.
Editor’s note: It’s not uncommon that the parish RCIA process gets underway in the fall of the year. This beginning, coupled with the imminent implementation of the revised Order of Christian Initiation of Adults— optional on the First Sunday of Advent (December 1, 2024) and mandatory for use on Ash Wednesday (March 5, 2025)—offers an occasion to answer common canonical questions in the RCIA. Also note that, until the revised OCIA becomes effective, we refer here to “RCIA,” employ its translation, and cite its reference numbers.
Q: For the purposes of RCIA, who is considered an adult?
A: When it comes to the sacraments of initiation, an adult is one who has attained the use of reason, about the age of seven (Code of Canon Law (CIC), 97). This means that, all things being equal, a seven-year-old answers the questions put to him or her directly prior to baptism and, like other adults, is confirmed immediately after baptism. In fact, when a pastor or chaplain baptizes one at or beyond this age or receives one already baptized, he must confirm the person:
• “By universal Church law, the pastor or chaplain can and must administer the sacrament of confirmation to those persons who are no longer infants and whom he baptizes. (cf. Cann. 530, 1º; 566, §1; 882; 883, 2º and 885, §2; RCIA, 14, 24, 215, and 305)
• “By universal Church law, the pastor or chaplain can and must confirm those persons who have attained the use of reason but already have been baptized in another church or ecclesial communion, when they are received by him into full communion with the Catholic Church. (cf. Cann. 883, 852 §1, 866, 2º, and 885, §2; RCIA, 481; NSC, 35)
In short, a seven-year-old child is fully initiated in the same way (liturgically speaking) as a 77-year-old—and his confirmation must not be delayed. This is not the case, however, with children who have not attained the age of reason (i.e. “Cradle Catholics”).
Q : What is required for proof of a valid baptism?
A: A valid baptism uses proper matter (immersion or pouring of water on head), form (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”), the minister’s proper intention to do what the Church does, and the willingness of the recipient (or the parents, in the case of infants). (See Code of Canon Law (CIC), 849-871.)
Acceptable proofs include:
• An authentic copy of a baptismal certificate.
• A “simple copy” if there is no reason to doubt the fact of the baptism and if an authentic copy is unavailable.
• A declaration of the person (under oath) if he or she was baptized as an adult (see CIC, 876).
• A declaration of at least one credible witness. (see CIC, 876)
Q : How is one needing conditional baptism treated in the RCIA process?
A: If doubt of the fact or validity of the baptism remains after a serious enquiry, the person is to be baptized conditionally (“John, if you are not baptized, I baptize you….”). (See CIC, 869; RCIA, 480)
One preparing for conditional baptism is to have the reasons for doubting the validity of the baptism explained to him, is enrolled in the RCIA as a “candidate for full communion,” does not celebrate the Sacrament of Penance prior to conditional baptism, is baptized in private, and is received into the full communion of the Church at a later Sunday celebration (National Statues on the Catechumenate (NSC), 37).
RITE QUESTIONS
Q: In which instances does a pastor have faculties for confirmation?
A: Presently, a priest has the permission, either in virtue of universal Church law or by grant of the diocesan bishop, to confirm the following persons:
(a) Those persons who are no longer infants and whom he baptizes (cf. Cann. 530, 1°; 566, §1; 882; 883, 2° and 885, §2; RCIA, 14, 24, 215, and 305);
(b) Those persons who have attained the use of reason but already have been baptized in another church or ecclesial communion, when they are received by him into full communion with the Catholic Church (cf. Cann. 883, 2° and 885, §2; RCIA, 481; NSC, 35);
(c) The baptized Catholic who has been an apostate from the faith (cf. Can. 883, 2°; NSC, 28);
(d) The baptized Catholic who through no fault of his or her own has been raised in a non-Catholic religion or joined a non-Catholic religion (ibid.);
(e) Those who are in danger of death (cf. Cann. 566 §1 and 833, 3°)
These permissions are not limited to the Easter Vigil but are applicable at any time initiation may take place throughout the year.
If, however, a priest wishes to confirm a baptized Catholic who has been practicing the faith, or a baptized Catholic who through no fault of his or her own never put the faith into practice, permission for the faculty to do so must be requested from the diocesan bishop (Can. 882, Can. 884, §1).
Q : When should candidates for Confirmation be received into full communion?
A: For catechumens (or, more properly, the Elect), “the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation should take place at the Easter Vigil” (RCIA, 23). For candidates, the RCIA itself says, “The high point of their entire formation will normally be the Easter Vigil” (409). The Vigil, then, is not at all an inappropriate time for candidates to be confirmed and to receive their first holy Communion. The combined rite is found in the RCIA book beginning at number 562.
On the other hand, the National Statutes on the Catechumenate (found as Appendix III in the current edition of the RCIA book) offers strong language in support of full initiation at a time other than at the Easter Vigil. “The reception of candidates,” the National Statues instruct, “into the communion of the Catholic Church should ordinarily take place at the Sunday Eucharist of the parish community….” And again, “It is preferable that reception into full communion not take place at the Easter Vigil lest there be confusion of such baptized Christians with the candidates for baptism…” (32-3). Furthermore, the Easter Vigil in the Roman Missal envisions candidates for Baptism only, and contains no rubrics mentioning those candidates for full communion.
Q : When (and how) should questions surrounding a candidate's previous marriage be asked?
A: One of the most complex aspects of the RCIA process are marriage questions—particularly of former marriages—that need to be addressed and clarified. For if one has been in a prior marriage, and if that marriage is determined to be a valid bond, then any present or future “re-marriage” places the candidate and his or her spouse potentially in an invalid and sinful relationship. When the dimension of the initiation sacraments is added, it is all the more difficult: for, having been received into the full life of grace in the Church, the newly received may be in a
position of returning to a relationship that is sinful and contrary to the new life in Christ just begun.
For these and other reasons, it is important to address marriage questions early in the initiation process. Bringing up former marriages with somebody one has just met and who may not be convinced that he or she should even join the Church is not easy, especially since the breakup of former relationships is often a painful memory. At the same time, it is not pastorally advisable to wait too long into the process, since if a marriage does need to be examined, this often takes time and may be a cause to delay full initiation and the convalidation of a present union. Ideally, marriage questions should be addressed prior to the Rite of Acceptance or the Rite of Welcome.
Q : What are the requirements to serve as a godparent or sponsor?
A: A sponsor helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it. There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.
To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:
1. be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister, and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;
2. have completed the 16th year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;
3. be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;
4. not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
5. not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized. (See CIC, 872-874, 892-893)
—Answered by the Editors
MEMORIAL FOR
Rev. Richard Feller from John N. Simon
IN THANKSGIVING
Good works of grandchildrenBrennan, Estelle, Landon Leger from Pop and Grandma Leger
Systematic Overview of Benedict XVI’s Theology
The Mind of Pope Benedict XVI: A Theology of Communion by Richard DeClue. Washington, D.C: Word on Fire, 2024. 369 pp. ISBN: 978-1685789886. $29.35 Hardcover.
By Robert Mixa
In The Mind of Pope Benedict XVI: A Theology of Communion, Richard DeClue presents the intricate and systematic theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. DeClue’s work is a thorough exposition of Benedict XVI’s theological corpus, meticulously organized to demonstrate the unity and coherence of the late pontiff’s thought. By delving into the various themes and methodology that underpin Benedict XVI’s theology, DeClue not only introduces readers to the profound mind of this pope and theologian, but also offers a valuable resource for understanding the relational nature of Christian doctrines and theological disciplines.
“Unifying Melody”
DeClue adopts a method that reflects Benedict XVI’s approach of seeing “the whole in the fragment,” an approach the pope learned from the great German theologians who shaped him. DeClue provides an overview of Benedict XVI’s theological themes, uniquely following the exitus-reditus structure—from God and to God—reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica with Christology and Soteriology (the study of the Church’s teaching on salvation) as central keys. This structural approach underscores the unity within Benedict’s theology, highlighting the holistic interconnectedness of various theological elements. DeClue’s aim is to showcase how the diverse aspects of Christian doctrines are relationally linked, forming a coherent whole. This approach is crucial in countering the often-made assumption that Benedict’s thought, like other Communio thinkers, lacks systematic form. DeClue effectively refutes such accusations in explicating the implicit form and unity of Benedict’s writings. The ongoing relevance of Benedict XVI’s thought, particularly in addressing contemporary issues in the relation between theology and philosophy, is noted by the author. It is supplemented by contemporary scholarship on Benedict XVI’s work, drawing insights from scholars like Pablo Blanco-Sarto, Emery de Gaál, Tracey Rowland, Margret Turek, and Roland Millare. The inclusion of recent scholarship enriches DeClue’s analysis, providing a deep understanding of Benedict’s theology and its systematic nature. DeClue’s book will be a helpful reference for students of Benedict. But, more generally, it is even a helpful introduction to Catholic theology.
Insights and Methodology
The first chapter offers a biography of Joseph Ratzinger, drawing heavily from Peter Seewald’s comprehensive multi-volume study, Benedict XVI: A Life. This biographical sketch is more than a mere introduction: it provides crucial context for understanding the rich intellectual and cultural environment that shaped Ratzinger’s thought, stressing that while St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Bonaventure are the primary influences on his thought, he in no way rejects the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas.
In the chapter on theological methodology, DeClue elucidates the centrality of the biblical Word and the symbiotic relationship between theology and philosophy in Benedict’s work. The discussion on the essence of theology, exemplified by the contrasting views of Aquinas and Bonaventure, is particularly illuminating. I was impressed by how DeClue maintains a critical distance from some of Benedict XVI’s dichotomies, leaving it to medieval scholars to assess their accuracy. There is no doubt that Benedict XVI’s theology is worthy of the highest praise. Nevertheless, there are some areas of criticism—which DeClue acknowledges.
Trinity and Anthropology
Benedict’s understanding of the Triune God is deeply rooted in the Bonaventurian tradition, with influences from Pseudo-Dionysius and Pauline theology. DeClue quotes from Benedict XVI’s Wednesday catechesis on Pseudo-Dionysius to better illuminate this tradition. Benedict writes, “In the ascent toward God one can reach a point in which reason no longer sees. But in the night of the intellect love still sees[;] it sees what is inaccessible to reason. Love goes beyond reason, it sees further, it enters more profoundly into God’s mystery.” The last line best captures this. In the light of love, man encounters
God. Such personalism is key to understanding Benedict. DeClue’s focus on the centrality of love and communio (inter-personal reality) in Benedict XVI’s understanding the nature of God and creation is helpful in showing where Benedict XVI goes
beyond Augustine’s popular intra-personal analogy. Augustine’s intra-personal analogy is also known as the psychological analogy of the Trinity. DeClue writes, “In the psychological analogy, the human person is a unity comprised of a trinity of knower, knowing, and known, or willer, willing, and willed.” But the interpersonal analogy is a shift to a community of persons with an emphasis on the family as an image of the divine communion.
The stress on relationship in the Triune personhood of God profoundly influences Benedict XVI’s theological anthropology, where the Imago Dei as relation is seen as a perfection rather than an imperfection. Relation as a term of perfection was dubious in traditional lines of thought. And Benedict XVI is definitely in line with Balthasar and John Paul II’s personalism in this regard. Both appreciated the communal aspect of personhood and upheld the inter-personal analogy and its implications for theological anthropology.
Divine Revelation and Christology
The chapter on Divine Revelation is particularly valuable, as it delves into Ratzinger’s 1955 Habilitationsschrift (the German equivalent of a doctoral degree), which remained unpublished until 2009. DeClue provides a thorough historical background, illuminating the context in which Ratzinger developed his understanding of divine revelation in a Bonaventurian key and how this even influenced the theology present in Dei Verbum, the dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council.
DeClue’s treatment of Christology and Soteriology underscores the centrality of Christ in Benedict XVI’s theology. He presents Christ as the apex of the exitus our origin from God—and the beginning of the reditus— our return to God—emphasizing the inseparability of Jesus’ identity and mission. DeClue describes Benedict XVI’s Christology as “from above” in his emphasis on the divine origin of the Eternal Word. “For Benedict XVI,” DeClue writes, “the starting point for understanding who Jesus is and what he does for us is the second person of the Trinity.”
Ecclesiology and Liturgy
In his discussion on Ecclesiology, DeClue reflects on the nature and origin of the Church within the Trinity, particularly emphasizing communio and the Marian dimension of the Church. Benedict XVI is perhaps most famous for his contributions to ecclesiology. After all, he did dedicate his dissertation and habilitation to ecclesiological themes. DeClue does an excellent job introducing readers to the ecclesiology of communion central to Vatican II, which Benedict XVI worked so hard to affirm. But I was most impressed by DeClue’s exploration of the connection between ecclesiology and the liturgy in the celebration of the Eucharist where the Church finds her identity as a eucharistic body. Adoremus readers will likely be most interested in the chapter on the liturgy. DeClue emphasizes that, for Benedict XVI, the Church emerges from the side of the crucified Christ, symbolized by the water and blood that flowed from Jesus’ side. This imagery underscores the Church as the Bride of Christ, most fully realized in the celebration of the Eucharist, where the faithful become the Body of Christ through the reception of his Body.
DeClue incorporates insights from Roland Millare’s Living Sacrifice: Liturgy and Eschatology in Joseph Ratzinger, particularly the idea that communion with Christ in the sacraments allows believers to participate in Christ’s self-giving existence (pro-existence). This sacramental participation, particularly in the Eucharist, represents the climax of Christian initiation and life. Consequently, Ratzinger advocates for the reception of Confirmation before First Communion to emphasize the Eucharist’s primacy.
A significant aspect of Benedict XVI’s liturgical
theology is the toda sacrifice, a concept of thanksgiving. DeClue examines recent scholarship, including Hartmut Gese’s biblical theology on toda and Joseph Jungmann’s studies of ancient liturgical texts, to illustrate Ratzinger’s scholarly influences. As a result, Benedict XVI diverges from theologians like Romano Guardini by emphasizing the sacrificial essence of the liturgy over its meal aspect. Furthermore, DeClue explains that, for Benedict XVI, the Eucharist is not merely a participation in Christ but in the entire Trinitarian communion. This understanding leads to the eschatological dimension of the Eucharist, where the earthly liturgy anticipates the heavenly reality. Benedict XVI’s assertion that “Eucharist is ordered to eschatology” encapsulates this belief, indicating that liturgical celebration is a foretaste of the eschaton, the final days.
DeClue also explores how liturgical theology influences practical aspects such as ecclesial architecture, ornamentation, liturgical direction, and music. On ecclesial architecture, DeClue writes, “For Ratzinger, the architecture of a church building should keep in mind both the continuity with the Old Covenant and the newness of the New Covenant. The church building has its Old Covenant precursors in two different Jewish buildings: the synagogue and the temple.” Since the synagogue was always understood in connection to the temple, the service of the word, which was celebrated in the synagogue, is linked to sacrificial worship, which was offered in the temple. The church building must incorporate these two elements into its design.
Just as ecclesial architecture should find its meaning in non-arbitrary liturgical principles, liturgical music is likewise principled. DeClue outlines Ratzinger’s principles for liturgical music. He writes, “First, liturgical music should be tied to the biblical witness of salvation history (265) ...second, [it] should reflect its roots in the logos by exemplifying ‘an ultimate sobriety, a deeper rationality, resisting any decline into irrationality and immoderation’...and, third, since the Incarnate Word is the meaning of the whole universe, there is a cosmic and communal dimension to liturgical music, which join in the song of the angels, exemplified especially in the trisagion: ‘Holy, Holy, Holy’’ (264-66).
By integrating these elements, especially from the Old Covenant, Benedict envisions a liturgical practice that reflects and deepens the theological and spiritual truths of the Christian faith. This chapter, rich in detail and insight, offers a compelling look at the depth and significance of Ratzinger’s liturgical vision.
Benedict XVI’s insistence on the proper form of worship is foundational. He believes that sound liturgical theology necessitates rethinking certain liturgical practices to ensure they align with theological truths. This connection extends into moral theology, where Benedict XVI argues that right worship enables a proper moral life and spiritual worship (logike latreia). DeClue highlights how Benedict XVI intertwines the liturgy with the lived Christian experience, suggesting that true Christian life flows from and is sustained by the liturgy. He writes, “The basic idea is this: unless we are in right relationship with God, which right worship embodies and makes possible, we will be unable to live an authentically moral life” (245).
Coherent and Comprehensive
While DeClue’s book is a masterful exposition of Benedict XVI’s theology, it may not offer new insights for those already familiar with Benedict XVI’s works. For such readers, the book might feel like a detailed walkthrough rather than an innovative exploration. However, for those seeking a systematic presentation of Benedict XVI’s thought, DeClue’s work is an invaluable resource.
One limitation of the book is its exclusive focus on Benedict XVI’s theology, without addressing how his theology connects with his non-theological writings on politics, culture, and secularism. Including a chapter on these aspects would have provided a more holistic view of Benedict XVI’s intellectual contributions.
Despite these minor criticisms, DeClue’s book remains a significant achievement. It offers a coherent and comprehensive understanding of Benedict XVI’s theology, emphasizing its systematic nature and ongoing relevance. DeClue’s meticulous analysis and inclusion of contemporary scholarship make this book an essential resource for theologians, scholars, and anyone interested in the profound thought of Benedict XVI.
Robert Mixa is the Executive Director and Founder of the online Spe Salvi Institute (www.spesalviinstitute.com). Additionally, he is a history teacher in Kraków, Poland. He was a fellow at the Word on Fire Institute for several years, studied for a BA in philosophy at St. Louis University and then earned an MTS in biotechnology and ethics at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He and his wife live near Kraków.
